The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: FlatAssembler on September 01, 2023, 05:42:52 AM
-
On multiple places on the Flat-Earth Wiki, it is being stated that the horizon is always at your eye level:
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
If that's true, why can't pilots tell whether an airplane is parallel to the ground simply by looking where the horizon is? Why can't they simply make sure that the horizon is at the eye level?
An obvious answer seems to be that it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level. Trying to align a high-flying airplane assuming the horizon is always at your eye level will crash an airplane.
-
And clouds.
-
And clouds.
OK, but what when there are no clouds? Why do pilots still rely on machinery, rather than trying to make the horizon fit their eye level?
-
And night.
-
And night.
At night, you can still see rather clearly where the horizon is: it's where the stars cease to be.
-
And night.
At night, you can still see rather clearly where the horizon is: it's where the stars cease to be.
Not necessarily, FatAss.
You can't easily see the horizon at night if it's overcast and you are flying through clouds or over clouds, or there are storm clouds, or fog, or there are mountains ahead, or especially if it is a new moon.
-
When all of our instruments, today, and earlier, have been used, to measure things, etc. When we've used levels, or finding level within air, by the air pressure around planes, we cannot measure for level, beyond the plane itself, at one time, in flights.
Except for laser levels, of course, not used on planes, to measure for level flight in air.
How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air? Make up a magical force that doesn't even EXIST, and make up whatever you want it to do, like changing what instruments read as level, as flat and horizontal, no problem at all, right?
The ball Earth lie, is purely made up nonsense.
-
When all of our instruments, today, and earlier, have been used, to measure things, etc. When we've used levels, or finding level within air, by the air pressure around planes, we cannot measure for level, beyond the plane itself, at one time, in flights.
Except for laser levels, of course, not used on planes, to measure for level flight in air.
How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air? Make up a magical force that doesn't even EXIST, and make up whatever you want it to do, like changing what instruments read as level, as flat and horizontal, no problem at all, right?
The ball Earth lie, is purely made up nonsense.
Yes, yes, yes.
Heard it all before, turdonmybum2.
The horrible ball earth lie and all it's purely made up nonsense!
You just cough up a nice photo of the edge of the flat earth where the dome meets the ground, like a good little flat earth boy.......
Oh, cameras do work in your world, yes? Just checking, because I know telescopes don't.
By the way, how tall are you? You type like a midget, or a dwarf. There's no way you're taller than Michael J Fox that's for sure.
-
You just cough up a nice photo of the edge of the flat earth where the dome meets the ground, like a good little flat earth boy.......
Oh, cameras do work in your world, yes? Just checking, because I know telescopes don't.
I thought the excuse was the armed NASA contingent that controls the whole coastline of the ice wall. How many miles of coastline would the ice wall have? To encircle the known world?
-
How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air?
You only measure for the surface when you are going for a terrain based altitude such as landing.
Most of the time, you don't measure for the surface at all.
Instead, you measure for level.
When a plane flies over a hill, level doesn't magically align to that hill.
-
You just cough up a nice photo of the edge of the flat earth where the dome meets the ground, like a good little flat earth boy.......
Oh, cameras do work in your world, yes? Just checking, because I know telescopes don't.
I thought the excuse was the armed NASA contingent that controls the whole coastline of the ice wall. How many miles of coastline would the ice wall have? To encircle the known world?
Turdonmybum2, forgets that flat earth with a dome meeting it, has literally thousands and thousands of kilometres of edge of Earth and edge of dome to examine and photograph.
He's never seen it, never examined it, never photographed it. No other person on Earth in the entire history of humans on Earth, has ever done any of these things either. No other person has even been stupid enough to try and fake seeing and photographing the edge of the world and edge of the sky dome.
Yet, Turdonmybum2 is happy to call the globe earth model a nonsensical lie and anybody who subscribes to it, a gullible fool.
Turdonmybum2 needs to grow a pair of globes, buy a row boat, go to Antarctica, and bring us back a nice photo of the edge of the world, or forever keep his stupid baseless opinions to himself.
-
How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air?
You only measure for the surface when you are going for a terrain based altitude such as landing.
Most of the time, you don't measure for the surface at all.
Instead, you measure for level.
When a plane flies over a hill, level doesn't magically align to that hill.
Obviously it doesn't do that, so why are you trying to imply that I DID say that?
Look back at my posts, and get a clue already, okay?
Planes measure for level within air, by measuring the air pressure around the plane, as I've told you over and over again already. You know that, so cut the BS, it's a waste of everyone's time, especially MINE!
-
On multiple places on the Flat-Earth Wiki, it is being stated that the horizon is always at your eye level:
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
If that's true, why can't pilots tell whether an airplane is parallel to the ground simply by looking where the horizon is? Why can't they simply make sure that the horizon is at the eye level?
An obvious answer seems to be that it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level. Trying to align a high-flying airplane assuming the horizon is always at your eye level will crash an airplane.
Because planes can fly at angles. After you adjust to angle less than 15 degrees (the point before true angular momentum sets in and things like trays start to slide), you need to be able to tell the angle of ascent or descent if the controls are too loose or something. It's also important to know if you're coming down at too hard an angle. But sure, blame RE for tool that basically means the difference between crashing and landing.
On multiple places on the Flat-Earth Wiki, it is being stated that the horizon is always at your eye level:
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
If that's true, why can't pilots tell whether an airplane is parallel to the ground simply by looking where the horizon is? Why can't they simply make sure that the horizon is at the eye level?
What they mean is that the horizon adjusts to eye level. On a mountain? On the plains below. These two people see horizon straight out. But what your eyes see is completely unhelpful for traveling 14,000 ft up or so.
-
Because planes can fly at angles. After you adjust to angle less than 15 degrees (the point before true angular momentum sets in and things like trays start to slide), you need to be able to tell the angle of ascent or descent if the controls are too loose or something. It's also important to know if you're coming down at too hard an angle.
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? You're what, 12 years old, you don't have flying experience, you are taking some kind of a guess as to how you think things work. Your guesses are mostly wrong.
You think this clueless kid is 12?? I had him pegged at single digits with a mouthful of rotting teeth and a bottle of mountain dew always in his hand. This dopey little bugger has clearly never been in a flight simulator, or played a video game as a pilot, flown a remote control plane, or likely even a paper plane that he has made himself.
-
Obviously it doesn't do that, so why are you trying to imply that I DID say that?
Because you complained about measuring for the curved surface of Earth.
Why be so dishonest talking about that when you fully know it doesn't measure for the surface of Earth?
Planes measure for level within air, by measuring the air pressure around the plane
No, that's altitude, not level.
But again, you know this. So why talk about trying to measure for a curved surface? It is just dishonest BS from you.
You know that, so cut the BS, it's a waste of everyone's time, especially MINE!
Because planes can fly at angles. After you adjust to angle less than 15 degrees (the point before true angular momentum sets in and things like trays start to slide), you need to be able to tell the angle of ascent or descent if the controls are too loose or something. It's also important to know if you're coming down at too hard an angle. But sure, blame RE for tool that basically means the difference between crashing and landing.
And the question is why do you need an artificial horizon, rather than a real horizon?
Why would the controls being too loose have any impact on this?
You are just making up whatever BS you can to pretend to have answers.
What they mean is that the horizon adjusts to eye level. On a mountain? On the plains below. These two people see horizon straight out. But what your eyes see is completely unhelpful for traveling 14,000 ft up or so.
Why?
If the horizon is at eye level at 14 000 ft; why can't a pilot use that to know they are flying level?
The reality is that the horizon is below eye level, and the amount it is below will increase as you get higher.
But the bigger issue was already raised, to be able to see it in any conditions.
-
No, that's altitude, not level.
No, they measure for BOTH level flight AND altitude, with instruments.
The only way we CAN measure for level flight, within air, is measuring the air pressure on the top and the bottom of the plane. The air above the flat Earth, flows over it flat layers, called pressure gradients. The instruments measure the air pressure within flights, and read O feet per minute as level flight. 1 or more feet per minute is an ascent, -1 or more feet is a descent.
If Earth was a ball, planes would be flying upward in level flights, which they don't, and prove that Earth is flat, when they land down 2000 miles away from where they started from.
They would have to adjust for about 1600 feet or more of 'curvature', if Earth was a ball.
-
No, they measure for BOTH level flight AND altitude, with instruments.
The only way we CAN measure for level flight, within air, is measuring the air pressure on the top and the bottom of the plane.
No, that isn't how it works.
If by level flight you mean if they are gaining or losing altitude, that is done with what is effectively a leaky altimeter. Effectively measuring the pressure indicated altitude relative to what it was a short while ago.
Measuring the air pressure at the top and bottom of the plane will not help them.
If Earth was a ball, planes would be flying upward in level flights, which they don't, and prove that Earth is flat, when they land down 2000 miles away from where they started from.
Why?
Stop just asserting delusional BS.
As Earth is round, the air pressure is in roughly spherical layers. So if they fly level, they will remain at the same altitude above mean sea level, which is curved following Earth's curvature.
There is no reason at all to think they would need to magically fly upwards.
The fact that you just assert it is magically upwards without any indication of location or direction or path and so on just further demonstrates your claim is pure BS.
All it takes to show that is to consider the reverse journey.
If your BS was true, then the reverse journey should show that they are flying downwards in level flight.
But according to your claim it would need to show them flying upwards in level flight.
This is a contradiction, showing your claim is BS.
So no, it doesn't prove Earth is flat, it proves you are spouting pure BS.
The fact that this (or very similar points) have already been explained to you shows you are knowingly spouting pure BS, i.e. you are lying to us.
They would have to adjust for about 1600 feet or more of 'curvature', if Earth was a ball.
No, they wouldn't.
If you think they would clearly explain what adjustments you think they would need to make and why.
-
How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air?
You only measure for the surface when you are going for a terrain based altitude such as landing.
Most of the time, you don't measure for the surface at all.
Instead, you measure for level.
When a plane flies over a hill, level doesn't magically align to that hill.
True. Level is measured throughout their flights
And we know level is flat and horizontal. It’s absolute fact
When a 6 inch level measures a shelf on a wall as level, it is flat and horizontal
Same as every level measures flat and horizontal
Your imaginary curve would not even BE measurable over 6 inches.
-
Using a precise laser level over the same 6 inches would confirm level is flat and horizontal
Lasers point straight outward in air. The made up curved air pressure and made up curved surface of Earth are proven as nonsense at that alone
-
And we know level is flat and horizontal. It’s absolute fact
No, we don't.
That is a blatant lie you keep on repeating.
When a 6 inch level measures a shelf on a wall as level, it is flat and horizontal
That is NOT a plane.
Care to stick to planes?
Even if you did want to use a 6 inch level, is it really flat? Or does it follow the curvature of Earth?
Because at that scale you are looking at a roughly 6 inch bulge.
In reality, once you put the shelf in, it will sag, likely with that sag being more significant than the curvature over that distance.
Repeating the same pathetic lies will not help you.
Your imaginary curve would not even BE measurable over 6 inches.
You mean the real curve.
And that just further demonstrates your dishonesty, and that this dishonest of yours is entirely intentional.
Over such a short distance you cannot tell if level is following a curve or not.
So using it as an example to claim level is flat is just you wilfully lying to everyone.
Using a precise laser level over the same 6 inches would confirm level is flat and horizontal
No, it wouldn't.
You need a laser accurate to less than 0.5 nm.
Optical lasers are limited by the wavelength of light, making them useless for measurements below a few hundred nm.
The made up curved air pressure and made up curved surface of Earth are proven as nonsense at that alone
Your fantasy proves nothing except your own dishonesty or ignorance.
Now care to address the actual topic?
Again, you have a plane flying from point A to point B. It then stops for a while and takes a return trip.
According to your delusional BS, the plane has to be ascending during this trip, both the trip from A to B and from B to A.
That means in your delusional fantasy, A must be at a greater altitude than itself.
Notice the problem here?
-
I think there is some confusion here.
Is the OP referring to what an Attitude Indicator provides? The AI works through a gyro to indicate the aircraft’s attitude relative to the level, i.e. at 90degrees to the direction of the force of gravity. And yes at high altitudes it will show as if the aircraft is pointing straight at the horizon even though the visible horizon will in fact be a few degrees below eye level.
In which case the discussions about Flight level v altitude v height are quite the diversion. Altimeters measure a difference between local air pressure and a datum air pressure (that can be pressure at ground level (height), pressure at sea level (altitude), or 1013.2hPa, or 29.92in (Flight Level)). The latter is what all aircraft will be using above a certain altitude (called the transition altitude, which varies from nation to nation usually depending on terrain). Based on a fixed datum, an aircraft maintaining FL250 could be, at various stages of flight, at altitude 24,000ft at one point, and altitude 26,000ft at another as air pressure varies over the route. The key is that all the other aircraft around it will also be using the same datum, and thus will also be staying in the same band of constant pressure as it rises and falls in altitude.
-
And we know level is flat and horizontal. It’s absolute fact
No, we don't.
That is a blatant lie you keep on repeating.
When a 6 inch level measures a shelf on a wall as level, it is flat and horizontal
That is NOT a plane.
Care to stick to planes?
Even if you did want to use a 6 inch level, is it really flat? Or does it follow the curvature of Earth?
Because at that scale you are looking at a roughly 6 inch bulge.
In reality, once you put the shelf in, it will sag, likely with that sag being more significant than the curvature over that distance.
Repeating the same pathetic lies will not help you.
Your imaginary curve would not even BE measurable over 6 inches.
You mean the real curve.
And that just further demonstrates your dishonesty, and that this dishonest of yours is entirely intentional.
Over such a short distance you cannot tell if level is following a curve or not.
So using it as an example to claim level is flat is just you wilfully lying to everyone.
Using a precise laser level over the same 6 inches would confirm level is flat and horizontal
No, it wouldn't.
You need a laser accurate to less than 0.5 nm.
Optical lasers are limited by the wavelength of light, making them useless for measurements below a few hundred nm.
The made up curved air pressure and made up curved surface of Earth are proven as nonsense at that alone
Your fantasy proves nothing except your own dishonesty or ignorance.
Now care to address the actual topic?
Again, you have a plane flying from point A to point B. It then stops for a while and takes a return trip.
According to your delusional BS, the plane has to be ascending during this trip, both the trip from A to B and from B to A.
That means in your delusional fantasy, A must be at a greater altitude than itself.
Notice the problem here?
The only problem is your lack of understanding this
Planes do not ascend or descend over their flights when level at altitude. Nor do they need to, nor did I ever say they DID need to.
You put bs claims on me that I never said. Drop the bs act
Trying to invent some imaginary “curve” that doesn’t exist, cannot be measured or seen at all, is a useless, worthless argument. Why not claim that Earth is shaped as a cone or wedge? It’s just as good as claiming it’s shaped like a ball
Say that levels measure for a conical surface as “level”, due to a made up force within Earth, and ask me to prove it’s not conical!
A 6 inch level has a straight edge around it, which is measured straight by instruments
That level can be angled in any direction and will always have straight edges
Your imaginary curve doesn’t exist at all. If there was curvature over Earths surface levels WOULD HAVE to be curved at the SAME RATE of Earths curvature, no matter how SLIGHT of curve necessary
-
Planes do not ascend or descend over their flights when level at altitude.
They change altitude by changing power settings and flight surfaces. For a curved earth and curved gravity equipotential why would you drift up if power settings are trimmed to maintain altitude.
Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!
Flat Earth Claim
Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!
Short Version
In the Globe model "LEVEL" follows a sphere of uniform gravity potential. Feel free to disprove that is the case if you can but that is the model.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/09/flat-earth-follies-planes-would-have-to.html?m=1
The Elevator does not directly control the Pitch of the Airplane - it controls the RATE OF PITCH.
I think that Flat Earthers don't understand this concept.
To maintain level flight the pilot must find BOTH the elevator trim and power setting which maintains a constant altitude - they mostly use the Vertical Speed indicator to make fine adjustments to elevator trim to find the constant pitch rate that keeps Vertical Speed near zero and then makes POWER SETTING adjustments as needed to hold that Vertical Speed with a fairly constant airspeed. If you want a higher airspeed you need to both increase power AND adjust the elevator trim so the pitch rate matches OR ELSE YOU WILL START CLIMBING.
This is a fact, I have personally flown small planes and they teach you about power control pretty much from Day #1. You climb & descent mostly by changing the power setting (which changes when you make other configuration changes such as increasing flaps).
Now, how is a pilot supposed to tell that a TINY fraction of the elevator trim has to do with the curvature rate as opposed to all of the other forces acting on the airplane? They couldn't possibly.
A curved gravity equipotential presents ABSOLUTELY ZERO issues for an airplane in flight.
So YES, the PLANE is (technically) constantly pitching forward as it flies the curvature of the Earth. But it doesn't feel like pitch because DOWN is changing at the same time and it's an incredibly slight rate of pitch overwhelmed by other dynamic forces acting on the aircraft.
-
[
A 6 inch level has a straight edge around it, which is measured straight by instruments
Meaning what in what context? When the surveyor’s definition of level surface is something like “In the Globe model "LEVEL" follows a sphere of uniform gravity potential.”
Anyway….
If the Earth curved down 3 miles away, it would CERTAINLY be significant, and would have been MEASURED as such.
Used this in another thread..
Like this?
A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.
You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.
Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
Looks flat with a small frame of reference?
But the tank is clearly curved.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
-
The only problem is your lack of understanding this
No, the problem is your repeated dishonesty and your pathetic attempts to lie about the RE; including fleeing from trivial questions.
Planes do not ascend or descend over their flights when level at altitude. Nor do they need to, nor did I ever say they DID need to.
You claimed they needed to on a RE.
You may not have said those exact words, but that is the gist of your claim.
Here is it again:
If Earth was a ball, planes would be flying upward in level flights, which they don't, and prove that Earth is flat, when they land down 2000 miles away from where they started from.
Don't try to blatantly lie about what you have said, to pretend you never said such delusional BS to pretend you are wrong.
It just further demonstrates your dishonesty and how pathetic your position is.
Why not try to grow a spine and admit you were wrong, and that your strawman of the RE model isn't correct?
Trying to invent some imaginary “curve” that doesn’t exist, cannot be measured or seen at all, is a useless, worthless argument.
So why do you keep doing it?
Why not stick to the real curve, which does exist, which is seen, which can be measured?
A 6 inch level has a straight edge around it, which is measured straight by instruments
To what level of accuracy/precision?
To the sub nm level precision you need to claim it is straight rather than following Earth's curve?
All edges have some tolerance.
Your imaginary curve doesn’t exist at all.
Your imaginary curve doesn't exist. The real curve of Earth does.
If there was curvature over Earths surface levels WOULD HAVE to be curved at the SAME RATE of Earths curvature, no matter how SLIGHT of curve necessary
Why?
You have already answered why that is pure BS.
If that curve is too slight to make any significant difference, why would they need to be?
But how do you know they aren't?
Due to how slight it is, they would match that curve to a comparable level of precision as matching a straight line. Depending on the exact straight edge you are comparing, it could go either way, being closer to one or the other.
-
On multiple places on the Flat-Earth Wiki, it is being stated that the horizon is always at your eye level:
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
If that's true, why can't pilots tell whether an airplane is parallel to the ground simply by looking where the horizon is? Why can't they simply make sure that the horizon is at the eye level?
An obvious answer seems to be that it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level. Trying to align a high-flying airplane assuming the horizon is always at your eye level will crash an airplane.
and pouring rain.
-
The only problem is your lack of understanding this
No, the problem is your repeated dishonesty and your pathetic attempts to lie about the RE; including fleeing from trivial questions.
Planes do not ascend or descend over their flights when level at altitude. Nor do they need to, nor did I ever say they DID need to.
You claimed they needed to on a RE.
You may not have said those exact words, but that is the gist of your claim.
Here is it again:
If Earth was a ball, planes would be flying upward in level flights, which they don't, and prove that Earth is flat, when they land down 2000 miles away from where they started from.
Don't try to blatantly lie about what you have said, to pretend you never said such delusional BS to pretend you are wrong.
It just further demonstrates your dishonesty and how pathetic your position is.
Why not try to grow a spine and admit you were wrong, and that your strawman of the RE model isn't correct?
Trying to invent some imaginary “curve” that doesn’t exist, cannot be measured or seen at all, is a useless, worthless argument.
So why do you keep doing it?
Why not stick to the real curve, which does exist, which is seen, which can be measured?
A 6 inch level has a straight edge around it, which is measured straight by instruments
To what level of accuracy/precision?
To the sub nm level precision you need to claim it is straight rather than following Earth's curve?
All edges have some tolerance.
Your imaginary curve doesn’t exist at all.
Your imaginary curve doesn't exist. The real curve of Earth does.
If there was curvature over Earths surface levels WOULD HAVE to be curved at the SAME RATE of Earths curvature, no matter how SLIGHT of curve necessary
Why?
You have already answered why that is pure BS.
If that curve is too slight to make any significant difference, why would they need to be?
But how do you know they aren't?
Due to how slight it is, they would match that curve to a comparable level of precision as matching a straight line. Depending on the exact straight edge you are comparing, it could go either way, being closer to one or the other.
The slightness of curve on the surface over a mile of distance when a flight spans thousands of miles over the surface, would make every inch of curve important and accounted for in flights
-
The slightness of curve on the surface over a mile of distance when a flight spans thousands of miles over the surface, would make every inch of curve important and accounted for in flights
Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
Likewise, fleeing from your lies after it has been shown how insane they are wont help you.
Again, this was your claim:
If Earth was a ball, planes would be flying upward in level flights, which they don't, and prove that Earth is flat, when they land down 2000 miles away from where they started from.
Logically this means if a plane flies from A to B, flying level, on a RE you are claiming that B must be above A.
And if that plane then flies back from B to A, then A must be above B.
That means A must be above B which must be above A, so A must be above itself.
This shows your claim is pure BS.
A plane flying level over a RE does NOT need to be going upwards.
Going to be honest for once and admit you were wrong?
Or considering you want to flee from that yet again, and spout the same old garbage of "planes would need to account for curvature"; then how about you tell us exactly HOW the planes would need to do that.
Tell us exactly what the pilots/planes would need to do and why.
If you can't, then stop lying by claiming they need to account for it.
Again, when a plane is flying level, pilots already need to adjust for the plane not being ideal. That means they need to control pitch, trimming it forwards or backwards to ensure level flight.
A plane flying at 1000 km/hr would need to adjust 0.0025 degrees per second. That is basically nothing.
The ABSOLUTELY TINY amount they would need to do to compensate for curvature would already be taken care of just for keeping the plane level.
Otherwise, they would need to account for every motion of every passenger on board the plane and constantly adjust specifically for that.
-
The slightness of curve on the surface over a mile of distance when a flight spans thousands of miles over the surface, would make every inch of curve important and accounted for in flights
Why?
Again….
Now, how is a pilot supposed to tell that a TINY fraction of the elevator trim has to do with the curvature rate as opposed to all of the other forces acting on the airplane? They couldn't possibly.
A curved gravity equipotential presents ABSOLUTELY ZERO issues for an airplane in flight.
So YES, the PLANE is (technically) constantly pitching forward as it flies the curvature of the Earth. But it doesn't feel like pitch because DOWN is changing at the same time and it's an incredibly slight rate of pitch overwhelmed by other dynamic forces acting on the aircraft.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/09/flat-earth-follies-planes-would-have-to.html?m=1
-
Flying in any direction but level is measured by their instruments at all times, when it occurs, and is corrected for, adjusted for, afterwards, to return to level flight again.
We all recognize what level flight means, what direction it is going in.
How would you even IDENTIFY or MEASURE for any sort of ‘curve’ that is so ‘slight’ over such a small distance, that will repeat over and over countless times during a flight of thousands of miles long?
When a plane flies at 500 mph through a flight, it measures for level flight throughout the time. If level was measured for a ‘curve’ during flights, it might be 1/32 of an inch, or a few mm, yet it would HAVE to be measured in planes, if there WAS any ‘curve’ to Earths surface, as you claim there is.
That plane would go over 3-4 inches of ‘curvature’ per minute of flight, or more, and you would claim we ‘don’t need to account for it’ in flights!!??
What about a jet going twice that speed, going over twice that ‘curvature’? Still no need to account for ‘curvature’?
Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.
-
Flying in any direction but level is measured by their instruments at all times, when it occurs, and is corrected for, adjusted for, afterwards, to return to level flight again.
i.e. if they weren't level, they would have something show up on their instrument and correct for it.
They don't even need to know what caused it.
How would you even IDENTIFY or MEASURE for any sort of ‘curve’ that is so ‘slight’ over such a small distance, that will repeat over and over countless times during a flight of thousands of miles long?
That is the question FOR YOU!
YOU claim they magically need to account for this and correct for it.
So just what are they meant to be doing?
yet it would HAVE to be measured in planes
WHY?
Stop just asserting the same delusional BS and explain exactly how they would need to account for it, given they are already accounting for countless other things to keep the plane level.
Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.
No, it doesn't. Repeating the same lie wont help.
Level flight for a plane means remaining at the same altitude.
-
Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.
The definition of level surface in surveying.
LEVEL SURFACE is a curved surface which has every point perpendicular to the direction of gravity.
Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.
If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift. Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature?
Anyway.
This Massive Pool in Bethesda Is Just For Model Ships
https://architectofthecapital.org/posts/2016/10/17/david-taylor-model-basin?format=amp
In fact, to eliminate the effect of gravity on the motion of the towing carriage, the tracks are not straight in the usual sense, but follow the curvature of the earth.”
Cool Facilities - The David Taylor Model Basin
https://www.navalgazing.net/David-Taylor-Model-Basin
All of the basins are fitted for photographic studies as well as towing force measurements, and were specially leveled to within .005″, following the curvature of the Earth.
In other words, things defined as level surface.
-
Flying in any direction but level is measured by their instruments at all times, when it occurs, and is corrected for, adjusted for, afterwards, to return to level flight again.
i.e. if they weren't level, they would have something show up on their instrument and correct for it.
They don't even need to know what caused it.
How would you even IDENTIFY or MEASURE for any sort of ‘curve’ that is so ‘slight’ over such a small distance, that will repeat over and over countless times during a flight of thousands of miles long?
That is the question FOR YOU!
YOU claim they magically need to account for this and correct for it.
So just what are they meant to be doing?
yet it would HAVE to be measured in planes
WHY?
Stop just asserting the same delusional BS and explain exactly how they would need to account for it, given they are already accounting for countless other things to keep the plane level.
Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.
No, it doesn't. Repeating the same lie wont help.
Level flight for a plane means remaining at the same altitude.
While flying flat and horizontal at the same altitude, but they leave that rather important part out, for some odd reason.
If a plane covers over 1/16 of an inch of your made up ‘curvature’, how could we possibly measure for it? We don’t of course. So then you claim we simply ‘adjust’ for it during all our flights, like everything else is adjusted for.
Here’s the problem for that claim-
A plane flying 500 mph from LA to NYC covers over 2400 miles of Earths surface in about 35-40 hours, let’s say.
It takes off from LAX at 127 ft altitude above sea level and lands at JFK at 13 feet altitude.
This plane would cover about 50 miles of surface in 7-8 minutes, and it measures level flight by TWO or more instruments, which they also don’t mention.
The VSI measures for ascent and descent within air, while the altimeter matches it in altitude readings. If the plane starts to ascend, the VSI measures it in feet per minute, while the altimeter measures it as a higher altitude.
The plane cannot measure for a 1/16th inch curvature moment by moment, even if it DID exist. If the Earth WAS a ball, we’d need to measure a 1/16th descent on all flights, which is not done of course.
The plane would be 50 feet higher altitude within only 7-8 minutes of flight, and the altimeter would measure it as 50 feet higher.
And that’s when planes would HAVE to adjust for it, and continually do so, or else fly in a constant descent throughout their flights.
Planes do not magically go into a descent over a made up ball Earth.
Your made up force doesn’t beam phantom ‘waves’ from the ‘core’ of a ball Earth up to 60000 feet, making instruments measure level as 1:16 of an inch over a plane in flight.
This crap is piled to the ceiling, and it’s time to bury it for good
-
While flying flat and horizontal at the same altitude, but they leave that rather important part out, for some odd reason.
You mean level?
They are in level flight. Not flat flight.
If a plane covers over 1/16 of an inch of your made up ‘curvature’, how could we possibly measure for it? We don’t of course. So then you claim we simply ‘adjust’ for it during all our flights, like everything else is adjusted for.
No, the very real curvature you continually reject without any rational justification (instead appealing to dishonest BS where you are so desperate you contradict yourself).
But the pilots do not need to know what they are adjusting for.
It doesn't matter if it is for a few people moving around in the plane, or if they are flying through a thermal, or the curvature of Earth.
Here’s the problem for that claim-
The plane cannot measure for a 1/16th inch curvature moment by moment, even if it DID exist.
So the problem for the claim is that they can't measure it?
Just why would that be a problem?
If the Earth WAS a ball, we’d need to measure a 1/16th descent on all flights, which is not done of course.
And back to the same delusional BS, just the wrong way around.
Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.
So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.
That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.
The plane would be 50 feet higher altitude within only 7-8 minutes of flight, and the altimeter would measure it as 50 feet higher.
And more contradictory delusional BS.
So you are claiming they would be higher, even though they would be measuring a descent?
This crap is piled to the ceiling, and it’s time to bury it for good
Then stop repeating the same crap. Bury it and move on.
-
Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.
So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.
That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.
So you are claiming they would be higher, even though they would be measuring a descent?
No you’re confusing two separate points I made
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
-
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent
If flight surfaces and power settings are trimmed to fly at a certain altitude. And it takes increased power to gain altitude. Why would it take a measurable descent while fighting thermals, down drafts, up drafts, changes in air density due to changes in temperature.
-
Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.
So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.
That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.
No you’re confusing two separate points I made
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent
The above shows that is pure BS.
If that was true, then flying from point A to point B and back would require a constant descent making them end up lower.
That makes no sense at all.
Maintaining the same altitude above a spherical surface requires maintaining the same altitude.
That means no ascending or descending.
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.
There is no "top" to a sphere.
What you are trying to is claim that you start at the top, and descend to move along it. But as you yourself have said, you are always at the top.
That means if you move 1 m, the point you previously were is no longer the "top".
Instead, it is "below" the top.
You can equally argue that it needs to descend or ascend. Both are based upon trying to view the problem from 1 particular reference frame, the difference being if you consider the start or the end as that reference frame.
And both are wrong.
It is only a descent or ascent from that original reference frame.
But that is NOT what the plane measures.
You are trying to measure relative to a straight line which doesn't exist and which no instrument measures relative to.
That would require the RE to be flat.
So your argument for a RE requires Earth to be flat, which makes no sense at all.
Why should you need to descend?
Can you try explaining it honestly, and logically? And in a manner that doesn't produce a contradiction?
-
Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.
So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.
That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.
No you’re confusing two separate points I made
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent
The above shows that is pure BS.
If that was true, then flying from point A to point B and back would require a constant descent making them end up lower.
That makes no sense at all.
Maintaining the same altitude above a spherical surface requires maintaining the same altitude.
That means no ascending or descending.
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.
There is no "top" to a sphere.
What you are trying to is claim that you start at the top, and descend to move along it. But as you yourself have said, you are always at the top.
That means if you move 1 m, the point you previously were is no longer the "top".
Instead, it is "below" the top.
You can equally argue that it needs to descend or ascend. Both are based upon trying to view the problem from 1 particular reference frame, the difference being if you consider the start or the end as that reference frame.
And both are wrong.
It is only a descent or ascent from that original reference frame.
But that is NOT what the plane measures.
You are trying to measure relative to a straight line which doesn't exist and which no instrument measures relative to.
That would require the RE to be flat.
So your argument for a RE requires Earth to be flat, which makes no sense at all.
Why should you need to descend?
Can you try explaining it honestly, and logically? And in a manner that doesn't produce a contradiction?
To maintain the same altitude flying over a sphere must be in a constant descent.
Look at a basketball or baseball, etc.
Take a small object and hold it slightly above the ball
Move the object around the ball at the same distance above it the whole time
You have to move the object downward all the time to keep it above the ball at the same distance throughout
Because the object always IS on the top of the ball below, it must always be moved downward to follow the surface of that ball, right?
Being constantly on top of a ball means you must constantly move downward over a ball, there’s no conflict in that fact.
A level, horizontal path is always flown by planes. They fly over a flat, level and horizontal surface of the Earth, though it has mountains and such features over it, which are above sea level or 0 altitude, of course.
-
To maintain the same altitude flying over a sphere must be in a constant descent.
Stop just asserting the same dishonest delusional BS.
Maintaining the same altitude while flying over a sphere means you are maintaining the same altitude so you are not descending.
If you were descending you would NOT be flying at a constant altitude.
Look at a basketball or baseball, etc.
Take a small object and hold it slightly above the ball
Move the object around the ball at the same distance above it the whole time
You have to move the object downward all the time to keep it above the ball at the same distance throughout
Wrong again.
If I hold the ball still, start with the plane on top, and then move it around, the objects circles the ball, maintaining the same altitude relative to the ball.
Relative to me, it is going down and up.
That down or up motion is NOT relative to the ball, it is relative to me.
And importantly, it goes down and up.
Because the object always IS on the top of the ball below, it must always be moved downward to follow the surface of that ball, right?
No.
If you are moving it down it can no longer be on top.
Again, the same dishonest BS works the other way, as the object always is on the top, that means it must have gone up to get there.
Again, this means you can equally make the argument that it needs to ascend or descend.
The 2 are logically equivalent.
The problem for you is that that results in a contradiction.
It cannot be both. Yet both are equally valid.
That means it can't be either.
Your claim is pure BS.
If you hold the plane still and instead rotate the ball, we see the plane isn't going down at all.
And that is basically what you need to do if you want to try your argument honestly.
In fact, you can move both.
Start with the plane at the top, if you want to keep the plane at the top, then as the plane moves you need to rotate Earth, to keep the plane at the top.
As you do this, there is no downwards or upwards motion of the plane.
If you instead move the plane down, then it is no longer at the top.
A level, horizontal path is always flown by planes.
Ignoring just how much that does't match reality at all, that in no way demonstrates that Earth is flat.
-
You’ve got it wrong
If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.
Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.
A sphere always curves downward, from any point you’re at on it or above it. To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.
To move back again is still downward, not upward. There IS no upward movements over a ball, it is always downward, in all directions you move to.
While you’re always on top of a ball, moving over it, you’re moving downward the whole time. It is indeed a constant descent, to follow the descending surface of the ball below you.
-
Have you flown, turbonium2? I mean taken the controls, not as a passenger. Have you receiv3d any flight training or instruction, including ground school?
-
My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway
Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances
-
My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway
Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances
Because you’re fucking loony.
Now.
Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.
If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift. Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature?
You understand the internationally and professional acceptance of level surface for surveying, along with its use in construction, kills your delusion.
-
You’ve got it wrong
No, you did.
I explained why your BS works equally well to claim it must ascend or descend.
That means it doesn't work at all.
If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.
How else do you plan on having it above?
Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.
Your just repeating the same BS.
If I move it around the ball, I move it all around, going both up and down relative to me.
Relative to the ball, it is NOT going down.
Relative to where the pin/plane/whatever finished, it was going up.
Relative to where it started, it was going down.
Relative to it where it is all the time, it is not going up nor down.
To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.
i.e. you need to follow a curved path.
That is NOT a descent.
And it is incredibly dishonest to falsely claim it is.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
Probably because you are doing as you are now; entirely ignoring what people say and just repeating the same refuted BS.
-
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
Should be easy to link to those threads. If you’re making claims about turbonium that posted on the site Above Top Secret, then you just right out lying.
-
My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway
Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances
Qualified pilots have told you the earth is flat otherwise they’d have crashed? Are these commercial pilots? If so then I need to know who they fly for so as to not buy tickets from their employer.
Perhaps you should take some ground school and flight instruction before making quite incorrect claims about how aircraft fly?
Weight (ie the effect of gravity) acts on an aircraft in flight at 90degrees to the level, ie straight down. It doesn’t act towards a point on the ground that the aircraft flies past, thereby necessitating a pitch/trim down action by the pilot.
-
My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway
Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances
Those pilots didn't return to finish debating you because they could see it is an utter waste of time. They were corroborating the globe Earth mother fucking truth, which you want to be a lie.
Turbonium, if you want to see the definition of indoctrinated, make a list of all the flat earth videos you've watched, all the flat earth related books you've read, and count how many pro flat earth related posts you've made on this site over the years, and then take a good hard look in the mirror.
You've re-wired your own brain to accept the grand daddy of all fucking stupid conspiracy theories. Flat Earth.
You can only blame yourself. Your subconscious mind feeds on whatever you give it, and look at the shit you've fed it.
-
My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway
Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances
Because you’re fucking loony.
Now.
Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.
If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift. Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature?
You understand the internationally and professional acceptance of level surface for surveying, along with its use in construction, kills your delusion.
I’ve seen others who blow their stack about something I’ve said which rings true to them, yet fire off their internal conflict outward at me for saying it!
I’m certainly not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but I’ve always found the subject fascinating, had 98% grade for Psych 101, but didn’t continue for a degree or masters in the field for several reasons, but we all make choices we regret or wish didn’t have to happen.
The one, perhaps most important thing that I know, from years and years of personal experience, which couldn’t be known, or experienced by any professional of the field, nor could I or anyone else in their position.
That is all I’ll say about the topic, but I had to make it clear to you, and everyone else, to respect others, just because they disagree with what you believe or accept as true, just as I don’t agree with you, or many others on this and other issues, but do not hate or get angry or hurl out personal attacks, as you’ve done here.
As for those who are professional surveyors, who work every day with Earths surface, because - if you don’t really know at all, being it is never mentioned at all, for one reason, which I’ll explain.
Do you know the main purpose, the main reason we survey the Earths surface?
Surveying over Earths surface, anywhere on Earths surface, no matter HOW LARGE the area is, which they claim is only a ‘smaller’ area, all of which are real projects, of course.
Surveying of Earths surface would not even EXIST as it does today, if the entire surface of Earth was perfectly flat and level over it.
Why?
Because those who are surveying Earths surface, are looking and measuring for its FLATNESS and being level over those areas, which is what all surveyors want, and if it is NOT perfectly flat and level over those areas, being every bump or dip or curve or slant of a surface over Earth, makes it NOT flat and level
I’m very aware that if our surveyors believed Earths surface was actually curved, and it was curved at a measured rate over any distance over the surface..,.
It would most certainly be accounted for, measured over the entire area of projects, if it DID curve over the surface.
They measure the surface for how flat and level and horizontal it is, not ‘curvature’ of the surface!!
They measure for imperfections that are MUCH LESS than this supposed rate of ‘curvature’, so they obviously WOULD measure for it, if it really existed at all!
Why don’t you tell me exactly how they measure for curvature? They don’t, they know it doesn’t exist
-
You’ve got it wrong
No, you did.
I explained why your BS works equally well to claim it must ascend or descend.
That means it doesn't work at all.
If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.
How else do you plan on having it above?
Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.
Your just repeating the same BS.
If I move it around the ball, I move it all around, going both up and down relative to me.
Relative to the ball, it is NOT going down.
Relative to where the pin/plane/whatever finished, it was going up.
Relative to where it started, it was going down.
Relative to it where it is all the time, it is not going up nor down.
To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.
i.e. you need to follow a curved path.
That is NOT a descent.
And it is incredibly dishonest to falsely claim it is.
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
Probably because you are doing as you are now; entirely ignoring what people say and just repeating the same refuted BS.
To move over a ball, from one point above it, at the same distance, must follow along over the surface of the ball, and you are always going downward, as you are always on the top of the ball.
When you first fly over the ball, you follow the surface, which is down from your position all the time.
The surface that you’ve already flown over downward, has no opposite, or upward direction, for you, always on the top of it, always moving downward following over it.
Unlike a slope, which goes upward, and downward in the opposite direction
-
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
They measure for level flight over and over along the flight, in consecutive sections over the length of the plane, which measures for it during the entire flight.
It could not even measure for such a small curve, if it even DID exist at all. Not with these instruments, anyway
-
I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.
You can’t link to these threads because it’s a lie.
-
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
With what instrument? And the earth is spherical.
Again. If a plane is trimmed with power settings set for a given altitude, why would in not fly at a given altitude? While fighting winds and turbulence. Paralleling a level surface by definition is “ It means the any point on level line is equidistance from the center of earth.”
https://theconstructor.org/surveying/terms-in-leveling-uses/20077/?amp=1
-
To move over a ball, from one point above it, at the same distance, must follow along over the surface of the ball, and you are always going downward, as you are always on the top of the ball.
When you first fly over the ball, you follow the surface, which is down from your position all the time.
The surface that you’ve already flown over downward, has no opposite, or upward direction, for you, always on the top of it, always moving downward following over it.
Unlike a slope, which goes upward, and downward in the opposite direction
Stop just repeating the same refuted delusional BS and start paying attention to what I have said.
Once more, if you go down the ball you are no longer at the top.
The only way to remain at the top is that as you move along you need to rotate the ball, or recognise that up and down is measured relative to the ball, not an outside observer.
What you are doing is saying you start at the top, and then go down.
But it would be just as honest to say you end at the top, and had to go up to get there.
Both are equally dishonest.
If we want to follow your dishonest BS, that means that the surface you have flown over to reach the top had you going UP! not down, UP!
Because you would have to go UP to reach the top.
At any point in time, you are in your own local "top", the path ahead and behind both curve to follow Earth. But that doesn't mean you had to go up to get to where you are, or that you have to go down to move forwards.
Instead, you continue to fly level, not going up nor down.
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
Repeating this lie isn't going to help you.
They measure air pressure, as they fly over a round Earth.
It could not even measure for such a small curve, if it even DID exist at all. Not with these instruments, anyway
That's right, so the claim that planes prove Earth is flat is pure BS.
They fly to maintain their altitude, which would already account for the curve of Earth, without any additional corrections required.
I’ve seen others who blow their stack about something I’ve said which rings true to them, yet fire off their internal conflict outward at me for saying it!
And you have seen others who recognise you are just spouting the same repetitive, refuted BS, and don't care about the truth at all; so they stop responding. That doesn't mean they think Earth is flat.
That is all I’ll say about the topic, but I had to make it clear to you, and everyone else, to respect others, just because they disagree with what you believe or accept as true, just as I don’t agree with you, or many others on this and other issues, but do not hate or get angry or hurl out personal attacks
Then start showing respect.
Actually read and respond to what people say rather than just repeating the same refuted BS.
Do you know the main purpose, the main reason we survey the Earths surface?
There are a variety of reasons.
But it is to either measure or establish the bounds of something.
Surveying of Earths surface would not even EXIST as it does today, if the entire surface of Earth was perfectly flat and level over it.
Yes it would. Because people like dividing land up.
e.g. one use of surveying is determining property lines.
Even if Earth's surface was a perfect sphere or a perfect flat plane, people would still want that.
Because those who are surveying Earths surface, are looking and measuring for its FLATNESS
No, they aren't.
It would most certainly be accounted for, measured over the entire area of projects, if it DID curve over the surface.
Only if it was actually significant. Such as when making maps.
A lot of the time they are just looking for horizontal lines and don't care about the topography at all.
-
No, you don’t get it…
Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance. One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.
A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path.
How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!
-
No, you don’t get it…
Yes, I do.
You cannot show a fault, so you need to resort to blatantly lying while ignoring the refutation of your lie.
Again, your lie that planes need to go down is based upon clinging to a specific reference frame. That of cartesian coordinates aligned to the start of their journey, where after they travel they go down relative to those coordinates; assuming they go for less than half way around Earth. If they go beyond that they start going back up.
But you can equally pick the coordinates of their destination, where they would have to go up to reach it.
You can equally argue that it has to go up or down, because both arguments are pure BS.
-
No, you don’t get it…
Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance. One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.
A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path.
How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!
It’s been explained over and over.
You made this claim.
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
What instrument by name are you referring to.
Or your just using a blatant false argument.
-
No, you don’t get it…
Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance. One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.
A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path.
How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!
It’s been explained over and over.
You made this claim.
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
What instrument by name are you referring to.
Or your just using a blatant false argument.
Try to research the topics before posting on them
The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes. But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂
-
The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes. But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂
And how does it do that?
Do you know?
Or do you think it is just pure magic?
The most common form of a VSI is effectively an altimeter with a reference altitude set at the altitude the plane was not too long ago.
As such, it measures changes in elevation that the altimeter would read. So it will not magically detect curvature.
-
What is down? Turbo, what do you think up and down are on a sphere?.
How does a plane ascend and descend over a sphere? Aka going down is descending, correct?
What is altitude on a sphere?
Define those things correctly, then read what you keep saying about constantly descending.
I think he doesn't really understand what a frame of reference is Jack. Your explanation is confusing him.
-
Try to research the topics before posting on them
The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes. But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂
Your quote
Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.
How does a plane measure the actual surface of the earth?
What happens as an airplane travels over the upward slope of a mountain? Does it need to compensate some instrument. Or on the downward slope of a mountain range? Does the vertical speed indicator give any indication of approaching a mountain range with the ground increasingly “growing higher”, traveling over increasingly higher and higher mountains. Then after passing over the highest part of the range, does the vertical speed indicator show the ground is “dropping away” from the aircraft.
Again. How can an airplane measure “flat ground” and what changes and how is it compensated for if an airplane travels over ground that isn’t flat such as a mountain range?
Are you posting an airplane can’t fly a level flight over uneven ground like a mountain range if the altitude of the airplane is great enough to clear the tallest peaks.
-
No, you don’t get it…
Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance. One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.
A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path.
How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!
Mate, the Vertical Speed Indicator on a plane, merely measures the difference in air pressure a few seconds apart while a plane is in the air flying. The atmospheric air pressure change from ground level up, is consistent all over the globe. VSI is just an indicator for the pilot if the plane is ascending, descending, or maintaining level flight. Curvature or flatness of the Earth under a plane is not measured by the Vertical Speed Indicator.
Are you referring to the altimeter? Again, the altimeter informs the pilot of how high a plane is, according to ambient air pressure. Again, because ambient air pressure variation is consistent around the globe. As long as the aircraft is flying at a constant ambient air pressure, it will naturally be maintaining a level flight height above sea level and naturally following the curvature of the Earth itself, underneath. Altitude is measured from the Earth's surface, up, which is curved.
Would you like some diagrams to help you see this?
-
No I didn’t say the VSI measures the surface of earth below planes. I simply said it measures for level flight by air pressure around the plane as it flies through the air above the flat Earth.
It’s not measuring the flat earth surface by any means
Level flight doesn’t measure for some made up curvature of a ball earth
-
Laser levels use a straight beam of focused light to measure for level.
Laser light doesn’t curve, it cannot curve, cannot follow curvature of a ball earth.
This confirms that level is straight and horizontal, like other instruments which measure for level are.
-
So after repeatedly being refuted, and without the integrity to admit you were wrong, you just flee and jump onto new topics?
I take it that means you fully accept that air planes do NOT need to continually descend as they fly at a constant altitude above a round Earth?
You fully accept that you were entirely wrong to repeatedly assert that they do?
If not, defend your BS before moving on.
No I didn’t say the VSI measures the surface of earth below planes. I simply said it measures for level flight by air pressure around the plane as it flies through the air above the flat Earth.
Which is still wrong as Earth isn't flat.
They measure for level flight based upon air pressure, with equal air pressures existing in roughly spherical shells around Earth.
Laser levels use a straight beam of focused light to measure for level.
Laser light doesn’t curve, it cannot curve, cannot follow curvature of a ball earth.
This confirms that level is straight and horizontal, like other instruments which measure for level are.
No, this does NOT confirm that level is straight.
Laser levels are used over small areas where the effects of curvature are insignificant. They have errors which are more significant than the drop due to curvature.
So no, they do NOT confirm that level is straight.
You have had that dishonest BS of yours refuted before.
Laser levels also have nothing to do with planes.
-
How do they test laser levels for accuracy?
What are these errors of accuracy based upon?
If they test a laser level for accuracy over 2000 feet, having a .005 mm maximum error over that distance, they must gauge it to something that is true level, right?
The accuracy of a laser level is tested with two points, of identical height to one another.
The laser is set up at the first point, at a certain height, and shoots the light across to the second point, at the same height, 2000 feet away.
They test the laser level for how accurate it measures for true level over a distance.
They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level. If they did, they’d adjust it to whatever curvature would be over that distance, no matter how ‘small’ the curve would be!
And we know they don’t account for curvature because the accuracy error is all around the point of true level, anywhere out from it. Not down or up from a curved surface.
NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?
If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!
Not the same instruments of course, but we could use them for measuring your curvature, it’d be no problem at all
Lasers must be very straight light beams to do that, no way they’d curve at all!
They can’t measure for curvature, or very accurate, which one is it?
It’s accurate, of course, but not hitting reflectors on the moon, that’s bs.
But you say it’s true, so it must be very accurate to do that, and would certainly be able to account and measure for curvature in their tests, no doubt.
Our best laser levels measure for level over long distances, in fact.
They would measure for curvature over these distances if it existed at all, but it’s not there to BE measured for!
-
Again, why flee from the previous topic?
Do you know you were spouting pure BS?
Do you know you were wilfully lying to everyone to pretend Earth is flat?
But got refuted too many times so now you need to try to change the topic to a previous one you fled from?
Again, why not be honest for once in your life and admit you were entirely wrong about planes needing to descend to stay level on a round Earth?
How do they test laser levels for accuracy?
We have been over this all before.
They use angles and extrapolate.
The biggest source of error is the laser's ability to self level.
But as also explained before, we do have more accurate tools. Tools like theodolites
They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level.
Because they test the LEVEL over a short distance as they care about if it is level.
NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?
No, they wouldn't.
Just like you don't need to be accurate to shine a light at a far away object and have light bounce back.
The light can spread out, hit the retroreflector and come straight back.
If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!
You mean if we assume YOU aren't lying. As yet again, you are inventing pure BS, to pedal a con.
Now again, why would a plane need to constantly descend to maintain level flight?
Why can't it just fly level? Why wouldn't it have to ascend?
-
How do they test laser levels for accuracy?
What are these errors of accuracy based upon?
If they test a laser level for accuracy over 2000 feet, having a .005 mm maximum error over that distance, they must gauge it to something that is true level, right?
The accuracy of a laser level is tested with two points, of identical height to one another.
The laser is set up at the first point, at a certain height, and shoots the light across to the second point, at the same height, 2000 feet away.
They test the laser level for how accurate it measures for true level over a distance.
They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level. If they did, they’d adjust it to whatever curvature would be over that distance, no matter how ‘small’ the curve would be!
And we know they don’t account for curvature because the accuracy error is all around the point of true level, anywhere out from it. Not down or up from a curved surface.
NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?
If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!
Not the same instruments of course, but we could use them for measuring your curvature, it’d be no problem at all
Lasers must be very straight light beams to do that, no way they’d curve at all!
They can’t measure for curvature, or very accurate, which one is it?
It’s accurate, of course, but not hitting reflectors on the moon, that’s bs.
But you say it’s true, so it must be very accurate to do that, and would certainly be able to account and measure for curvature in their tests, no doubt.
Our best laser levels measure for level over long distances, in fact.
They would measure for curvature over these distances if it existed at all, but it’s not there to BE measured for!
If you are finished talking about airplanes and feel the thread topic has been answered to your satisfaction, then leave this thread, and commence talking about lasers somewhere else. Otherwise, explain how lasers and airplanes and earth curvature are in any way connected.
-
If you are finished talking about airplanes and feel the thread topic has been answered to your satisfaction, then leave this thread, and commence talking about lasers somewhere else. Otherwise, explain how lasers and airplanes and earth curvature are in any way connected.
Now. You know how flat earth debate works. When a FE’r is cornered, they have to derail the thread, change the topic, and throw in NASA lied and your brainwashed because you can prove the earth is spherical with actual evidence and logically debate.
-
Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.
As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.
If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.
-
They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.
It’s been point out to Turbs old dope machine that airplanes can maintain a certain altitude while flying nose up or having an upward pitch.
An airplane doesn’t have to fly level to stay a certain altitude.
-
They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.
It’s been point out to Turbs old dope machine that airplanes can maintain a certain altitude while flying nose up or having an upward pitch.
An airplane doesn’t have to fly level to stay a certain altitude.
Resisted the urge to call me smokepolemachine ay dribbler?
I see your point in respect to the orientation of the plane in flight. A spirit level inside such a plane would not show the plane itself is level in respect to the Earth gravitational field. But maintaining a certain altitude isn't maintaining a height level above sea level? The altimeter would say it is. So would that other flight instrument.
So therefore if the plane is not ascending or descending is the plane not flying level?
-
So therefore if the plane is not ascending or descending is the plane not flying level?
I guess it comes down to how much lift and angle of attack you need to maintain a certain altitude for a certain air speed. And what you mean by level. To what reference point.
So yes. A nose up airplane to create lift physically not parallel to the ground can fly a level flight height by not changing altitude.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/MISB_ST_0601.8_-_Platform_Angle_of_Attack.png)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MISB_ST_0601.8_-_Platform_Angle_of_Attack.png
So. Like always. It’s relative.
-
Pitch angle:
The Pitch Angle is the angle between the Longitudinal axe of the Aircraft and the Horizon.
Depending on the lift capability of your Aircraft, you may need to maintain a positive Pitch Angle if you wish to fly in a level flight.
With some type of wings, you will start descending if the nose of the Aircraft is at 0 degrees (over the horizon).
https://pilotclimb.com/flight-path-vector-fpv/
If we used Turbs logic, an airplane needing to “maintain a positive Pitch Angle if you wish to fly in a level flight” (nose up) would fly into outer space?
-
Hmm, yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........
-
Hmm, yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........
Turbo appears to only have access to the internet on the weekend. Wait till then before calling it.
-
Ok, we'll continue CPR until Sunday night.
-
Ok, we'll continue CPR until Sunday night.
But oh. There is an inner sanctum they will never allow actual facts and logic into. The sub-forum “Flat Earth Believers.” Funny some stopped venturing out of “Flat Earth Believers?”
-
Hmm, yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........
Turbo appears to only have access to the internet on the weekend. Wait till then before calling it.
I'm not sure, but I think that's when the laid back staff is at the facility and they just let the residents do whatever.
-
Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.
As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.
If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.
I’ve never once said planes measure the surface, don’t try bs i didn’t ever say!!
Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth, which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.
Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface, that is true, but the surface itself isn’t measured or involved in finding level with our instruments
-
Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth
So why do you continually pretend they do?
Levels measure for the direction perpindicular to ground.
which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.
Then why does all the evidence which can distinguish between the 2 show it is curved like a ball, and none show it is flat?
Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface
No, it doesn't.
It matches up to a hypothetical level surface.
All it takes to show that is BS is to look a hill. Or, get a level and put it on a hill.
Measuring for level will NOT match Earth's surface.
Now again, care to admit your claims about aircraft allegedly needing to constantly descend is pure BS, because an equivalent argument can be made that they had to constantly ascend?
If not, care to try to justify that dishonest BS of yours, including by addressing the counter argument?
-
Say it with me - concentric circles!
-
Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.
As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.
If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.
I’ve never once said planes measure the surface, don’t try bs i didn’t ever say!!
Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth, which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.
Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface, that is true, but the surface itself isn’t measured or involved in finding level with our instruments
Do you consider it a win for you in these debates if your opponent in sheer frustration, bails out? Is that how you win, by default, when your opponent is so exhausted by your inane replies, they just can't take it anymore?
Going to the dentist and getting a root canal procedure would be less painful.
Do you own a spirit level, or is that well beyond your budget as well?
-
Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth
So why do you continually pretend they do?
Levels measure for the direction perpindicular to ground.
which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.
Then why does all the evidence which can distinguish between the 2 show it is curved like a ball, and none show it is flat?
Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface
No, it doesn't.
It matches up to a hypothetical level surface.
All it takes to show that is BS is to look a hill. Or, get a level and put it on a hill.
Measuring for level will NOT match Earth's surface.
Now again, care to admit your claims about aircraft allegedly needing to constantly descend is pure BS, because an equivalent argument can be made that they had to constantly ascend?
Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball. They don’t need to fly in a constant descent because earth is flat, not a ball.
Why would planes ascend to fly over a ball earth? A ball constantly curves downward from any point on or above it.
The first path over a ball is constantly downward, and so is going back in the opposite direction, or any direction at all.
It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms, mountains are not flat, I shouldn’t have to explain what I meant by being flat to you, so drop the bs about what I said, unless you really think I’m saying mountains are flat, which would make you an idiot, since everyone knows mountains aren’t flat, so it’s obviously not what I was referring to as flat. Sheesh you waste my time with such bs, use your brain once in awhile, it’ll help you avoid such minutiae arguments!!
Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?
A straight line, upward, from a single point on the surface, straight up, right?
So what is level to that straight up line from the surface?
Another straight line, 90 degrees to the first line going straight upward, right?
Yes, and that is what levels measure for both lines, one straight up, one straight across it, or perpendicular to it, at 90 degrees, which we call ‘square’ to it.
Squares are also flat, in all directions, all sides of it, which are all perpendicular to adjacent sides of it.
A line from the surface is a single point, straight up. Being level to that straight up line is a straight line perpendicular to it, 90 degrees to each side of that line, which must be flat and horizontal to it, and that, indeed, IS level.
-
Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball.
Again.
Airplanes fly a certain altitude by staying in a pressure band that correlates to a certain altitude.
If an airplane needs to change control surfaces and increase power to the engines to gain altitude. Or change control surfaces and decrease power to lose altitude.
Why would the airplane need to continuously descent as in change power and control surfaces? On a spherical earth with equipotential of gravity.
The definition of level for you again.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/flat-vs-level.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/flat-vs-level
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/equipotential
So. It comes down to how big the earth is, how gentle of a slope the earth has because of how big it is, and equipotential of gravity.
And yes. We can see the earth curves with enough altitude. It’s called dip of the horizon.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
Game, set, Turbs is just stupid at this point.
-
Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball. They don’t need to fly in a constant descent because earth is flat, not a ball.
I didn't ask you to repeat the same delusional BS.
I asked you to either admit you were spouting delusional BS or to defend it.
Why would planes ascend to fly over a ball earth? A ball constantly curves downward from any point on or above it.
Which means the point behind the plane, which it came from, is "lower", meaning it had to ascend to get there.
i.e. the exact same reasoning you are using, except looking backwards instead of forwards.
To clearly show your argument is BS.
Back in reality, with descent being a decrease in altitude, that cartesian reference system you are appealing to is just dishonest BS.
Planes don't need to descend or ascend for level flight on a RE.
Now again, care to try to defend your dishonest BS?
Including addressing why it should be a descent rather than an ascent, because you are yet to even try.
It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms
No, it's obvious that you are spouting delusional BS yet again.
Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?
That depends on the orientation of the surface.
Why not ask what you really mean? What is perpendicular to a level surface?
And that would be a vertical line, because by definition, level is perpendicular to vertical.
And that applies regardless of if Earth is flat or curved.
A line from the surface is a single point
And that level is for that single point.
If you want a line to truly be level, you need it to be level at each point along the line, not just that one point.
-
A made up force that’s proven to not exist at all, does not solve all your problems, it doesn’t even exist to begin with!
When we use two different instruments which measure for level, one being a spirit level, the other a laser level, which cannot be excused by your made up force, both levels measure the same for level, and the laser level measures for level with a straight beam of light, proving there is no curve or made up force to excuse everything like magic!
The simple fact that a laser level is a straight beam of light, without any curve at all, proves they made it all up.
-
A made up force that’s proven to not exist at all, does not solve all your problems, it doesn’t even exist to begin with!
So stop appealing to your magic fantasy and start trying to honestly discuss a very real force which does exist and which has been shown to exist beyond any reasonable doubt.
Or given that gravity wasn't brought up at all, how about you stop with all the dishonest BS, stop with the pathetic deflection and try to defend your delusional BS?
Once more, your BS argument works equally well to claim a plane must descend as it flies over a RE due to the downwards curve in front of it that it must go down; as it does to claim a plane must ascend as it flies over a RE due to the downwards curve behind it that it must have gone up.
This fact shows that the argument is pure BS.
Now care to honestly address it?
Care to try being honest for once in your life?
both levels measure the same for level
Yes, perpendicular to down.
With the laser level's range and accuracy being too limited to be significantly effected by the curvature of Earth.
Meaning yet again you are lying.
And yet again, this thread has nothing to do with your blatant lies about laser levels.
Again, address your dishonest BS that planes magically need to descend to fly level of a round Earth.
-
Which means the point behind the plane, which it came from, is "lower", meaning it had to ascend to get there.
i.e. the exact same reasoning you are using, except looking backwards instead of forwards.
To clearly show your argument is BS.
Back in reality, with descent being a decrease in altitude, that cartesian reference system you are appealing to is just dishonest BS.
Planes don't need to descend or ascend for level flight on a RE.
Now again, care to try to defend your dishonest BS?
Including addressing why it should be a descent rather than an ascent, because you are yet to even try.
It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms
No, it's obvious that you are spouting delusional BS yet again.
Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?
That depends on the orientation of the surface.
Why not ask what you really mean? What is perpendicular to a level surface?
And that would be a vertical line, because by definition, level is perpendicular to vertical.
And that applies regardless of if Earth is flat or curved.
No it doesn’t apply to a curved surface, only to a flat surface.
If a straight line upward from a curved surface is perpendicular to another line, it is perpendicular to the first line at exactly 90 degrees to it, out to each side of it to infinity, as level to it, which is always a straight line extending outward to infinity, while a curved surface will go downward in each direction from the vertical line upward from the surface.
When the second line is at 90 degrees to the first line, on each side of it, the angle does not change with more distance outward on either side of the vertical line.
It remains at 90 degrees across the surface below, but the surface would curve downward, not at 90 degrees across it
-
When we use two different instruments which measure for level, one being a spirit level, the other a laser level,
Sigh. Again. Instruments that measure to relative frame of reference.
You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.
Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
Looks flat with a small frame of reference?
But the tank is clearly curved.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
[/quote]
-
If a straight line upward from a curved surface is perpendicular to another line, it is perpendicular to the first line at exactly 90 degrees to it, out to each side of it to infinity, as level to it, which is always a straight line extending outward to infinity, while a curved surface will go downward in each direction from the vertical line upward from the surface.
Blah blah blah..
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
-
Oh look
A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines
ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER
https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3
https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK
-
And again, straight away you flee from the simple argument that is relevant to the topic and clearly demonstrates you are knowingly spouting pure BS.
Again, why should planes magically descend?
Your delusional, dishonest, BS argument works equally to claim they need to descend or that they need to ascenend.
This fact shows your argument is BS.
Why don't you be honest for once in your life and acknowledge that, rather than continually fleeing like you always seem to?
No it doesn’t apply to a curved surface, only to a flat surface.
And another lie.
It applies to any surface.
There is a direction, called down.
Level is perpendicular to this.
This applies at any point.
For a line to be level, it must be level at each point along it.
For a hypothetical FE, that would be a straight line.
For the very real RE, that would be a curve.
But over a short distance, you can't tell the difference.
Now again, stop with the dishonest BS; stop with the pathetic deflection.
Deal with your BS claim that a plane flying over a RE magically needs to descend.
Either admit that claim is pure BS; yet another pathetic lie from you to pretend the RE can't work because you can't come up with a real problem with it; or do the impossible and defend your BS, including clearly addressing why the plane should descend, and not ascend when the argument equally either way.
-
Oh look
A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines
ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER
https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3
https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK
No, two curved lines, or two squiggly lines, or any other two lines of some shape, other than straight lines, are equidistant to each other. Only two straight lines can be parallel lines. Two curved lines have one around the other, in a concentric circle or arc. Two identical squiggly lines aren’t parallel either, they are equidistant lines of the same shape and path.
Only two straight lines equidistant to each other are parallel lines. Or horizontal lines running parallel to each other.
-
The math people disagree with you
https://mathcurve.com/courbes3d.gb/parallele/parallele.shtml#:~:text=Two%20curves%20are%20said%20to,the%20translation%20of%20one%20another.
-
They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.
When they have to make a distinction between a known and understood term, like with the term parallel, it is a modification of the term, a variation of the term that needs to be qualified as a variation or alteration of the original term. Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.
If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.
They just recently tried to change its meaning to support their ball Earth lie. They just add a qualifier to it, or a modification to it, but don’t mention that part to us, it sounds better if we think it’s the same thing!
It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.
Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other. When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other.
Circles that go out from each other at the same distance are concentric lines, not parallel lines, no matter if they attach it to the term parallel with a qualifier term to it, they are entirely different terms, and their own understood definitions already.
Such verbal trickery won’t work, it’s garbage.
If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.
They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.
-
They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.
When they have to make a distinction between a known and understood term, like with the term parallel, it is a modification of the term, a variation of the term that needs to be qualified as a variation or alteration of the original term. Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.
If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.
They just recently tried to change its meaning to support their ball Earth lie. They just add a qualifier to it, or a modification to it, but don’t mention that part to us, it sounds better if we think it’s the same thing!
It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.
Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other. When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other.
Circles that go out from each other at the same distance are concentric lines, not parallel lines, no matter if they attach it to the term parallel with a qualifier term to it, they are entirely different terms, and their own understood definitions already.
Such verbal trickery won’t work, it’s garbage.
If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.
They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.
Hey Turbonium, has anybody ever told you you are sane?
-
And yet again you take the low hanging fruit, fleeing from your prior BS claims which you know you cannot defend.
Again, why not be honest for once in your life and admit your claim is BS?
If you aren't willing to do that, then justify it.
Again, why should planes magically need to descend to remain level?
Especially when the same BS argument can be used to claim they must ascend?
Only two straight lines can be parallel lines.
Depends on the definition of parallel you are using and what geometry you are using.
They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.
Where?
I see it described like this:
The curves (G1) and (G2) are parallel if we can determine current points
I even did a simple search for the word imaginary, and it wasn't found on that page at all.
Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.
If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.
No, parallel means equidistant. What you are thinking of are straight parallel lines.
It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.
Yet another strawman from you.
Level means perpendicular to down.
Even you have almost said that.
Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other. When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other.
You mean 2 straight, parallel lines.
But no, we refer to any parallel lines.
That is because as it gets further away, the angular size of the distance between them shrinks.
It doesn't matter if they are straight or curving.
If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.
Like they do?
They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.
Says the one blatantly lying to everyone, yet again.
Says the one who is still fleeing from their argument which has been shown to be pure BS.
The one trying to use "trickery" here is you. But really it is just fleeing from you being shown to be wrong, and blatantly lying to everyone.
-
Whata the angle between a 1m level, bought at a construction store, if the circle were 40,000,000m around?
Where does it say "imaginary"?
-
parallel lines cannot be curved. The concept of parallel lines is based on Euclidean geometry, which assumes a flat, two-dimensional plane. In this context, parallel lines are defined as a pair of straight lines that are always equidistant from each other and never intersect, regardless of how far they are extended.
Curved lines, on the other hand, deviate from being straight and have changing directions. Curved lines can take various forms, such as arcs, circles, or spirals. These types of curves cannot be considered parallel to each other because they do not meet the criteria of being straight and equidistant.
In Euclidean geometry, the notion of parallelism is strictly tied to straight lines. However, in non-Euclidean geometries or curved spaces, such as the surface of a sphere, the concept of parallel lines can differ. For example, on the surface of a sphere, lines of longitude are parallel to each other but intersect at the poles. This is an example of how the concept of parallelism changes in a non-flat geometry.
In summary, within the context of Euclidean geometry and a flat plane, parallel lines are always straight and cannot be curved. Curved lines deviate from being straight and do not meet the criteria of being equidistant and non-intersecting, which are fundamental characteristics of parallel lines“
https://math.fresherslive.com/what-are-parallel-lines-parallel-lines-equation-741/
-
parallel lines cannot be curved. The concept of parallel lines is based on Euclidean geometry, which assumes a flat, two-dimensional plane. In this context, parallel lines are defined as a pair of straight lines that are always equidistant from each other and never intersect, regardless of how far they are extended.
Curved lines, on the other hand, deviate from being straight and have changing directions. Curved lines can take various forms, such as arcs, circles, or spirals. These types of curves cannot be considered parallel to each other because they do not meet the criteria of being straight and equidistant.
In Euclidean geometry, the notion of parallelism is strictly tied to straight lines. However, in non-Euclidean geometries or curved spaces, such as the surface of a sphere, the concept of parallel lines can differ. For example, on the surface of a sphere, lines of longitude are parallel to each other but intersect at the poles. This is an example of how the concept of parallelism changes in a non-flat geometry.
In summary, within the context of Euclidean geometry and a flat plane, parallel lines are always straight and cannot be curved. Curved lines deviate from being straight and do not meet the criteria of being equidistant and non-intersecting, which are fundamental characteristics of parallel lines“
https://math.fresherslive.com/what-are-parallel-lines-parallel-lines-equation-741/
"Eucleadean geometry, which, assumes a flat, two dimensional plane".
Note the word, "assumes".
Another light bulb moment for you, ey turdonmibum2?
-
https://math.fresherslive.com/what-are-parallel-lines-parallel-lines-equation-741/
Congrats, you found a quote for incredibly basic math, which provides incorrect information.
What will you say next, you can't divide 3 by 2, because it isn't an integer multiple?
This doesn't negate your lie. You blatantly lied when you claimed that the source said they were imaginary.
Likewise, it doesn't magically make your BS argument true.
Again, your delusional BS works just as well to say that planes must always ascend as it does to say they must ascend.
Care to address that, or admit your dishonesty?
-
In other words, to negate the parallel lines claim, you had to entire an entirely different dimension of math.
Coool.
-
We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.
The assumption of lines being two or more straight lines at the same distance apart from one another, is in a 2 dimensional form, because it’s a 3 dimensional world, so they assume the lines are 2 d, on a flat surface.
When one circle is inside of a larger circle, which is the same distance around it, those are concentric lines, or circular lines the same distance apart.
A circle has an entirely curved line, and another curve around it, at the same distance apart from it, are different lengths, not the same length which straight lines are when parallel.
When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.
Two zigzag lines that are the same shape and length at the same distance apart, are not parallel lines, nor are they known or called parallel lines, because only straight lines are parallel, while they are all equidistant lines.
The distinction is why there are two different terms used to describe them.
If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.
What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.
It doesn’t matter if they want to twist the actual meaning of equidistant, to mean parallel lines can be circles or curved lines, to support the ball Earth fable, curves and circles and zigzag lines aren’t parallel lines, only straight lines are, in daily use of the term, and in their appearing to converge together in the distance.
-
Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.
Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface
They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.
-
We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.
You truly are deluded aren't you?
Even those who limit parallel lines to straight parallel lines in Euclidean space; do NOT have them be the same length.
Now again, care to address how you blatantly lied to everyone with this BS of yours?
They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.
Or will you continue to avoid that clear example of how you are happy to lie to everyone to promote your delusional BS?
Likewise, care to get back on topic and try to address the fact that your argument that planes need to descend to remain level on a RE is pure BS; and that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that an equivalent argument can be made to say that they need to ascend, with both equally valid?
Especially given that planes do NOT magically fly parallel to Earth's surface.
When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.
...
If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.
And you could say the same for straight lines that remain an equal distance apart.
What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.
You truly are delusional.
ALL lines which remain an equal distance apart, will appear to converge in the distance.
That is because the angular size of that separation reduces with distance.
They do not need to be straight.
to support the ball Earth fable
You mean the RE reality that you hate and need to continually flee from?
With you needing to spout pure BS, have it refuted and flee from the refutation, only to bring up the same refuted BS again later?
Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy
And you had that line of BS of yours refuted.
or they ignore it as not existing at all
Or they ignore it as insignificant, as it is, as repeatedly explained.
You pretending to not have had your delusional BS refuted repeatedly wont magically make your delusional BS true.
Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflections and admit your delusional BS is pure BS and doesn't show any problem with the RE?
Care to admit that planes do NOT need to descend to remain level on a RE?
If not, stop with the pathetic deflections and justify your delusional BS.
-
Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.
Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface
They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.
Like why surveyors have to account for refraction? Is that false. Anyway.
The old Chicago skyline, refraction, and earth’s curvature.
Lake Michigan you post?
Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0
Part one. First refraction.
Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage. The new well known example is Chicago.
Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline
To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.
Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline. Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen. Seen as in the visible length of buildings.
On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.” says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved. And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for.
If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?
(https://i.imgur.com/4R48hgl.jpg)
-
We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.
The assumption of lines being two or more straight lines at the same distance apart from one another, is in a 2 dimensional form, because it’s a 3 dimensional world, so they assume the lines are 2 d, on a flat surface.
When one circle is inside of a larger circle, which is the same distance around it, those are concentric lines, or circular lines the same distance apart.
A circle has an entirely curved line, and another curve around it, at the same distance apart from it, are different lengths, not the same length which straight lines are when parallel.
When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.
Two zigzag lines that are the same shape and length at the same distance apart, are not parallel lines, nor are they known or called parallel lines, because only straight lines are parallel, while they are all equidistant lines.
The distinction is why there are two different terms used to describe them.
If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.
What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.
It doesn’t matter if they want to twist the actual meaning of equidistant, to mean parallel lines can be circles or curved lines, to support the ball Earth fable, curves and circles and zigzag lines aren’t parallel lines, only straight lines are, in daily use of the term, and in their appearing to converge together in the distance.
Incorrect
Parrallel means they never intersect.
Having same length is nonsense because by definition the theordtical lines are required to be extended to infinity.
I guess infinity = infinity if you want to play games...
But
You couldnt shownus "imaginary".
Lets see if you can show us "of equal length"
par·al·lel
/ˈperəˌlel/
adjective
(of lines, planes, surfaces, or objects) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them.
"parallel lines never meet"
-
Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.
Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface
They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.
Trubalonium2, I see you have suffered a little setback.
Say after me, "They ignore it as it is insignificant."
You need to define what distance they are measuring over, little fella. Over a distance of 50 metres, insignificant. Over a distance of 5 kilometres, Earth curvature will be accounted for. But don't worry your little head, especially over a body of water, laser light like all light, can bend in air containing lots of water particles.
Look at you! Look how far you've come! You only said "flat earth" once in that last reply! We'll bend it out of you!
-
Oh look
A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines
ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER
https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3
https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK
No, two curved lines, or two squiggly lines, or any other two lines of some shape, other than straight lines, are equidistant to each other. Only two straight lines can be parallel lines. Two curved lines have one around the other, in a concentric circle or arc. Two identical squiggly lines aren’t parallel either, they are equidistant lines of the same shape and path.
Only two straight lines equidistant to each other are parallel lines. Or horizontal lines running parallel to each other.
In geometry, lines are considered parallel if they maintain a constant distance between each other at all points. This definition can be extended to curves, including concentric curves. For two curves to be considered parallel, you can use the concept of the normal vector at each point on the curves. The normal vector at a given point on a curve is a vector that is perpendicular to the tangent vector at that point. If two curves are parallel, the normal vectors at corresponding points on the curves should be the same.
Look at two curves defined by functions y1=f1(x) and y2=f2(x). The curves are parallel if, for each corresponding point (x,y1) on the first curve and (x,y2) on the second curve, the normal vectors N1 and N2 are parallel. This can be expressed as:
N1∥N2
The normal vector at a point (x,y) on a curve y=f(x) is given by the vector N=<−f′(x),1>
So, the condition for two curves to be parallel at a given point is:
<−f1′(x),1>∥<−f2′(x),1>
or f1′(x)=f2′(x)
This ensures that the slopes (or derivatives) of the two curves are equal at corresponding points, and thus, the curves are parallel.
That said, you are basically defining parallel here to make the argument valid, meaning its circular logic - though I suppose in a way all math is and more than that, there's no real reason to prefer one definition over another other than if its useful to do so for some application or not.
-
How come turbo refuses to answer what the angle between 3ft homedepot levels would be if you made a cirvle out of them with using 40,000,000 of them?
Heyhey
How "level" do you think this guys saw blade is?
Is it curved?
https://youtube.com/shorts/M6M2ZB8xJxs?si=Y8t8BFPX8edkBtaB
-
How come turbo refuses to answer what the angle between 3ft homedepot levels would be if you made a cirvle out of them with using 40,000,000 of them?
Heyhey
How "level" do you think this guys saw blade is?
Is it curved?
https://youtube.com/shorts/M6M2ZB8xJxs?si=Y8t8BFPX8edkBtaB
You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.
The saw blade is always curved.
No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.
-
teh saw blade is curved in one plane, the spinning plane.
but it's obviously flat in the perpendicular to that it is flat and straight as noted by the initial cuts that are long
wow
look how it sits on the flat table top.
only one person playing word games here... guess who!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU
-
You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.
They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.
The saw blade is always curved.
Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.
No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.
The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.
If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.
And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.
So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.
Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:
(https://i.imgur.com/t3qTh8K.png)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:
(https://i.imgur.com/CrplciU.png)
So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.
-
it may be lost of sceppy
i think it important when you take a snip and include the grid scale.
on the zoomed in, it looks to be bolded grid lines are 0.74120-0.74118-0.74116-0.74114-0.74112-0.74110
and the zoomed out, is obviously for the bolded grid lines 1.0-0.5-0.0
and regular the grid lines 1.00000-0.90000-0.80000-0.70000-...
so in comparable scale we're zoomed in at 10,000x magnification.
-
teh saw blade is curved in one plane, the spinning plane.
but it's obviously flat in the perpendicular to that it is flat and straight as noted by the initial cuts that are long
wow
look how it sits on the flat table top.
only one person playing word games here... guess who!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU
You're just confirming what I've just been saying about perception and trickery.
-
You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.
They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.
The saw blade is always curved.
Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.
No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.
The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.
If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.
And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.
So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.
Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:
(https://i.imgur.com/t3qTh8K.png)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:
(https://i.imgur.com/CrplciU.png)
So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.
As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
-
mmmmmmm geometry says no
https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png
https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png
-
You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.
They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.
The saw blade is always curved.
Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.
No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.
The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.
If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.
And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.
So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.
Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:
(https://i.imgur.com/t3qTh8K.png)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:
(https://i.imgur.com/CrplciU.png)
So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.
As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Sceptic, he isn't trying. He IS using a curve and offering it as a straight line perception, just as you see when you look at the horizon out at sea.
It is a drawn graph and it is a proof offering for the globe Earth. Flat Earth destroyed with two lines.
This is just TOO easy. Tell me I'm wrong, Sceptic.
-
You're just confirming what I've just been saying about perception and trickery.
And how FEers dishonestly resort to trickery to try to con people into thinking Earth is flat?
As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Quite the opposite.
I am demonstrating the dishonest trickery you use.
And you are confirming the general dishonesty of FEers where you now pretty much entirely ignore what is said to just go and claim pure BS.
Again, what the above clearly demonstrated is that if you view a sufficiently small enough section of a large enough curve, you cannot tell it is curved.
Yet that doesn't stop dishonest FEers from using such trickery, taking a tiny portion of Earth and boldly proclaiming the entire Earth must be flat because they can't tell it is curved.
According to dishonest FE trickery, that circle is a straight line, because if you look at a tiny portion you cannot see the curve.
Conversely, REers use actual evidence of curvature, such as how objects are obscured by Earth as they go past the horizon, and mountains of more evidence.
Things FEers cannot explain with a FE.
-
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
[/quote]
-
Oh look
An undebiably straight saw blade made a circle.
https://youtube.com/shorts/BhgXIRmlSTA?si=Vo6Q7xniokgff82H
-
If there really were ‘curvature’, that measures at a rate of 8” per mile, squared, we certainly would have measured for it, ages ago, and more and more precisely since then, up to now, if it ever existed at all.
We have instruments which measure for the slightest curving or slope or imperfection on the surface, it’s not unknown or invisible or undetected!
As I told you before, which you all ignored, is that laser levels are tested for their accuracy of measuring for level over distances.
The only way they can DO that, is if they know and set up targets that ARE level over these distances, from the laser level to the targets, which both must be set at the same exact height above the surface, to measure its accuracy over that distance, and other distances too.
And lasers emit a perfectly straight beam of fine light over distances, they couldn’t measure for any sort of curvature, anyway, if it did exist at all.
Using straight beams of light, to measure for level, which is flat and horizontal across distances, on the surface, or above it, etc.
You’ve got an unseen, unmeasurable curve that doesn’t exist, is entirely made up, and sold to us as being real, and true!
-
Again, care to be honest for once in your life and address the blatant lies you have been making when you claim planes must descend?
Again, an equivalent argument can be made to show they must ascend.
This demonstrates that both arguments are pure BS.
Can you be honest for once, show a tiny shred of integrity and address this fact?
Admit your claim was pure BS or defend it.
Stop with the pathetic deflections to laser levels.
If there really were ‘curvature’, that measures at a rate of 8” per mile, squared, we certainly would have measured for it, ages ago, and more and more precisely since then, up to now, if it ever existed at all.
And we have, repeatedly.
You just ignore all that because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy, and appeal to instruments which are not precise and accurate enough to measure the curve to pretend it isn't there.
We have instruments which measure for the slightest curving or slope or imperfection on the surface
No, we don't.
That is a blatant lie.
ALL instruments have a limit of precision. All instruments have some error.
So if the curve or slope or imperfection is slight enough, i.e. small enough) the instrument wont be able to detect it.
The only question is how accurate it is.
As I told you before, which you all ignored, is that laser levels are tested for their accuracy of measuring for level over distances.
Lying will not save you.
I have addressed this many times.
Laser levels have a limited range and a limited precision. So far the best one you have found is NOT ABLE TO MEASURE THE CURVE!
It is not precise enough to do so.
I have also explained what their accuracy is based upon, their ability to self level.
If you bother looking at the data sheets, they don't have measured inaccuracies for a bunch of different distances. Instead they have a rate, based upon an angle.
You’ve got an unseen, unmeasurable curve that doesn’t exist, is entirely made up, and sold to us as being real, and true!
No, we have a repeatedly seen, repeatedly measured curve which does exist, which is based upon reality.
Conversely, you have a magical flat surface which is never seen at long distance, never measured at long distances, and is entirely made up; with you needing to resort to so much dishonest BS to pretend it is real; and fleeing from that BS when it is refuted, only to bring it up again later. Just like you have done with laser levels, where you brought it up and were entirely refuted, you then fled from the discussion only to bring it up again now.
Again, all you are doing with these tactics is showing how dishonest and desperate and pathetic you and your position are.
-
We measure objects for surface flatness to a micron, over miles of surfaces, and account for diffraction, etc.
If we are able to account for diffraction, for example, as a known factor to account for in surveying land, they’d certainly account for your ‘curvature’ too.
No need to account for something that doesn’t even exist at all, like your made up ‘curvature’, that’s why they don’t
-
If there really were ‘curvature’, that measures at a rate of 8” per mile, squared, we certainly would have measured for it, ages ago,
Like this?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
Again…
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
Didn’t Jack school you on that 8 inch thing? Anyway…
Debunking Flat Earthers 8 inches/mile squared - Irrelevant formula that both sides get wrong
-
mmmmmmm geometry says no
https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png
https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png
Not sure what you're trying to offer to back up your fictional globe.
-
Sceptic, he isn't trying. He IS using a curve and offering it as a straight line perception, just as you see when you look at the horizon out at sea.
Of course he can offer it as a straight line but it's never going to be a straight line, so he's never offering reality, only a pretence. That's the issue.
And the horizon has always been a theoretical line.
It is a drawn graph and it is a proof offering for the globe Earth. Flat Earth destroyed with two lines.
Line drawing offers nothing for Earth and you know this so all you're doing is destroying your own ideals.
This is just TOO easy. Tell me I'm wrong, Sceptic.
It is fairly easy to show you're wrong.
-
I am demonstrating the dishonest trickery you use.
You are demonstrating the trickery you people use.
And you are confirming the general dishonesty of FEers where you now pretty much entirely ignore what is said to just go and claim pure BS.
Again, what the above clearly demonstrated is that if you view a sufficiently small enough section of a large enough curve, you cannot tell it is curved.
If you can't see a curve you can't claim a curve. If you do see what you believe may be a curve you have to physically verify it it.
None of this can be done over the vastness of Earth.
It can be done to show it's flat and water alone solves that, plus flying aircraft, as this topic is about.
Yet that doesn't stop dishonest FEers from using such trickery, taking a tiny portion of Earth and boldly proclaiming the entire Earth must be flat because they can't tell it is curved.
As above.
According to dishonest FE trickery, that circle is a straight line, because if you look at a tiny portion you cannot see the curve.
No. You've decided this, not flat Earthers or alternate Earthers.
Conversely, REers use actual evidence of curvature, such as how objects are obscured by Earth as they go past the horizon, and mountains of more evidence.
Things FEers cannot explain with a FE.
You don't use actual evidence of anything of the sort.
There's nothing you can physically offer to prove your globe. You know this and so does anyone else.
-
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
Put your spirit level on that same curve as horizontal as if you were going to roll that big tank.
Place your level on it and keep that level bubble centred as you move the level and see if it curves around that tank or if it quickly leaves the tank in a straight line.
Trying to use a tiny level on a few corrugations is fine to offer a pretence of straightness but the immediate movement would kill it, as would a slightly bigger level or a stick.
They're called spirit levels for a reason, not spirit curves.
Now imagine flying a plane over a curve. You get the same thing. It would not follow it in level flight and your plane would leave an ever-widening gap between it and the surface, unless you moved the flaps to follow the contours, meaning you would be consistently in a downward dive, no matter how small that dive was.
Try again.
-
Put your spirit level on that same curve as horizontal
Your stupid.
The “spirit” level has nothing to do with what is being conveyed.
The straight edge is what is used. The small frame of reference against the gentle curve of the large tank shows “flat”.
While your argument has to totally ignore the dipping try horizon.
So as you sceptimatic, you’re just trying to change the argument, you ignore context, and just ignore reality.
You’re just dogmatic and fail to provide any useful evidence that is from the real world.
-
Lasers are used in precise surgical procedures, like on our eyes, etc.
When they talk about their accuracy, it is a degree of accuracy at a certain distance, the maximum distance within a range of accuracy.
They are much more accurate at closer distances than the maximum stated for them.
Do you think that laser levels cannot accurately measure for level over one mile, or over half a mile?
NASA has said that they have pointed lasers at their little ‘reflectors’ on the moon, and bounced back to them. If so, they would be incredibly accurate, to a much much longer distance that you believed them to be!!
To hit a target thats about one foot square with a laser pointed at it from 1/4 million miles away, and bounce right back to them, would take an extremely precise laser, no doubt.
It’s all fake, of course, but you believe it’s true, so how are laser levels not accurate enough to measure level over one mile or a half mile?
Laser levels use a fine, focused light beam, which is a straight line of light, and the best ones today, are extremely accurate over a long distance.
They could not know how accurate they are, within a small range of error, at maximum, without knowing and setting up a target which is perfectly level to the laser pointing out to it.
So they would certainly have to account for the ‘curvature’ over those distances, even if it were a fraction of an inch or a few mm, then!
They clearly don’t account for any ‘curvature’ at all.
-
Place your level on it and keep that level bubble centred as you move the level and see if it curves around that tank or if it quickly leaves the tank in a straight line.
WTF?
You are an idiot.
The straight edge is going to show deviation from flat. The buble only shows how un-perpendicular to the right angle to gravity.
-
Lasers are used in precise surgical procedures, like on our eyes, etc.
Which has nothing to do with the dip of the horizon.
Care to address what is actual posted?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
If there really were ‘curvature’, that measures at a rate of 8” per mile, squared, we certainly would have measured for it, ages ago,
Like this?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
-
To hit a target
Speaking of targets…
Proof of Earth Curvature: The Rainy Lake Experiment
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Summary
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!
-
Simply seeing the buildings in Chicago or Toronto from over 40 or 50 miles away, when any ‘curvature’ over that distance would curve them down and out of our view, 100s of feet curving down by then, but they are still in view, except for the bottom, due to perspective.
This proves there is no ‘curvature’ right there, in fact
-
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
Put your spirit level on that same curve as horizontal as if you were going to roll that big tank.
Place your level on it and keep that level bubble centred as you move the level and see if it curves around that tank or if it quickly leaves the tank in a straight line.
Trying to use a tiny level on a few corrugations is fine to offer a pretence of straightness but the immediate movement would kill it, as would a slightly bigger level or a stick.
They're called spirit levels for a reason, not spirit curves.
Now imagine flying a plane over a curve. You get the same thing. It would not follow it in level flight and your plane would leave an ever-widening gap between it and the surface, unless you moved the flaps to follow the contours, meaning you would be consistently in a downward dive, no matter how small that dive was.
Try again.
Why not keep the spirit level level on the tank, and roll the tank? It will remain level.
Planes do follow the curve of the Earth in level flight, Scepticmaniac. It's been explained to the likes of you a million fucking times.
-
Simply seeing the buildings in Chicago or Toronto from over 40 or 50 miles away, when any ‘curvature’ over that distance would curve them down and out of our view, 100s of feet curving down by then, but they are still in view, except for the bottom, due to perspective.
This proves there is no ‘curvature’ right there, in fact
Sigh.
Where you can see the top of the Chicago buildings across the lake from the top of a 200 foot tall hill. And how much of the buildings you can see is dependent on the weather and amount of refraction?
Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0
Part one. First refraction.
Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage. The new well known example is Chicago.
Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline
To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.
Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline. Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen. Seen as in the visible length of buildings.
On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.” says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved. And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for.
If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?
(https://i.imgur.com/4R48hgl.jpg)
If the earth is flat, why must one climb a hill over 200 tall to see the tops of builds where the amount of how much height of the buildings that can be seen is based on how much refraction?
-
Perspective causes it.
Why do we see further out when higher on the surface, or above the surface?
A horizon is further out when we’re higher up.
And so the reverse is also true.
You cannot see as far out when near the ground as you can see when standing up, right?
Near the ground you see more of the surface rising up in the distance than you see when standing up.
It reaches up to a limit, where a horizon is formed.
-
Perspective causes it.
BS, a good zoom lens should bring things into view. It can’t, because it’s physically blocked by the curvature of the earth. From a sunset, boat going over the horizon, the Chicago Sky line. Perspective can’t physically block something from view to prevent a zoom lens from revealing hidden details you falsely pin on perspective.
Why can’t you see the whole Chicago sky line as in the bases of the buildings standing on the shore.
Vs having to climb a hill 200 plus feet tall to see the tops of buildings? And it’s dependent on refraction?
Anyway.. proper context..
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
If you stood on a 200 foot hill.
(https://i.imgur.com/v1A0OAt.jpg)
Without refraction on a curved earth, you could see the tops of buildings over 850 feet tall?
If you stood on a hill 250 feet tall.
(https://i.imgur.com/5eQr6Oz.jpg)
At 53 miles away, on a curved earth, on a hill 250 foot tall, with no refraction. You could see buildings over 760 feet tall.
(https://i.imgur.com/eKdJadq.jpg)
The 10 th tallest building in Chicago is still 896 feet tall.
Anyway….
(https://i.imgur.com/tQsdbfh.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ctm_800/3417439088/in/photostream/
Why can’t you see the bases of the buildings. Why can’t you see all the building all the time. Why does how many buildings you can see depend on observation height and amount of refraction.
-
Perspective causes it.
Sigh. A lie that was debunked here.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.msg2367945#msg2367945
Turbs, a thread you were part of.
Don’t you get tired of the same old lies Turbs.
-
Put your spirit level on that same curve as horizontal
Your stupid.
Don't call people stupid unless you use the right word to show that (hint) you're not projecting.
The “spirit” level has nothing to do with what is being conveyed.
The spirit level has everything to do with it or you wouldn't have used it.
The straight edge is what is used. The small frame of reference against the gentle curve of the large tank shows “flat”.
Then why didn't you use a straight edge?
Let me guess, the tiny spirit level was all you had at the time and a length of timber or metal box section would've rendered the experiment useless.
While your argument has to totally ignore the dipping try horizon.
The horizon is theoretical and dipping nor elevation will render the theoretical horizon impossible from level vision.
Seeing as we always see it with level vision we cannot be flying over a globe, no matter how ou try to twist it.
So as you sceptimatic, you’re just trying to change the argument, you ignore context, and just ignore reality.
No, I pay attention to the argument and I simply point out the massive errors and twisting in it with this global nonsense.
You’re just dogmatic and fail to provide any useful evidence that is from the real world.
I provide plenty. What you take from it will be nothing because you're 100% indoctrinated into the global model, no matter how absurd it is.
You're welcome to do that of course but you will never be correct.
-
Place your level on it and keep that level bubble centred as you move the level and see if it curves around that tank or if it quickly leaves the tank in a straight line.
WTF?
You are an idiot.
The straight edge is going to show deviation from flat. The buble only shows how un-perpendicular to the right angle to gravity.
The straight edge will massively show deviation from flat but using a tiny level and con people into believing a curvature is level and flat is laughable.
Go and get a larger level or a larger straight edge and do this again and let's see what happens.
-
Why not keep the spirit level level on the tank, and roll the tank? It will remain level.
Nice try at twisting it. This is what you people have to do.
Planes do follow the curve of the Earth in level flight, Scepticmaniac.
Planes follow a path along Earth at whatever altitude. They do not follow any curvature unless they angle to change direction or to land or take off.
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
It's been explained to the likes of you a million fucking times.
Using foul language will not make your argument valid.
-
Then why didn't you use a straight edge?
Yes. You’re being an idiot.
This straight edge with a small frame of reference makes the curve of the tank look flat because the tank has such a general curve because of its size.
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
sceptimatic, why are you trying to change the subject from such a simple truth?
It does make you look like an idiot.
Now, part two of the argument.
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
-
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
Walk us through this for the artificial horizon indicator as an airplane passes over an ever increasing horizon as it flys towards the increasing slope and horizon of a mountain range?
Anyway…
https://flatearth.ws/artificial-horizon
An artificial horizon, or attitude indicator, is a flight instrument that indicates the aircraft’s orientation relative to Earth’s horizon and gives an immediate indication of the smallest change of orientation. An artificial horizon utilizes a gyroscope to detect the change of orientation and pendulous vanes to continuously correct the orientation relative to the level.
Flat-Earthers claim that an artificial horizon should drift over time if the airplane is flying over the spherical Earth because the gyroscope will eventually drift and no longer points toward Earth’s center. In reality, an artificial horizon has a self-correcting mechanism, keeping the gyroscope upright if it is displaced for any reason, including by the aircraft’s motion following Earth’s curvature.
Preflight Actions:
When an aircraft engine is first started and pneumatic or electric power is supplied to the instruments, the gyro is not erect
A self-erecting mechanism inside the instrument actuated by the force of gravity applies a precessing force, causing the gyro to rise to its vertical position
The attitude indicator should not bank more than 5° in taxi turns
https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/avionics-and-instruments/attitude-indicator
Attitude indicators have mechanisms that keep the instrument level with respect to the direction of gravity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
Flat Earth - Yes an aircraft Artificial Horizon self corrects in flight - Pt 1
-
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
The vacuum powered instruments that uses gravity?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pendulous Vanes | Pilot Tutorial
Ep. 60: Inner Workings of an Attitude Indicator | Gyroscope
Like this source better…
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/presolo/special/understanding-gyroscopic-instruments
Gyro instruments react to short-term movements of the airplane. In fact, the attitude indicator contains a set of weights intended to drive the instrument toward level flight by sensing gravity. These weights move the instrument face about 3 degrees per minute. So if you were to maintain a 30-degree coordinated banked turn for 10 minutes,
Commonly, the AI and HI are powered by vacuum pneumatic systems.
-
Flat Earthers still don't understand how an Artificial Horizon works - read comments please.
-
Not sure what you're trying to offer to back up your fictional globe.
You mean the very real globe you are yet to show a fault with.
Of course he can offer it as a straight line but it's never going to be a straight line, so he's never offering reality, only a pretence. That's the issue.
No, the issue is how a curve will appear straight if you view a small enough portion of it.
I clearly demonstrated how a small enough portion of a large enough curve will appear straight.
Yes, it is NOT a straight line. The point is YOU CANNOT TELL if you are looking at a small enough portion of it.
So the dishonest FEers claiming Earth must be flat because they can't see the water curve in their sink are blatantly lying to everyone, pretending a curve is straight.
And the horizon has always been a theoretical line.
No, it has always been a physical line.
The theoretical horizon has been in drawing, where people take the lazy option and pretend it is infinitely far away.
It is fairly easy to show you're wrong.
Then why are you completely incapable of doing so and need to resort to deflection and lies?
You are demonstrating the trickery you people use.
No, I'm demonstrating the trickery YOU people use, dishonest FEers.
You take an observation of Earth where you cannot see the curvature because you do not have an accurate and precise enough device to do so; and then dishonestly use that to pretend Earth is flat.
And that is exactly what I demonstrated. Taking a tiny portion of a circle, so you cannot tell it is a circle, and showing how it looks like a straight line.
And then I exposed it, by showing how it is actually a circle.
This is the dishonesty YOU use.
REers do not do this.
Instead, they appeal to things like objects obscured by the horizon clearly showing a curve.
Or countless other observations which work with a curved Earth and require so much convoluted BS and wishful thinking, requiring nature itself to be conspiring against us to pretend it would work on a FE.
The time REers bring up this straight line is to refute the lies of dishonest FEers like yourself.
We bring it up when lying FEers claim that you should always be able to see a curve, no matter how slight.
We bring it up when lying FEers claim that Earth must be flat because they can't measure/observe a curve, when they make no attempt to demonstrate they would be able to do so over such a short distance.
So no, this is trickery entirely by your side. We bring it up to expose this dishonesty of yours.
If you can't see a curve you can't claim a curve.
We can see a curve. As clearly demonstrated by mountains of evidence showing this curve.
We are not presenting this curve appearing straight to claim Earth is curved. We are presenting it to expose your lies.
It is not an argument put forward in favour of a RE. It is an argument put forward to refute your lies.
Stop pretending it is an argument to prove a RE.
None of this can be done over the vastness of Earth.
Except it has been done, repeatedly.
It can be done to show it's flat and water alone solves that, plus flying aircraft, as this topic is about.
Except, as clearly demonstrating, including by the above, IT DOESN"T!
The fact that you can be above water level and look towards an object above water level, yet have water obscure the bottom of the object clearly indicates water IS NOT FLAT!
Again, you are appealing to the exact dishonest trickery demonstrated above.
You look at water in your sink, can't see the curve, and use that to boldly proclaim the surface of water must be flat; which is pure BS.
Your observation in your sink cannot tell if water will be flat or curved over 10s of km.
And again, this is just further demonstrating your dishonesty.
You blatantly lie to everyone by claiming it is our trickery, while using the exact trickery that is being discussed.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
But observations of distant objects, with water obscuring the bottom of the object, even though both the observer and object are at a greater elevation than the water clearly demonstrates it DOES curve.
So water alone shows you are wrong.
No. You've decided this, not flat Earthers or alternate Earthers.
No, I haven't.
This thread has been about that, about claiming that planes should magically be able to measure the curved path they are following, and because they don't it magically proves Earth is flat.
You have done it repeatedly, by appealing to water as if it is flat, even though you have no evidence of that except tiny observations where you cannot tell.
You don't use actual evidence of anything of the sort.
There's nothing you can physically offer to prove your globe. You know this and so does anyone else.
Repeatedly lying will not save you.
I provided examples of evidence in that quote which you just entirely ignore.
Again, objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over the horizon is evidence of curvature.
Meanwhile, what do you have to pretend Earth is flat? Observations where you cannot tell if it is flat or curved, i.e. the very trickery being discussed; as well as blatant lies.
-
And yet again you flee from the topic, the simple lie you repeatedly claimed and had repeatedly refuted.
Again, when will you show even a single shred of integrity and admit to spouting pure BS to try to back up your flat Earth fantasy or do the impossible and defend your blatant lie?
Again, why should planes magically need to descend to stay level?
Remember, any argument you present for this MUST deal with the equivalent argument which would indicate they need to ascend.
Focusing on only one of those is just further dishonesty.
We measure objects for surface flatness to a micron, over miles of surfaces, and account for diffraction, etc.
Prove it.
The only times I have heard of anything close to that would be for things like LIGO, which had to account for curvature.
If we are able to account for diffraction, for example, as a known factor to account for in surveying land, they’d certainly account for your ‘curvature’ too.
And they do, in large distance surveying.
When they talk about their accuracy, it is a degree of accuracy at a certain distance, the maximum distance within a range of accuracy.
They are much more accurate at closer distances than the maximum stated for them.
You could just leave it as degree, as it is about ANGLES!
That means the linear measurement will depend upon distance.
That is also why they are often quoted as a gradient, e.g. 1mm per 100 m.
Do you think that laser levels cannot accurately measure for level over one mile, or over half a mile?
If you think there is one, why not provide it?
Most do not have the range to measure that far.
And as repeatedly shown, their accuracy within their range cannot account for the curve.
If you think there is a better one, PROVIDE IT!
NASA has said that they have pointed lasers at their little ‘reflectors’ on the moon, and bounced back to them. If so, they would be incredibly accurate, to a much much longer distance that you believed them to be!!
No, it wouldn't.
Not in the slightest.
You have had this delusional BS of yours refuted before. Why bring it up again?
If you would like a similar example, consider a car headlight when you driving down the street and illuminate one of the highly reflective surfaces.
Does that require you to carefully point your light at it? NO!
The same applies here.
All they need is for the laser to hit the retroreflector. It doesn't matter how wide the beam is.
And all laser beams diverge.
They are limited in their precision based upon their width, just like the angular resolution of a lens is limited.
If you want to be accurate to 1 m at 350 000 km, with a laser with a wavelength of 400 nm, you need a laser that is 170 m wide.
If you have it any narrower than that, it will diverge so it hits an area much larger than 1 m.
If you had a laser beam that was 1 m wide, by the time it reaches the moon, it would spread out to a size of 170 m wide.
And that is if it was perfect.
With things like the atmosphere scattering it and so on it is far more likely to spread out to several km wide.
So no, it does NOT need to be incredibly precise.
This is also why the return signal is so low.
It’s all fake, of course
Your arguments certainly are.
They clearly don’t account for any ‘curvature’ at all.
Based upon what? Your wishful thinking?
Simply seeing the buildings in Chicago or Toronto from over 40 or 50 miles away, when any ‘curvature’ over that distance would curve them down and out of our view, 100s of feet curving down by then, but they are still in view, except for the bottom, due to perspective.
This proves there is no ‘curvature’ right there, in fact
Wrong again.
In fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Even if we ignore refraction and place the observer at sea level, over 40 archaic units, the drop is only ~1000 archaic units.
The CN tower is almost double that height.
If Earth was flat, you would see the entirety of the building, just smaller. There is no reason for the bottom to be magically hidden if Earth was flat.
If Earth was flat, if you were able to resolve a 5 m section of the tower at the top, you should be able to do so at the bottom, and see the bottom of the tower.
The tower should appear to be a shrunk down version, still above the water.
But for a RE, you would expect to see the top, but the bottom hidden, obstructed by the curve.
It should appear as if the tower has sunk into the water.
And that is what we do see.
If you are on a hill, or there is significant refraction, you will see more of the tower.
So rather than disproving a curve, these observations PROVE a curve.
Perspective causes it.
No, it doesn't.
Perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom the objects.
It doesn't magically make them appear to sink below eye level.
Instead, it makes them appear smaller and closer to eye level.
No amount of perspective will hide the bottom of an object above sea level, or make it appear to sink into the water.
Why do we see further out when higher on the surface, or above the surface?
Because Earth is round, as explained repeatedly.
When I am above a flat surface, I can see to the edge of that surface, as there is nothing obstructing the view.
When I am in a straight corridor, I can see to the end of that corridor as there is nothing obstructing the view.
But when I am on a curved surface, or in a curved corridor, the curve blocks the view. As I get further from the curve I can see further.
This has been explained to you repeatedly. Stop playing dumb.
(https://i.imgur.com/niaEVME.png)
The higher you are above a RE, the further you can see.
So yet again, you are proving there is curvature.
It reaches up to a limit, where a horizon is formed.
And this limit is where curvature starts to beat perspective.
The effect of curvature makes it appear to sink, while perspective makes the ground appear to rise.
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
For a FE, there is no limit. The ground continues to rise at an ever decreasing rate.
For a RE, as the surface is actually going down, it eventually starts to appear to go down.
Again, you have had this explained to you before.
Again, all you are doing now is proving Earth is round.
For a FE, there should be no limit. You should be able to see to the edge, or until a mountain or the like obstructs your view.
For a RE, there should be a limit, and that limit depends upon your height.
-
Put your spirit level on that same curve as horizontal as if you were going to roll that big tank.
Place your level on it and keep that level bubble centred as you move the level and see if it curves around that tank or if it quickly leaves the tank in a straight line.
And more blatant dishonesty.
Will you also be rolling the tank to keep the direction of down consistent? Or are you just using the standard dishonest FE BS or pretending there is a magical universal down?
Earth is not a tiny ball on top of a much larger ball. It is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any larger mass.
Related to this, what is the top of the tank?
The point opposite Earth.
So what is the "top" of Earth? The point opposite what?
For Earth, there is no top.
You have down towards the centre and up away from the centre (approximately anyway).
So if you kept that tank oriented so the spirit level is at the top (to honestly simulate Earth) and rolled the tank along under the spirit level, you would not notice a curve between the tank and spirit level.
They're called spirit levels for a reason, not spirit curves.
Yes, because they measure LEVEL, i.e. the direction perpendicular to down.
Notice that they aren't called spirit flats?
Now imagine flying a plane over a curve. You get the same thing.
Yes, the same thing, where the curvature is insignificant and not able to be detected.
you would be consistently in a downward dive, no matter how small that dive was.
No, you wouldn't
Again, this is simply demonstrated by considering a round trip.
You start at A, you travel to B and then turn around and go back to A.
According to your delusional BS you need to go down to get to B from A, and then you need to go down again to get back to A.
This means A must be lower than A, clearly showing your argument is pure BS.
Likewise, it is also shown to be BS by the fact you can consider it in the opposite direction. Instead of focusing on where the plane has to go, focus on where it has been, and falsely claim it needs to have gone up to reach where it is. That would mean it needs to be in a constant ascent. If you can equally argue for 2 opposite options then the argument is BS.
What the honest argument would be is the change in the attitude of the plane, i.e. it would need to rotate.
Assuming it is travelling at 1000 km/hr, along the equator, in the direction Earth is spinning so it also gets the 444 m/s from the rotation of Earth, then its total speed would be roughly 721 m/s. That equates to 0.0065 degrees per second.
That will NOT be noticeable.
That will NOT be measurable.
And more importantly, the plane is already adjusting its attitude to maintain level flight.
So these corrections needed will be insignificant. So again, your argument is BS.
The spirit level has everything to do with it or you wouldn't have used it.
All it provided was a straight edge, an edge which did not allow you to see the curvature of the tank.
That is what was being discussed.
But because that refutes your BS, you ignore it and deflect, trying to twist it into something else.
Let me guess, the tiny spirit level was all you had at the time and a length of timber or metal box section would've rendered the experiment useless.
Why do you keep playing dumb?
The point is that over a short enough distance YOU CANNOT TELL IT IS CURVED!
So yes, going to a much larger section of it would entirely defeat the point.
That is why dishonest people like you want to stick to water in your sink to pretend it is flat, rather than long distance observations which clearly show it is curved.
The horizon is theoretical
The horizon is real.
You not liking that will not change it.
Seeing as we always see it with level vision we cannot be flying over a globe, no matter how ou try to twist it.
You have had this dishonest BS refuted before. Why bring it back up?
We see it with "level vision" with a significant FOV.
If you limit the FOV enough, you don't see it with a level view.
It is observed and measured to be BELOW level.
And by an amount consistent with a RE.
It doesn't matter how you try to twist that, it shows you are spouting pure BS and shows Earth is round.
You want to dishonestly pretend that something 1 mm below eye level at a distance of 1 km, is magically out of your level view.
No, I pay attention to the argument
And then proceed to blatantly lie about it to avoid admitting you are wrong.
I simply point out the massive errors and twisting in it with this global nonsense.
You mean the honest and accurate portrayal which matches reality? The one with massive errors and twisting is you.
I provide plenty.
No, you don't.
You dishonestly deflect from the argument and bring up the same refuted BS, blatantly lying about reality to pretend Earth is flat.
What you take from it will be nothing because you're 100% indoctrinated into the global model, no matter how absurd it is.
Quite the opposite.
The clearly indoctrinated one here is you. You need to repeat the same refuted lies as if they haven't already been refuted. You refuse to see reason and just cling to your fantasy.
You dismiss the RE as absurd but cannot show any fault with it.
You resort to pathetic lies and trickery, and when it is exposed you claim it is the other side doing it, and will some times try to twist a refutation of your delusional BS into a positive argument for the RE so you can attack that strawman rather than admit you were spouting dishonest BS.
The straight edge will massively show deviation from flat
Only if it is big enough. If it is small enough, it wont. That is the point you keep ignoring.
but using a tiny level and con people into believing a curvature is level and flat is laughable.
Projecting again.
You are the one using a tiny area, like the water in your sink, to pretend level is magically flat; while ignoring large scale observations which show it isn't.
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
How?
-
Simply seeing the buildings in Chicago or Toronto from over 40 or 50 miles away, when any ‘curvature’ over that distance would curve them down and out of our view, 100s of feet curving down by then, but they are still in view, except for the bottom, due to perspective.
This proves there is no ‘curvature’ right there, in fact
Trubalonium2, you shot yourself in the foot with this post, and didn't realise.
Since when does perspective cause the bottom of objects to disappear? Even on a theoretical flat plane model on a computer, if you construct a building and then zoom out, the ENTIRE of the building must always be visible, no matter what height you are, even if your eye is at ground level.
It's the same out here in the real world. The bottoms of buildings don't just disappear due to perspective. They disappear due to Earth curvature, just like the bottoms of ships.
Trubalonium2, you acknowledge the bottoms of buildings cannot be seen as you increase your distance from them, so you acknowledge an inescapable globe earth proof.
-
Why not keep the spirit level level on the tank, and roll the tank? It will remain level.
Nice try at twisting it. This is what you people have to do.
Planes do follow the curve of the Earth in level flight, Scepticmaniac.
Planes follow a path along Earth at whatever altitude. They do not follow any curvature unless they angle to change direction or to land or take off.
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
It's been explained to the likes of you a million fucking times.
Using foul language will not make your argument valid.
You have been regurgitating these same worn out old arguments for over a decade, each time where your ass was handed to you. Either you have an extreme learning difficulty or you are like dory in a fishbowl who legitimately can't remember what you posted yesterday.
Planes fly at an altitude always based on sea level and outside air pressure. Height above sea level also follows the curve of the Earth as does air pressure at height. This argument which you are so fond of is the most easily disposed of in the flat earth tool kit. It's such an idiotic argument it's incredible you bunch still reach for it after all this time!
You don't seem to understand normal language at times, Scepticmaniac, so spicing it up with a bit of colorful language to punctuate the frustration you cause, is fair enough. Besides, it's nothing you haven't heard a thousand times in all those science fiction shows you watch. But if a naughty word upsets your delicate sensibilities so much that you now need to go into therapy, well I think therapy would be a good thing for you any way.
-
Perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom the objects.
It doesn't magically make them appear to sink below eye level.
Instead, it makes them appear smaller and closer to eye level.
No amount of perspective will hide the bottom of an object above sea level, or make it appear to sink into the water.[\quote]
So please tell me that perspective doesn’t magically make the surface and objects on the surface appear to rise, because it’s absolute fact, yes?
This is clearly ‘magic’, yet it happens in reality, the real world.
You’re completely wrong to claim that perspective makes things look less and less higher with more distance, it makes things look more and more higher with more distance.
Look at a ship going outward from you on the ocean, from close in, to a half mile out, to a mile out, and two miles out, and see how high it looks at each point.
It seems more and more higher with more and more distance away, a sharper rise with more distance away from you.
The sharper rise will eventually end with a horizon, the vanishing point or line of perspective, where we cannot see objects past, and that’s what happens here.
The only way we can compare what both surfaces look like, is by having both surfaces, one flat, one curved as you claim it to be, and then we can compare them both, which would settle the debate right away, and prove which is true, flat or ball Earth.
But the problem is, you think everything is curved, without ever seeing or measuring a curve, as level cannot mean flat and horizontal, which it does mean, and is measured by instruments as, but you wish it wasn’t true, and make up a level to your made up curvature of ball Earth, that’s so incredibly ‘slight’ of a curve, it’s like it wasn’t even there at all!
If it’s so slight of a curve, it cannot be a sharp curve that makes objects vanish from sight from a 1/4 mile section of the surface, because it was always higher and higher up, to see it, with more distance away from us, while the surface was always flat, never curving at all, which would show objects less and less rising up with more distance away.
That is how objects WOULD look on a curved surface, with more distance away from us.
A curved surface cannot look higher and higher with an ever sharper curve with more distance away from us, it would always sink down more and more.
-
How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
Perspective distorts and limits our view outward, causes us to see the surface rising up and causes the horizons at the end point.
They cause higher and higher surfaces to appear, in more and more distance out from us, not less and less upward, that’s utter bs, it’s the very opposite!
Why do we see further out on the same floor, when we are standing up, then we can see if we lie down on that same surface, which is flat?
You say that if we were on a flat surface, we’d be able to see everywhere over the Earth, and there’d be no horizons at all!
Because to claim that surfaces appear to rise less and less with more distance, is just ridiculous, proven to be, in fact.
A ship looks ever more higher with more distance away, same as the surface does.
The highest we see the surface, and the highest we see objects on the surface, is at the horizon, the vanishing point of our view, over a flat surface.
It never rises less and less with more distance away, everyone knows it rises more and more in the distance, you know it too, so stop the bs act!
-
Still fleeing from your lies about planes I see.
I shall just take that as an admission of defeat and that you fully accept you were blatantly lying to everyone and that you know planes do not need to magically descend to stay level over a round Earth, and that if you ever bring it up again, I can just quote this, as your admission of defeat and show that you are lying yet again.
So please tell me that perspective doesn’t magically make the surface and objects on the surface appear to rise, because it’s absolute fact, yes?
Why? I never said that.
I said perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom of objects.
Over a flat surface, perspective will make things below your eye level appear higher, with the angle of dip decreasing with increasing distance, but NEVER going above eye level.
Likewise, it will make things above your eye level appear lower, but again, NEVER going below eye level.
This means if there is some distant object, with nothing in front of it (just the ground/sea), then it will NEVER be hidden as there is nothing to obstruct the view.
This is clearly ‘magic’, yet it happens in reality, the real world.
No, that is not magic. That is how perspective works.
The MAGIC is having an object above eye level magically appear below eye level, as no amount of perspective can ever do that.
And there is no need for magic when you accept Earth is round.
You’re completely wrong to claim that perspective makes things look less and less higher with more distance, it makes things look more and more higher with more distance.
Look at a ship going outward from you on the ocean, from close in, to a half mile out, to a mile out, and two miles out, and see how high it looks at each point.
No, you are wrong.
It entirely depends on if the object is above or below you.
Perspective makes it shrink and get closer to the centre of your vision (shrinking the gap between the centre of your vision and it).
If you have a very tall ship, such that when standing close you need to look up to see the top, then as it goes into the distance the top appears to go down.
It seems more and more higher with more and more distance away, a sharper rise with more distance away from you.
No, that is a blatant lie.
It is a shallower rise with more distance.
Again, the angle of elevation is a fairly simple trig relationship.
tan(a)=h/d.
With increasing d, a gets smaller (in magnitude, so if it is below you it gets larger).
At a small distance, a small change in distance results in a large change in angle. e.g. if you have something 1 m below you, and you move it from directly in front of your face to 1 m away, it goes from -90 degrees to -45 degrees.
But if you move it to 2 m away, it only goes to -26.6 degrees.
If you move it to 10 m, it goes to -5.7.
If you move it to 11 m it goes to -5.19.
If you move it to 100 m it goes to -0.572.
If you move it to 101 m it goes to -0.567.
As it gets further, the same change in distance results in a smaller change in angle.
This has been shown to you repeatedly.
Again:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
The sharper rise will eventually end with a horizon
The point where the curvature starts winning.
The point that clearly shows that Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, this would NEVER happen.
If Earth was flat, the "horizon" would need to be the edge of Earth.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
You require pure magic, where perspective magically stops and reverses.
Remember what you said, perspective makes things (below you) appear higher.
Yet to form the horizon with perspective alone, you need perspective to magically stop.
To magically make it so the ground further out doesn't get higher.
To have things above the ground appear to sink, you need to go one step further and have perspective magically reverse, to have the ground which should be appearing to get higher instead appear to go down.
So what causes this magical reversal?
There is no explanation from perspective, but plenty from curvature.
The only way we can compare what both surfaces look like, is by having both surfaces, one flat, one curved as you claim it to be, and then we can compare them both, which would settle the debate right away, and prove which is true, flat or ball Earth.
And we do, with simple tables, were if we are above it we can see everything above the table, with nothing magically hiding it from view.
But with a ball, we see that initially perspective wins, with the ground appearing to rise, until it goes too far and appears to sink.
So debate settled, Earth is round?
The problem is you refuse all those observations, and instead want to only ever use observations where the curvature of Earth is enough to cause the bottom of objects to be obscured.
Something which requires the magical reversal of perspective to magically change when it magically occurs to perfectly match the RE.
But the problem is, you think everything is curved, without ever seeing or measuring a curve
No. I accept Earth is curved, from seeing this curve, this curve which has been measured countless times by so many people.
You just reject that curve, because you are desperate for Earth to be flat.
If it’s so slight of a curve, it cannot be a sharp curve that makes objects vanish from sight from a 1/4 mile section of the surface, because it was always higher and higher up, to see it, with more distance away from us, while the surface was always flat, never curving at all, which would show objects less and less rising up with more distance away.
That is how objects WOULD look on a curved surface, with more distance away from us.
What are you trying to say there?
That over a flat surface, objects would rise less? If so, that is the complete opposite of what is expected.
But initially they are the same.
The math is really quite simple, as shown above.
A curved surface cannot look higher and higher with an ever sharper curve with more distance away from us, it would always sink down more and more.
Yes, it can.
As shown by the math above.
As I have asked you before, why should perspective magically stop working for a sphere?
All it takes to show your claim is pure BS is to look at a ball.
Go find a ball, put it on the ground, mark the top most point of it, then go stand up near it (so it is below you) and look down at it.
Even better if you can line yourself up directly above the top.
According to your delusional BS, you should see the point at the top, and no further. Everything beyond that should be magically hidden from sight. But that is clearly BS.
You can also do the same by standing on the top of a hill, or the top of a ramp.
If your dishonest, delusional BS was true, if you were standing at the top of a ramp, the ramp should be invisible, with no way for you to see it.
But it is trivial to see, showing your claim is pure BS.
Standing on a large ball, there will be a point where your eye is tangent to it. You can look down further, and see ground that is closer. Again, this trivially shows your claim is pure BS.
-
How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
It shouldn't.
Perspective is nothing more than a statement that your vision works with angles.
There is no distortion or magical limitation.
It is simply what is the angle to the object.
This is it:
(https://i.imgur.com/R8gCt3J.png)
The further away the ground is, the higher up it appears.
This continues FOREVER, at an ever decreasing rate.
The only way to make it go down, is if Earth curves.
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
Now, it starts going up, but eventually you reach the point where your line of sight is tangent.
Now if you go further around the curve, you go down.
Perspective distorts and limits our view outward, causes us to see the surface rising up and causes the horizons at the end point.
The "end point" for perspective is infinite distance.
Why do we see further out on the same floor, when we are standing up, then we can see if we lie down on that same surface, which is flat?
If the floor is flat, we don't.
You say that if we were on a flat surface, we’d be able to see everywhere over the Earth, and there’d be no horizons at all!
Because that is what all the available evidence shows, and because you are yet to explain what magic causes the horizon.
Because to claim that surfaces appear to rise less and less with more distance, is just ridiculous, proven to be, in fact.
Do you mean for a flat surface? Because that is what all the evidence shows.
That initially the rise is very dramatic, but with increasing distance the rise from a bit of distance gets less and less, slowly approaching 0.
Just like above.
What is ridiculous is claiming that it magically stops and reverses.
But great job contradicting yourself again. Here you are claiming it rises the same, but then directly below claiming it magically stops.
The highest we see the surface, and the highest we see objects on the surface, is at the horizon, the vanishing point of our view, over a flat surface.
The horizon is NOT the vanishing point.
The horizon is a finite distance away, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
It never rises less and less with more distance away, everyone knows it rises more and more in the distance, you know it too, so stop the bs act!
You know perspective can't magically stop and reverse and make the ground appear to go down to make objects appear to sink into a flat surface and hide the bottom.
So you stop the BS act.
Because yes, everyone knows that perspective would mean the flat surface continues to rise in the distance, FOREVER.
-
How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
Your stupid.
We are referring to how “perspective” can physically block a ship from view as it goes beyond the horizon where it can’t be brought back into view with zoom/magnification.
The answer is perspective can’t block objects physically from view thus why when a ship goes over the horizon and becomes physically blocked from view bottom first is clear evidence of a spherical earth.
-
More so to his brain waves - the ground appears to rise.
And the onject far away on the ground also appears to rise.
Both appear to rise.
One doesnt rise while the other remains on some OTHERA magical line of sight.
Both move together because both are together.
Just like parallel train tracks persepctively on the horozontal conjoin but the left tracl will never block the roght trackl.
UNLESS BOTH TRACKS turn thus cause one way to phsyically block the line of sight.
Holy cow! Amazing!
-
How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
Your stupid.
We are referring to how “perspective” can physically block a ship from view as it goes beyond the horizon where it can’t be brought back into view with zoom/magnification.
The answer is perspective can’t block objects physically from view thus why when a ship goes over the horizon and becomes physically blocked from view bottom first is clear evidence of a spherical earth.
It is clear evidence that Earth is flat, because this will only happen like that on a flat surface, and not on any other surface.
This would not be what we’d see if we were on a curved
surface, but when we don’t have a curved surface, it is hard to imagine what it would look like, what is different about it, compared to a flat surface.
Have you ever seen a drawing or painting that uses perspective in it?
Of course you have, perspective is always used in drawings and paintings, to give it depth, and 3 dimensional appearance, like the real world is and looks to us.
But it’s always flat surfaces and straight lines, outward and across, in its structure, or guidelines.
If Earths surface was curved, the surface would curve more and more with more distance outward, yet we see it rising up more and more with more distance outward on surfaces, so it is the opposite of what would be seen if it WAS curved!
A curved surface constantly curves downward, more and more downward over distance. If a ship went outward on a curved ocean, it would slowly go out of view from the bottom of it, then halfway up it, then all of it would be out of view.
Perspective would still make the ship appear to rise, but not as high up as on our flat surface. Because perspectives greatest effect is with more distance away, it works on a flat surface best of all, making the surface rise more and more than at closer distances.
A curved surface would nullify this effect, because it curves downward more and more with distance.
-
Still fleeing from your lies about planes I see.
I shall just take that as an admission of defeat and that you fully accept you were blatantly lying to everyone and that you know planes do not need to magically descend to stay level over a round Earth, and that if you ever bring it up again, I can just quote this, as your admission of defeat and show that you are lying yet again.
Thanks for confirmation of this by way of silence.
Thanks for admitting you have been lying to us, intentionally.
It is clear evidence that Earth is flat, because this will only happen like that on a flat surface, and not on any other surface.
Repeating the same lie wont help you.
Over a flat surface, an object below the elevation of your eyes will continually appear to rise.
If you pick any object some distance away, below your eye level, then everything at its elevation or lower at a lesser distance will appear lower, making it impossible for the ground below it to obstruct the view.
So if Earth was flat, we would NEVER see objects above Earth appear to sink into Earth with the bottom being obstructed.
That requires a curved Earth, where initially perspective will win and make the object appear higher, until at some distance the curvature will start to win and the object will appear to sink with the bottom being obstructed.
So again, directly contrary to your blatant lie the shape required is a round or curved surface, not a flat one.
This would not be what we’d see if we were on a curved
surface, but when we don’t have a curved surface, it is hard to imagine what it would look like, what is different about it, compared to a flat surface.
Good thing we have plenty of flat surface and round surfaces which we can easily check with.
Unfortunately for you, reality shows that round surfaces match what is seen with Earth.
But it is also trivial to use computer software to simulate what a surface would look like. And again, a round surface matches Earth, not a flat surface.
Have you ever seen a drawing or painting that uses perspective in it?
You mean the simple one where everything just gets smaller as it gets closer to the horizon with nothing ever having the bottom magically disappear, or having the tops curve down?
That is because it is simple to do, not because it matches reality.
If Earths surface was curved, the surface would curve more and more with more distance outward
That's right (ignoring technicalities).
So eventually you will reach a point where this curvature will win over perspective.
So the ground will initially appear to rise, before it reaches a peak and starts going back down.
That peak is called the horizon.
This is exactly what we see.
Again, this is clearly demonstrated by this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
Conversely, if Earth was flat, this never happens.
You never reach that peak because you have nothing acting to oppose perspective.
So instead, the ground just keeps on rising at an ever decreasing rate.
yet we see it rising up more and more with more distance outward
Only when perspective is beating curvature. i.e. at short distances.
A curved surface constantly curves downward, more and more downward over distance. If a ship went outward on a curved ocean, it would slowly go out of view from the bottom of it, then halfway up it, then all of it would be out of view.
Just like we see, at least if the ship is large enough to resolve.
If Earth was flat, that would never happen, and all you would need to do is zoom in, until the atmosphere makes the entire ship too blurry to resolve.
So the ship would fade away. It would NEVER appear to sink into Earth. it would NEVER have the bottom obstructed while the top is still clearly resolved.
Again, what we see matches a round Earth, not a flat Earth.
Perspective would still make the ship appear to rise, but not as high up as on our flat surface.
And with this you admit your previous claims were blatant lies.
With this you admit that you would see a round surface initially appear to rise.
That it shouldn't just magically go down straight away.
A curved surface would nullify this effect, because it curves downward more and more with distance.
You literally just basically admitted that is a lie, so why repeat the same pathetic lie?
Again, the comparison is quite simple:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
For a flat Earth, the surface continually appears to rise, without end, just rising more and more slowly.
For a round Earth, the surface initially appears to rise while perspective wins, but eventually the curvature becomes significant enough for it to win and the ground to appear to sink (assuming you could see it through the closer ground). This causes the horizon and explains what is observed in reality.
-
How does perspective make a surface appear to be rising when it should look the same height everywhere you look?
Your stupid.
We are referring to how “perspective” can physically block a ship from view as it goes beyond the horizon where it can’t be brought back into view with zoom/magnification.
The answer is perspective can’t block objects physically from view thus why when a ship goes over the horizon and becomes physically blocked from view bottom first is clear evidence of a spherical earth.
It is clear evidence that Earth is flat, because this will only happen like that on a flat surface, and not on any other surface.
This would not be what we’d see if we were on a curved
surface, but when we don’t have a curved surface, it is hard to imagine what it would look like, what is different about it, compared to a flat surface.
Have you ever seen a drawing or painting that uses perspective in it?
Of course you have, perspective is always used in drawings and paintings, to give it depth, and 3 dimensional appearance, like the real world is and looks to us.
But it’s always flat surfaces and straight lines, outward and across, in its structure, or guidelines.
If Earths surface was curved, the surface would curve more and more with more distance outward, yet we see it rising up more and more with more distance outward on surfaces, so it is the opposite of what would be seen if it WAS curved!
A curved surface constantly curves downward, more and more downward over distance. If a ship went outward on a curved ocean, it would slowly go out of view from the bottom of it, then halfway up it, then all of it would be out of view.
Perspective would still make the ship appear to rise, but not as high up as on our flat surface. Because perspectives greatest effect is with more distance away, it works on a flat surface best of all, making the surface rise more and more than at closer distances.
A curved surface would nullify this effect, because it curves downward more and more with distance.
That is what a ship does, travelling out to sea. It disappears from the bottom up, exactly as you declare it would happen on a curved Earth. Believe me, you arent doing your flat earth priests any favors with this light bulb moment!
That is one way we know earth is a globe. That is one way you can prove to yourself Earth is a globe.
-
It is clear evidence that Earth is flat, because this will only happen like that on a flat surface, and not on any other surface.
A “flat surface” and perspective doesn’t physically block objects from view as proven in the cited thread below you posted in jackass.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.msg2370399#msg2370399
-
Another thread derailed because a flat earther runs from the truth.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
jackass.
Please review the forum rules. If I see this nonsense again, you'll be banned according to them.
-
I'm still curious as how perspective causes things to vanish from the bottom up. How does perspective know which way is up? Why doesn't it change when I tilt my head to the side?
I'd love to see a diagram that tries to explain what they think is going on here, but it's never explained, just stated that "it's perspective" without elaboration.
I really want to see a diagram, I just can't understand how this is supposed to work.
-
The problem is continuity.
Persepective says things converge at distance.
Check.
Ships and bulidings disappear bottom->up.
Check.
Therefore ergo
As perspective rises bottom->up, it must therefore cause this blockage bottom->up of far away objects.
Unfortubately, most peoole recognize the far away object also persepctively rises...
-
No, a curved surface will curve downward more and more with more distance, while we actually see the surface rise up more and more with more distance. That is why we know the surface IS flat, not curved
-
No, a curved surface will curve downward more and more with more distance, while we actually see the surface rise up more and more with more distance. That is why we know the surface IS flat, not curved
Wrong again.
You have already admitted that is pure BS.
Remember this:
Perspective would still make the ship appear to rise, but not as high up as on our flat surface.
The fact that the surface initially rises but then appears to sink is one way we know that Earth is round, not flat, as a flat surface should never do that, while a round surface should do exactly that.
Again, if your dishonest BS was true, it would be impossible to see the ground in front of you, because it is below your eyes.
It would be even more impossible to look down a ramp, as not only is it below your eyes, it is also getting lower.
It would be even more impossible to look at a ball, as it should just appear as a single point.
Again, it really is simple:
Perspective makes far away things below you appear higher. This applies to EVERYTHING, even a round Earth.
This also follows a fairly simple formula: a=-atan(h/d)
Without curvature, there is just 1 effect, making everything below you appear higher with distance, with no end, meaning no horizon.
In this case we just let e represent the eye height, and sub in h=e.
This gives us a=-atan(e/d);
As d is the only variable, that is all that changes.
as d gets bigger, e/d gets smaller in magnitude (but stays positive) so a gets smaller in magnitude but stays negative (i.e. below eye level).
Again, this continues to rise at an ever decreasing rate, slowly approaching 0.
NO HORIZON is formed.
With a ramp some distance in front of you, there are 2 effects, perspective making it go up, and the ramp making it go down.
This raises a very simple question: Which one wins?
If the ramp is shallow enough, perspective wins, and it keeps on rising.
If the ramp is steep enough, it wins and it goes down, and you can't see over it.
This now needs some extra variables. The simplest would be the slope (s), and the distance at which the ramp begins (d0).
The "flat" ground in front of the ramp goes as above, slowly rising, but then when we get to the ramp we have:
a = -atan((e+(d-d0)*s)/d)
This can be broken apart into 2 parts:
a=-atan((e-d0*s)/d + s)
There is a part which varies based upon d, and a part that is constant.
Now instead of going towards 0, it goes towards -atan(s).
If this is below the point at which the ramp starts, it goes down.
If it is above, it continues to rise forever, just approaching a different value.
This can also be considered as just projecting the ramp back to the observer.
If the slope is steep enough, it goes above the observer, so it can't be seen.
If the slope is shallow enough it goes below, and can be seen.
A steep slope gives the horizon.
You have the ground in front of it rising up, followed by the ramp which goes down.
And this shows what you need to get an horizon.
You initially need perspective to win, but you need to reach a point where it loses.
And this is what a curved Earth gives.
That is because directly under you, the ground is going straight out, but as it gets further and further away, it curves down more and more until it is going down at an angle steep enough for curvature to beat perspective.
For a round Earth, at least as an approximation, the drop is given as d^2/2R.
This means we have:
a=-atan((e+d^2/2R)/d)
which again can be split into:
a=atan(e/d + d/2R)
Notice, 2 competing effects.
On one hand we have e/d, where as d increases e/d becomes smaller.
On the other hand we have d/2R, where as d increases d/2R becomes bigger.
If the change in the first one is more significant, it appears to rise. If the second is more significant, it appears to sink.
Fortunately, getting the change is easy. We just differentiate.
This gives us -e/d^2 and 1/2R.
1/2R is a constant. Specifically ~0.000000157 /m.
But -e/d^2 varies.
At 1 m it is -2 /m.
At 1 km it is -0.000002 /m. Still larger (in magnitude) than 1/2R.
At 10 km it is -0.00000002 /m. Now smaller than 1/2R.
We can even find the point where they are equal and opposite.
Before this point perspective wins and the ground appears to rise.
After this point curvature wins and the ground appears to sink (as do objects on top of it).
-(-e/d^2) = 1/2R
d^2=e*2R
d=sqrt(2*e*R).
Putting back e=2 m, and R=6371 km, we get 5048 m or ~5 km.
And how far away is the horizon on a RE for an observer with an eye height of 2 m? Roughly 5 km.
So again, the RE matches what is observed in reality. A flat Earth does not.
In order to not have the ground appear to rise, you need to reduce your eye height to 0.
For a flat Earth, the ground should ALWAYS appear to rise, without end, never producing a horizon.
For a round Earth, initially the ground should appear to rise, with perspective winning. However after a certain distance (based upon observer height and the radius of Earth) the effects of curvature win and the ground appears to sink, producing the horizon at the point where this begins.
Once more, RE matches reality, FE does not.
Here is a desmos graph you can use to check this out (but using R=637.1 m to make it drop down within 10s of m).
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t71r8fecpt
-
No, a curved surface will curve downward more and more with more distance, while we actually see the surface rise up more and more with more distance. That is why we know the surface IS flat, not curved
Why is there a dip to the horizon.
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
-
This entire debate can easily be settled, forever.
All we need, is a perfectly flat, measured flat, confirmed to be flat, by both sides, to leave no doubt at all, it IS entirely flat, and horizontal.
Why haven’t we already DONE such a test before?
It would settle the whole debate, instantly.
Of course, the whole surface IS flat, and measured as flat, and always looks flat, drawn flat, represented as flat, but somehow, just by saying it is NOT flat, while measuring and looking flat, we’re supposed to accept that it’s curved, while not measured for a curve, nor seeing any sort of curve!!
And then, you just say there are no flat surfaces, or any long enough to prove if a horizon forms on it!!
No, we have very accurate laser levels which would measure for a flat surface long enough to form a horizon, easily.
In fact, we can use laser levels to prove the surface doesn’t curve down by 8 inches over one single mile, even before we make a horizon on it at 3 miles out!!
Your excuses are pure nonsense. If you think the most accurate laser levels can’t even measure an 8 inch curve over one mile, think again.
You keep ignoring what I told you about how they determine the accuracy of laser levels over some distance.
First of all, they are called laser LEVELS, and use a fine, straight beam of light to measure for level.
How could a straight beam of light measure for level, if you believe level means level to Earths ‘curvature’, which would obviously NOT be a flat, straight or horizontal surface?
They couldn’t use straight beams of light to measure for your ‘curvature’, when you can’t use your made up pulling down all things force, like you do with other instruments which measure for level.
Your magical force can only perform some amazing feats that stretch into fairy tale land, but it can’t grab laser lights and ‘gently curve them to match Earths curvature’, even you don’t go that far.
Curvature would be 8 inches of curve over a mile, 8 inches squared per two miles, or 16 inches of a curve, 8 inches squared per 3 miles, and what do you think the curve would be at a horizon, 3 miles away?
It certainly cannot be more than the height of some large ships, so they wouldn’t vanish from sight by a 4 or 5 foot curve on the ocean surface, where you say perspective ‘loses out’ to ‘curvature’
The only problem is that you refuse to accept we have and can measure flat surfaces, of any length at all, which we do all the time, with many instruments.
I’ll ask you one more time-
How can they measure a laser level for accuracy, over a distance, unless they know and create targets that ARE true level?
I mean, they say a laser level is accurate to within +/- 3 mm or so, over 300 feet or so.
And we know that laser levels use straight beams of fine light to measure for level.
That means, the only way they COULD test its accuracy over 300 feet, is if they have a target 300 feet away which IS perfectly level to start with!
They can’t be measuring for any sort of curvature with a straight beam of light, it would be impossible to do, unless they first accounted for it over 300 feet or whatever.
How could they measure for laser level accuracy over greater and greater distances with a curve of 30 or 40 feet?
It would mean having to first measure for the curvature over that distance, which nobody knows or does or has tried to measure for, because it is ‘too slight’ to measure for, anyway!!
Sure, just because ‘curvature’ over 3 miles makes everything curve down so far we can’t see them anymore, it doesn’t mean it’s important to measure for 2,000 foot high buildings or bridges, they don’t vanish at all from ‘curvature’, just ships do on oceans!!
It’s either going to be measured and accounted for in testing accuracy of laser levels, or it doesn’t exist at all, to be measured and accounted for.
It’s funny to hear your side say a new bridge or tunnel was built, and they accounted for ‘curvature’ in it!
What would you think they’d absolutely HAVE to know, first of all, long before they designed it, and built it?
If they actually DID account for ‘curvature’ of the surface, they would have to know, and measure, exactly what that ‘curvature’ would BE, over their structures lengths!!
But I’ve never once seen any documents that mention any ‘curvature’ measurements, or anything else, which would not make any sense at all, if it WAS accounted for.
We should find those mysterious and unspoken measurements for ‘curvature’, because they obviously didn’t know what it was before they ‘accounted for it’!!
Sort of like how we could say we ‘account for’ flying pink elephants on flights all the time!
They account for something they don’t measure for, I’m very impressed by such miracles
-
This entire debate can easily be settled, forever.
Why?
We have the dip of the horizon.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
We can see boats disappear bottom up..
You need to imagine
Don’t need to imagine anything.
Just watching a ship go beyond the horizon doesn’t work in anyway how you claim your delusion works.
Evidently not because things disappear bottom up.
Part four, the classic. Ships disappearing bottom up.
During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNACybk.jpg)
Then a ship farther away.
(https://i.imgur.com/uH4QbOc.jpg)
If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon. There is always my go to ship video.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq5W3G9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7L2pQJ6.jpg)
Finally, there is the Rainy Lake Experiment.
No, laser levels are instruments which use a laser light which beams out as a fine, sharp, STRAIGHT light, within a degree of accuracy, over distances.
Ok. You have a laser going out “straight”. No other tool.
Now. How does it show the earth is “flat” or “curved”
And you still don’t need a laser as proven by…
Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion
Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!
-
This entire debate can easily be settled, forever.
And it has been.
YOU ARE WRONG!
A flat surface will continue to rise FOREVER!
They never magically stop and start going back down.
A CURVED surface will start going up, with perspective winning initially, but eventually reach a point where the curvature is too great, and it starts going down.
This is observed with every instance of flat and curved surfaces.
The only one claimed to be special is Earth, by FEers that need to lie to pretend a flat surface magically acts exactly like a round surface should.
Your pathetic lies and excuses will not save you.
All we need, is a perfectly flat, measured flat, confirmed to be flat, by both sides, to leave no doubt at all, it IS entirely flat, and horizontal.
Why haven’t we already DONE such a test before?
Because dishonest people like you will NEVER accept reality.
And because it is impossible have a perfectly flat surface.
You can only ever get flat to some level of accuracy.
And in every case, what we see is consistent with the known laws of perspective.
So no, when we have dishonest people like you, we will NEVER have the "debate" "settled".
Because you have no interest in debate. All you care about is repeating the same dishonest BS to pretend your fantasy is true.
Of course, the whole surface IS flat, and measured as flat, and always looks flat, drawn flat, represented as flat, but somehow, just by saying it is NOT flat, while measuring and looking flat, we’re supposed to accept that it’s curved, while not measured for a curve, nor seeing any sort of curve!!
Repeating the same lies will not save you.
No measurement that is capable of measuring the curvature of Earth has ever shown it to be flat.
There are plenty of measurements that show it is a curve.
And we quite clearly see the curve in the form of the horizon.
And then, you just say there are no flat surfaces, or any long enough to prove if a horizon forms on it!!
No, YOU say that.
I correctly say that flat surfaces produce horizons only at their edges. Consistent with EVERY flat surface ever seen.
You falsely claim that all these surfaces are magically too short.
No, we have very accurate laser levels which would measure for a flat surface long enough to form a horizon, easily.
No, we don't.
We have accurate theodolites which measure Earth's curvature.
And your delusional BS if true would mean we can't, as you would require light to magically bend to make your magical horizon.
And no need to bring up laser levels to try to flee from the topic yet again.
Not to long ago in another thread you said this:
Maybe you think if you spew out a pile of bs arguments like this, I’ll pass over a few of them, trying to filter out the crap.
What’s the point in that? Do you think if I miss some of your crap arguments, I’m ‘avoiding it’? Like you had some great argument that I run away from?
Yet that is exactly what you are doing now.
Spewing out a bunch of BS because you can't defend your lies.
We have already dealt with lasers, with you being shown to be wrong, repeatedly.
They have no place in this thread.
Curvature would be 8 inches of curve over a mile, 8 inches squared per two miles, or 16 inches of a curve, 8 inches squared per 3 miles, and what do you think the curve would be at a horizon, 3 miles away?
You aren't good at math are you?
It is 8 archaic units per archaic unit squared.
That means at 1 archaic unit, it is 8 archaic units. At 2 archaic units it is 2^2*8 = 32 archaic units. At 3 archaic units it is 3^2*8 = 72 archaic units. That is 6 feet.
It certainly cannot be more than the height of some large ships, so they wouldn’t vanish from sight by a 4 or 5 foot curve on the ocean surface, where you say perspective ‘loses out’ to ‘curvature’
The horizon is the point where things BEGIN to disappear.
They don't magically vanish at that point.
As they get further away, more and more disappears.
This is entirely consistent with a curved surface, and fundamentally incompatible with a flat surface.
The only problem is that you refuse to accept we have and can measure flat surfaces, of any length at all, which we do all the time, with many instruments.
That is a problem for you, not me.
We have instruments which can accurately measure surfaces, including Earth, which show it is round.
You don't like that, so you lie.
But again, that is not relevant to this thread.
What is relevant to the topic at hand is the FACT that flat surfaces do NOT produce a horizon except at their edge.
The problem for you is that a flat surface will appear to continue to rise FOREVER, never magically stopping and reversing.
A change in the slope is required to change that. i.e. A CURVE!
I’ll ask you one more time-
laser
Deal with the topic at hand first.
Admit you are entirely wrong and that the horizon is clear evidence of a round Earth.
Once you do that we can move on.
Or go back to your previous threads on lasers where you have been repeatedly refuted.
Instead, I'll ask you again:
What magic magically causes perspective to magically stop making things below you appear to rise and instead magically make them appear to sink to form a horizon and obscure the bottom of distant objects?
-
Heyhey
Lets answer first before we recreate flatards experiment in beyondtheflat orwhatveer.....
- whats the angle between segments of a 40,000sided polygon!?!?!?!?!?!
You know whata even easier?
Modeling the supposed globe and proving perspective seen on a 2d computer doesnt match reality.
Man
There was a grwat video someone did.
I linked it to sceppy but cant find it.
The mib mustve taken it down.
-
This entire debate can easily be settled, forever.
All we need, is a perfectly flat, measured flat, confirmed to be flat, by both sides, to leave no doubt at all, it IS entirely flat, and horizontal.
Why haven’t we already DONE such a test before?
It would settle the whole debate, instantly.
Of course, the whole surface IS flat, and measured as flat, and always looks flat, drawn flat, represented as flat, but somehow, just by saying it is NOT flat, while measuring and looking flat, we’re supposed to accept that it’s curved, while not measured for a curve, nor seeing any sort of curve!!
And then, you just say there are no flat surfaces, or any long enough to prove if a horizon forms on it!!
No, we have very accurate laser levels which would measure for a flat surface long enough to form a horizon, easily.
In fact, we can use laser levels to prove the surface doesn’t curve down by 8 inches over one single mile, even before we make a horizon on it at 3 miles out!!
Your excuses are pure nonsense. If you think the most accurate laser levels can’t even measure an 8 inch curve over one mile, think again.
You keep ignoring what I told you about how they determine the accuracy of laser levels over some distance.
First of all, they are called laser LEVELS, and use a fine, straight beam of light to measure for level.
How could a straight beam of light measure for level, if you believe level means level to Earths ‘curvature’, which would obviously NOT be a flat, straight or horizontal surface?
They couldn’t use straight beams of light to measure for your ‘curvature’, when you can’t use your made up pulling down all things force, like you do with other instruments which measure for level.
Your magical force can only perform some amazing feats that stretch into fairy tale land, but it can’t grab laser lights and ‘gently curve them to match Earths curvature’, even you don’t go that far.
Curvature would be 8 inches of curve over a mile, 8 inches squared per two miles, or 16 inches of a curve, 8 inches squared per 3 miles, and what do you think the curve would be at a horizon, 3 miles away?
It certainly cannot be more than the height of some large ships, so they wouldn’t vanish from sight by a 4 or 5 foot curve on the ocean surface, where you say perspective ‘loses out’ to ‘curvature’
The only problem is that you refuse to accept we have and can measure flat surfaces, of any length at all, which we do all the time, with many instruments.
I’ll ask you one more time-
How can they measure a laser level for accuracy, over a distance, unless they know and create targets that ARE true level?
I mean, they say a laser level is accurate to within +/- 3 mm or so, over 300 feet or so.
And we know that laser levels use straight beams of fine light to measure for level.
That means, the only way they COULD test its accuracy over 300 feet, is if they have a target 300 feet away which IS perfectly level to start with!
They can’t be measuring for any sort of curvature with a straight beam of light, it would be impossible to do, unless they first accounted for it over 300 feet or whatever.
How could they measure for laser level accuracy over greater and greater distances with a curve of 30 or 40 feet?
It would mean having to first measure for the curvature over that distance, which nobody knows or does or has tried to measure for, because it is ‘too slight’ to measure for, anyway!!
Sure, just because ‘curvature’ over 3 miles makes everything curve down so far we can’t see them anymore, it doesn’t mean it’s important to measure for 2,000 foot high buildings or bridges, they don’t vanish at all from ‘curvature’, just ships do on oceans!!
It’s either going to be measured and accounted for in testing accuracy of laser levels, or it doesn’t exist at all, to be measured and accounted for.
It’s funny to hear your side say a new bridge or tunnel was built, and they accounted for ‘curvature’ in it!
What would you think they’d absolutely HAVE to know, first of all, long before they designed it, and built it?
If they actually DID account for ‘curvature’ of the surface, they would have to know, and measure, exactly what that ‘curvature’ would BE, over their structures lengths!!
But I’ve never once seen any documents that mention any ‘curvature’ measurements, or anything else, which would not make any sense at all, if it WAS accounted for.
We should find those mysterious and unspoken measurements for ‘curvature’, because they obviously didn’t know what it was before they ‘accounted for it’!!
Sort of like how we could say we ‘account for’ flying pink elephants on flights all the time!
They account for something they don’t measure for, I’m very impressed by such miracles
The debate was settled 500 years ago when Columbus didn't sail off the edge of the world and didn't crash into a silly ice wall.
Your 8 inches of curve over a square mile - where did you get this? That's not the correct formula for Earth curvature. It's the flat earth propaganda machine's bullshit formula for Earth curvature. But you believe every bullshit conspiracy theory going, don't you?
Do you remember the days in your life when you accepted Earth is a globe, Turbonium? You've gone backwards in smartness.
-
Your 8 inches of curve over a square mile - where did you get this? That's not the correct formula for Earth curvature. It's the flat earth propaganda machine's bullshit formula for Earth curvature. But you believe every bullshit conspiracy theory going, don't you?
It can come from many ways.
For example, this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Kql0eoe.png)
Taking angles in radians, the angle at the centre is s/r.
The length below h is therefore r*cos(s/r).
This gives us:
h = r*(1-cos(s/r)).
Assuming s<<r, then the small x approximation can be taken where cos(x) = 1-x^2/2
h=r(1-(1-(s/r)^2/2))
h=r*(1-1+s^2/2r^2)
h=r*(s^2/2r^2)
h=s^2/2r
An alternative is this:
(https://i.imgur.com/kKn9aLZ.png)
Now we have a right angle triangle:
(r+h)^2=r^2+d^2
r^2+2rh+h^2=r^2+d^2
2rh+h^2=d^2
2rh=d^2-h^2
h=(d^2-h^2)/2r
Now if h<<d, d^2-h^2 ~=d^2
h=d^2/2r
If we put in the radius of Earth in miles we get:
h=d^2/(2*3958.8 miles)
h=d^2/(7917.6 miles)
If we substitute d to be x miles (so we put in a number x)
we get h=x^2*miles^2/(7917.6 miles)
h=x^2*miles/7917.6
h=x^2*63360 inch/7917.6
h = 8.0002... inch * x^2
i.e. the drop due to curvature is roughly 8 inches per mile squared.
It is FE propaganda when they ignore the distance to the horizon and pretend that means at the horizon your height should be hidden from view.
This also includes when they just calculate the drop, and then subtract your height.
It is FE propaganda when they use a long distance to determine the drop, then merely divide it by the distance to pretend it is a straight line to get a much larger drop over a short distance.
It is FE propaganda when they ignore the effects of refraction and claim that even though the bottom of the object is hidden, because you can see a tiny bit more than expected on a RE without refraction it magically shows Earth is flat.
-
Laser levels are sharp beams of straight light, so they can only measure for level as being straight and flat and horizontal.
That proves level IS flat and horizontal, without any sort of curve at all.
No wonder you try to say they have nothing to do with it, because they have everything to do with it!
Again, tell me how they test laser levels for accuracy over a distance?
Do you think they first account for ‘curvature’ over that distance, and if you do think so, where is it mentioned by them?
Surveyors would always assume THERE IS CURVATURE on surfaces, and know what RATE of curvature there is on surfaces, if there WAS any curvature on surfaces.
It is not ‘simple’ to assume the wrong surface, it is stupid, and wouldn’t be done, when the most important thing to know is the real surface to begin with!
One has to be a moron to believe this bs. Or completely blind and gullible.
If a surface is curved, its rate of curvature is determined over any distance, like 8 inches per mile squared.
-
What shape does y= x^2 make?
-
straight light
Again, if light travels in a straight line, YOU ARE WRONG.
If light travels in a straight line, a flat surface will NEVER produce a horizon except at the very edge.
You keep all your laser level BS to yourself until you go back to the thread where you have already been refuted on it countless times, or you admit your claims about the perspective and the horizon are blatant lies and what we observe matches what is expected for a round surface and not what we expect for a flat surface.
Until then, DEAL WITH PERSPECTIVE!
Again, for a flat surface, the surface continues to rise FOREVER! It will approach 0, but never reach 0, nor will it magically stop and magically go back down.
With a round surface, initially the "slope" is insignificant, so perspective makes it appear to rise, but eventually the "slope" becomes too steep and it goes back down.
Again, flat surface does not match what is observed, round surface does.
FE wrong, RE consistent with reality.
What shape does y= x^2 make?
A good approximation for the bottom of a circle.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8qrbdamey4
-
Laser levels are sharp beams of straight light, so they can only measure for level as being straight and flat and horizontal.
That proves level IS flat and horizontal, without any sort of curve at all.
No wonder you try to say they have nothing to do with it, because they have everything to do with it!
Again, tell me how they test laser levels for accuracy over a distance?
Do you think they first account for ‘curvature’ over that distance, and if you do think so, where is it mentioned by them?
Surveyors would always assume THERE IS CURVATURE on surfaces, and know what RATE of curvature there is on surfaces, if there WAS any curvature on surfaces.
It is not ‘simple’ to assume the wrong surface, it is stupid, and wouldn’t be done, when the most important thing to know is the real surface to begin with!
One has to be a moron to believe this bs. Or completely blind and gullible.
If a surface is curved, its rate of curvature is determined over any distance, like 8 inches per mile squared.
The ground of the Earth your house is built on, isn't even perfectly flat. The yard around your house isn't even.perfectly flat.There are gentle slopes, hills, ridges, contours, yet you proclaim the entire Earth is perfectly flat like the bottom of a baking tray.
It's like you're a blind man.
I imagine you look like David Weiss. Am I right?
-
What shape does y= x^2 make?
A good approximation for the bottom of a circle.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8qrbdamey4
Yes but we re dealing with a person who refuses context and basic geometry
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We do not observe anything like this and we always observe a theoretical horizon line and for good reason.
The reason is, that our eyes offer a difference between lighter and darker shades over the distance we can observe with the naked eye.
The reason for this is that we are looking over level waters that do not rise nor dip, when calm.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We have been over this countless times.
This requires a telescope with a TINY FOV.
The fact is that a flat surface would always continue to rise, never producing a horizon, while a curved surface will initially appear to rise, until curvature dominates and makes it appear to go down. This produces the horizon.
This matches what it observed.
That RE matches reality, the FE does not.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
Rational thinkers realise that if that delusional BS was true, you wouldn't be able to look down at anything below you.
You have absolutely no justification for why a RE should magically vanish from view.
It relies upon blatantly lying to everyone by pretending perspective magically ceases to function for a RE.
Again, this is a comparison between a RE and a FE with an observer height of 2 m.
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
For a FE, the height of the ground remains physically the same, but appears to continue to rise forever (i.e. the angular position gets higher).
For a RE, the height of the ground physically curves down, but at short distances perspective wins and makes the angular position get higher, before the curvature wins and makes it go down.
For an observer height of 2 m, the peak height for a RE is -0.05 degrees. That means you need a telescope with a FOV of 0.1 degree, which is perfectly levelled to avoid seeing the ground.
You have already had all this explained to you, with all your dishonest BS refuted.
Repeating the same lies just demonstrates how dishonest you are, that you are willing to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend Earth is flat, that Earth being flat is more important to you than the truth.
And that you are so desperate in your attempts to defend the FE, you need to bring up things you know are pure BS because you have nothing better.
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We do not observe anything like this and we always observe a theoretical horizon line and for good reason.
The reason is, that our eyes offer a difference between lighter and darker shades over the distance we can observe with the naked eye.
The reason for this is that we are looking over level waters that do not rise nor dip, when calm.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
It's impossible to a manic sceptic with a visualisation problem, that's for sure.
How insane to be labelled a "globalist", like you're referring to some moron who accepts earth is a globe, and flat earth is the widely accepted shape of the Earth.
For us humans on the skin of this planet, the curve in all directions at all times on this planet, is a very, very, gentle curve. It is imperceptible for us to see with our bare eyes because we are so tiny compared to Earth, and so close to the surface of Earth.
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We have been over this countless times.
This requires a telescope with a TINY FOV.
It doesn't matter about a tiny FOV.
The fact is, if you were to look from a level standpoint out to sea on a supposed globe that you people believe in, you would not see any horizon at all.
And yes we have been over it countless times and I'll still offer it because it's factual when looked at by people who aren't brainwashed by the global indoctrination.
The fact is that a flat surface would always continue to rise, never producing a horizon, while a curved surface will initially appear to rise, until curvature dominates and makes it appear to go down.
No. A flat surface doesn't rise at all. It stays flat whatever the distance.
Only light to dark shades create the illusion of it rising to eye level over distance to create the theoretical horizon line.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
Rational thinkers realise that if that delusional BS was true, you wouldn't be able to look down at anything below you.
It's not about looking down so don't try to twist it like you normally do.
This is about level line of sight and only that.
You have absolutely no justification for why a RE should magically vanish from view.
The justification is right there in your face and everyone else's face if they choose to rid themselves of the global indoctrination tutors.
It relies upon blatantly lying to everyone by pretending perspective magically ceases to function for a RE.
Global indoctrination relies upon spreading unreasonable tutoring to the naive, by whoever offers it to the masses without proof
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We do not observe anything like this and we always observe a theoretical horizon line and for good reason.
The reason is, that our eyes offer a difference between lighter and darker shades over the distance we can observe with the naked eye.
The reason for this is that we are looking over level waters that do not rise nor dip, when calm.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
It's impossible to a manic sceptic with a visualisation problem, that's for sure.
How insane to be labelled a "globalist", like you're referring to some moron who accepts earth is a globe, and flat earth is the widely accepted shape of the Earth.
For us humans on the skin of this planet, the curve in all directions at all times on this planet, is a very, very, gentle curve. It is imperceptible for us to see with our bare eyes because we are so tiny compared to Earth, and so close to the surface of Earth.
It doesn't matter how gentle you pretend it is, it still would offer a downward curve over distance and not a theoretical horizon line.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
We do not observe anything like this and we always observe a theoretical horizon line and for good reason.
The reason is, that our eyes offer a difference between lighter and darker shades over the distance we can observe with the naked eye.
The reason for this is that we are looking over level waters that do not rise nor dip, when calm.
Globalists like to pretend a downward curvature can create a horizon but any rational thinker should understand that a curvature downward from the level eye would offer just that...a sight into the distance that would omit the ground/waters in favour of the sky.
Basically, it's impossible for us to be living on a globe.
Absolutely impossible.
It's impossible to a manic sceptic with a visualisation problem, that's for sure.
How insane to be labelled a "globalist", like you're referring to some moron who accepts earth is a globe, and flat earth is the widely accepted shape of the Earth.
For us humans on the skin of this planet, the curve in all directions at all times on this planet, is a very, very, gentle curve. It is imperceptible for us to see with our bare eyes because we are so tiny compared to Earth, and so close to the surface of Earth.
It doesn't matter how gentle you pretend it is, it still would offer a downward curve over distance and not a theoretical horizon line.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
What do you mean, it "would" offer a downward curve.........?" You speak as though you cannot test these things and think people like me cannot test these things.
If you want to see flat, place a piece of paper on a drawing board, tape it down, and draw on your flat piece of paper. Now that is a flat surface.
It's like groundhog day here. The same tired flat earth arguments over and over and over and over again.
At sea level, looking out at the horizon at sea, the horizon is a maximum distance of about 5km away. The moment you ascend, even by only ten metres, you discover you can see further than when you were lower. That is exactly as you'd expect from living on a giant globe, not a giant flat drawing board.
That's the downward curve you are observing over the surface of the sea water which Is level. Now, I don't need to tell you this, but water always finds it's level, doesn't it? Which means curved sea water must also be level.
-
What do you mean, it "would" offer a downward curve.........?" You speak as though you cannot test these things and think people like me cannot test these things.
You can test it out as long as you're not sidetracked by the global trance you are in. You need to clear your mind and start looking with a level scope with a crosshair or at least a centre line to focus on and you'll see that no matter what you try to do you'll never see any horizon over a curve.
You just need to find places where you know there is a curve go to the top of it and set your scope to level.
If you want to see flat, place a piece of paper on a drawing board, tape it down, and draw on your flat piece of paper. Now that is a flat surface.
Of course it is.
It's like groundhog day here. The same tired flat earth arguments over and over and over and over again.
The same tired arguments are global naivety arguments.
At sea level, looking out at the horizon at sea, the horizon is a maximum distance of about 5km away.
The horizon is any seeable distance from level sight whether you're at the seaside or up a mountain, assuming clear enough skies.
If you were on a globe then your mountain would offer you zero horizon and only sky from a level standpoint with your scope, because your Earth would be always downwardly curving away from your level sighting.
We don't observe any of this because the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon or fly over.
The moment you ascend, even by only ten metres, you discover you can see further than when you were lower.
Of course and that's because you are seeing through more light above against more shade below due to less atmospheric molecules in the stacking system.
That is exactly as you'd expect from living on a giant globe, not a giant flat drawing board.
It's what you expect looking over the level.
the globe is a myth.
That's the downward curve you are observing over the surface of the sea water which Is level.
Massively contradicting and you can't see that.
Now, I don't need to tell you this, but water always finds it's level, doesn't it?
Of course. At least you're getting it.
Which means curved sea water must also be level.
Oops, I thought you were getting it but you went back into your trance.
-
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.
There is no "top" to a sphere.
You are correct. There is no top to a sphere. Because all points of a sphere are its top.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184145389486616666/TopOfTheWorld.png)
The geometry of a sphere dictates that at all points, you are effectively either at the top or bottom of a hill of perspective. So this means at North Pole, you are at the top of the world. At Everest, people who have described it as the top of the world are technically right, but not because of elevation. At "Antarctica", you are at the top of the world too, because everything in all directions is below you on all sides. You could also say you're at the bottom of the world, but this would make Earth concave not a sphere if it were true.
This is why I don't buy this goofy theory.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
Yes. Now, all of you explain why it is that this "gentle curve" doesn't look like this to onlookers.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/59db37d5-d03c-4717-81c7-ee3757138598/dxhwkz-064b93c0-59c0-4d69-8356-ce879acfe2f4.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzU5ZGIzN2Q1LWQwM2MtNDcxNy04MWM3LWVlMzc1NzEzODU5OFwvZHhod2t6LTA2NGI5M2MwLTU5YzAtNGQ2OS04MzU2LWNlODc5YWNmZTJmNC5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.H32Fpv9JWHjZrA8omrXmPtyUdfrZc9evBTlLC_UFWv0)
You somehow think that this seems legit.
(http://flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/meanwhile-australia.jpg)
Either, as I say above, all parts of a sphere earth are "top" in which case you must deal with the implications of my previous argument, or there is an underside of Earth and things on the underside are upside down.
-
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.
There is no "top" to a sphere.
You are correct. There is no top to a sphere. Because all points of a sphere are its top.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184145389486616666/TopOfTheWorld.png)
The geometry of a sphere dictates that at all points, you are effectively either at the top or bottom of a hill of perspective. So this means at North Pole, you are at the top of the world. At Everest, people who have described it as the top of the world are technically right, but not because of elevation. At "Antarctica", you are at the top of the world too, because everything in all directions is below you on all sides. You could also say you're at the bottom of the world, but this would make Earth concave not a sphere if it were true.
This is why I don't buy this goofy theory.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
Yes. Now, all of you explain why it is that this "gentle curve" doesn't look like this to onlookers.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/59db37d5-d03c-4717-81c7-ee3757138598/dxhwkz-064b93c0-59c0-4d69-8356-ce879acfe2f4.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzU5ZGIzN2Q1LWQwM2MtNDcxNy04MWM3LWVlMzc1NzEzODU5OFwvZHhod2t6LTA2NGI5M2MwLTU5YzAtNGQ2OS04MzU2LWNlODc5YWNmZTJmNC5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.H32Fpv9JWHjZrA8omrXmPtyUdfrZc9evBTlLC_UFWv0)
You somehow think that this seems legit.
(http://flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/meanwhile-australia.jpg)
Either, as I say above, all parts of a sphere earth are "top" in which case you must deal with the implications of my previous argument, or there is an underside of Earth and things on the underside are upside down.
I thought you were onto a profound insight to snap you out of your flat earth indoctrination, for a moment there! That God of yours created an Earth where technically, everything and everyone, is equally on top of the world at all times like you say - everything is equal. Now, that's the God you should believe.
Top, bottom, underside, side, is meaningless on a globe. Gravity also keeps everything glued to the surface of a globe equally.
When you say this gentle curve does not look like that crazy drawing to onlookers, who are the onlookers? Aliens from outer space? Astronauts standing on the moon looking back at their home planet?
To them, it actually does look like that drawing if they have a powerful enough telescope to observe people getting around on different parts of the globe.
-
What do you mean, it "would" offer a downward curve.........?" You speak as though you cannot test these things and think people like me cannot test these things.
You can test it out as long as you're not sidetracked by the global trance you are in. You need to clear your mind and start looking with a level scope with a crosshair or at least a centre line to focus on and you'll see that no matter what you try to do you'll never see any horizon over a curve.
You just need to find places where you know there is a curve go to the top of it and set your scope to level.
If you want to see flat, place a piece of paper on a drawing board, tape it down, and draw on your flat piece of paper. Now that is a flat surface.
Of course it is.
It's like groundhog day here. The same tired flat earth arguments over and over and over and over again.
The same tired arguments are global naivety arguments.
At sea level, looking out at the horizon at sea, the horizon is a maximum distance of about 5km away.
The horizon is any seeable distance from level sight whether you're at the seaside or up a mountain, assuming clear enough skies.
If you were on a globe then your mountain would offer you zero horizon and only sky from a level standpoint with your scope, because your Earth would be always downwardly curving away from your level sighting.
We don't observe any of this because the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon or fly over.
The moment you ascend, even by only ten metres, you discover you can see further than when you were lower.
Of course and that's because you are seeing through more light above against more shade below due to less atmospheric molecules in the stacking system.
That is exactly as you'd expect from living on a giant globe, not a giant flat drawing board.
It's what you expect looking over the level.
the globe is a myth.
That's the downward curve you are observing over the surface of the sea water which Is level.
Massively contradicting and you can't see that.
Now, I don't need to tell you this, but water always finds it's level, doesn't it?
Of course. At least you're getting it.
Which means curved sea water must also be level.
Oops, I thought you were getting it but you went back into your trance.
Sceptic, I realise physical experiments are beyond one as indoctrinated as yourself in the flat earth Dunning Kruger effect, but I'll humour you nonetheless.
Place two points on your flat piece of paper on that drawing board. One dot represents you. The second dot represents the 5km horizon you can see at sea level. The maximum distance of sea you can see.
Get out your ruler and measure the distance. Now, place a 1cm high object where the dot representing you is. Now measure the distance from that raised height above that dot to the horizon dot. The distance should be slightly greater than at paper level.
This means at a raised position, you are looking through more air to your horizon dot and looking through more distance. On a flat drawing board world, this means at a height, you should be seeing a shorter distance to the horizon, not further.
The air molecule concentration difference at sea level to even ten metres above sea level, is negligible.
The only way the horizon distance you can see, increases with your height, is if Earth is a globe. If the Earth were truly flat as you believe, the higher you ascend, the less and less of the horizon you should be seeing, as your distance to that horizon increases and you are seeing through more air molecules. The opposite occurs in reality.
Thus, you were never lied to in school. Earth is a globe.
-
It doesn't matter about a tiny FOV.
Yes, it does.
We have been over this many times.
If you are standing some height above a sphere, then a horizon will produced some distance away with a certain angle of dip.
The angle of dip can be calculated directly from your height and the radius of the sphere.
a=acos(r/(R+h))
For a sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and an observer height of 2 m, this angle of dip is 0.045 degrees.
If you have some viewing device looking out perfectly level, then if the FOV is 2 times this angle of dip or greater, YOU WILL SEE THAT ROUND SURFACE!
That is in inescapable mathematical fact.
The only way to stop you seeing that surface is if something blocks the view.
You entirely ignoring this fact and instead lying to everyone to pretend you should magically not see a round Earth just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.
The fact is, if you were to look from a level standpoint out to sea on a supposed globe that you people believe in, you would not see any horizon at all.
Again, the math shows this is a blatant lie.
And yes we have been over it countless times and I'll still offer it because it's factual when looked at by people who aren't brainwashed by the global indoctrination.
If it is a fact, why are you entirely incapable of defending it?
Why do you need to just assert this lie and then flee from the refutation of it?
The one acting brainwashed is YOU!
The one who can only assert pure BS with no justification of that BS at all, and just throwing out pathetic insults (like calling people brainwashed) when they refute your BS.
Stop drinking the cool-aid and either defend your BS or stop spouting it.
Why should you magically not be able to see a RE from a level view?
Note: it being below you is NOT enough, as then you shouldn't be able to see the ground for a FE either, as it is below you.
If it being below you was enough, then that means in order to see the ground through a level view, the ground would need to rise.
No. A flat surface doesn't rise at all. It stays flat whatever the distance.
It APPEARS to rise.
This is known as perspective.
It is merely a consequence that to see the ground directly below you, you need to look straight down to have it centered.
To see ground that is 2 m below your eyes, at a distance of 2 m, you need to look downwards at 45 degrees. This is the same as 1 m at 1 m.
As it gets further away, you need to look more and more up to have it centered.
Only light to dark shades create the illusion of it rising to eye level over distance to create the theoretical horizon line.
The horizon line is a real physical line.
It is the point where your line of sight is tangent to Earth.
It's not about looking down so don't try to twist it like you normally do.
I never said it was.
I was saying that if your delusional BS was true, that FOV doesn't matter, and you can't see the RE (because it is below you), then you would NEVER be able to see anything below you.
That is because if your FOV is large enough, you will see things below you.
The justification is right there in your face and everyone else's face if they choose to rid themselves of the global indoctrination tutors.
No, it isn't. All you have are pathetic baseless assertions.
The math shows you are wrong.
Observations of hills show you are wrong.
Global indoctrination relies upon spreading unreasonable tutoring to the naive, by whoever offers it to the masses without proof
You mean FE indoctrination.
Which then just repeats the same pathetic lies, without justification, and entirely ignores the refutation of those lies.
It doesn't matter how gentle you pretend it is, it still would offer a downward curve over distance and not a theoretical horizon line.
The FE offers a theoretical horizon, at an infinite distance.
The RE offers a real horizon.
That downwards curve is what causes the horizon.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
Then why does all the evidence show it is a globe? Including the mere existence of the real horizon.
Your lies about reality will not change reality.
And reality is quite simple. Earth is round.
You can test it out as long as you're not sidetracked by the global trance you are in. You need to clear your mind and start looking with a level scope with a crosshair or at least a centre line to focus on and you'll see that no matter what you try to do you'll never see any horizon over a curve.
You just need to find places where you know there is a curve go to the top of it and set your scope to level.
Are you trying to suggest that it wouldn't be perfectly level? Because we already see that with Earth with a theodolite.
There is an measurable angle of dip to the horizon.
The same tired arguments are global naivety arguments.
You mean the same arguments from REers based upon facts and math, which you cannot show any fault with and need to dismiss?
If you were on a globe then your mountain would offer you zero horizon and only sky from a level standpoint with your scope, because your Earth would be always downwardly curving away from your level sighting.
Again, if it was as simple as that, then the FE wouldn't offer any horizon, because Earth would always be below you.
Ignoring perspective for a RE, while relying upon it for a FE just shows how dishonest you are.
Of course and that's because you are seeing through more light above against more shade below due to less atmospheric molecules in the stacking system.
Again, if this delusional BS was true, you would not see a horizon. You would see a blur.
And the difference in air at that scale is negligible.
So that is NOT why.
Massively contradicting and you can't see that.
No, not contradicting at all.
The horizon is caused by the curve.
The fact you can see further when you get higher, and that the angle of dip increases as you get higher is further evidence of that.
Oops, I thought you were getting it but you went back into your trance.
You mean back to reality.
Water in oceans (ignoring waves) is level.
But water in oceans will block the view to something that is above the water to an observer also above water.
This shows that this water is curving. If it was flat, it could not block the view.
So level is not flat.
-
You are correct. There is no top to a sphere. Because all points of a sphere are its top.
So stop pretending there is.
Stop pretending the water must magically flow away from the top you admit doesn't exist to go to the bottom which also can't exist.
This is why I don't buy this goofy theory.
Because you fail to understand simple geometry and relative references?
Yes. Now, all of you explain why it is that this "gentle curve" doesn't look like this to onlookers.
Because that is absolutely nothing like what it should look like.
How about you try explaining why it should look like that.
Or you can try explaining why a FE doesn't look like a pile of shit.
You somehow think that this seems legit.
You can easily take any photo and rotate it however you please.
You aren't proving anything with it, and have already admitted that for those in Australia, Australia is the top.
You are just showing that you are knowingly lying to everyone.
-
it won't change reality and the reality is simple.
And again..
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
And…
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
Walk us through this for the artificial horizon indicator as an airplane passes over an ever increasing horizon as it flys towards the increasing slope and horizon of a mountain range?
Anyway…
https://flatearth.ws/artificial-horizon
An artificial horizon, or attitude indicator, is a flight instrument that indicates the aircraft’s orientation relative to Earth’s horizon and gives an immediate indication of the smallest change of orientation. An artificial horizon utilizes a gyroscope to detect the change of orientation and pendulous vanes to continuously correct the orientation relative to the level.
Flat-Earthers claim that an artificial horizon should drift over time if the airplane is flying over the spherical Earth because the gyroscope will eventually drift and no longer points toward Earth’s center. In reality, an artificial horizon has a self-correcting mechanism, keeping the gyroscope upright if it is displaced for any reason, including by the aircraft’s motion following Earth’s curvature.
Preflight Actions:
When an aircraft engine is first started and pneumatic or electric power is supplied to the instruments, the gyro is not erect
A self-erecting mechanism inside the instrument actuated by the force of gravity applies a precessing force, causing the gyro to rise to its vertical position
The attitude indicator should not bank more than 5° in taxi turns
https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/avionics-and-instruments/attitude-indicator
Attitude indicators have mechanisms that keep the instrument level with respect to the direction of gravity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
Flat Earth - Yes an aircraft Artificial Horizon self corrects in flight - Pt 1
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
The vacuum powered instruments that uses gravity?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pendulous Vanes | Pilot Tutorial
Ep. 60: Inner Workings of an Attitude Indicator | Gyroscope
Like this source better…
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/presolo/special/understanding-gyroscopic-instruments
Gyro instruments react to short-term movements of the airplane. In fact, the attitude indicator contains a set of weights intended to drive the instrument toward level flight by sensing gravity. These weights move the instrument face about 3 degrees per minute. So if you were to maintain a 30-degree coordinated banked turn for 10 minutes,
Commonly, the AI and HI are powered by vacuum pneumatic systems.
-
it won't change reality
Funny you’re the one running away from reality. Trying to change the topic away from instruments that use vacuum and gravity.
In a thread literally titled, Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?
If you want to discus perspective, I suggest this thread “ Horizon did not block duck from view”.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0
Where it goes through by experiments that flat surfaces don’t physically block objects from view, when the viewer and object are both above the same flat surface.
So, stop derailing this thread.
Oh. I forgot. The instrument in question uses vacuum and gravity. Damn.
-
If people want to believe they live on a globe then they also have to understand that, if you had a telescope set level over water, it would always offer a curve downward away from your level vision.
Do I need to pull out my tubes and tripods again? :-\
-
At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute
No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.
There is no "top" to a sphere.
You are correct. There is no top to a sphere. Because all points of a sphere are its top.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184145389486616666/TopOfTheWorld.png)
The geometry of a sphere dictates that at all points, you are effectively either at the top or bottom of a hill of perspective. So this means at North Pole, you are at the top of the world. At Everest, people who have described it as the top of the world are technically right, but not because of elevation. At "Antarctica", you are at the top of the world too, because everything in all directions is below you on all sides. You could also say you're at the bottom of the world, but this would make Earth concave not a sphere if it were true.
This is why I don't buy this goofy theory.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by using what's been tutored into you, it won't change reality and the reality is simple. Earth is not a globe that we supposedly walk upon.
Yes. Now, all of you explain why it is that this "gentle curve" doesn't look like this to onlookers.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/59db37d5-d03c-4717-81c7-ee3757138598/dxhwkz-064b93c0-59c0-4d69-8356-ce879acfe2f4.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzU5ZGIzN2Q1LWQwM2MtNDcxNy04MWM3LWVlMzc1NzEzODU5OFwvZHhod2t6LTA2NGI5M2MwLTU5YzAtNGQ2OS04MzU2LWNlODc5YWNmZTJmNC5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.H32Fpv9JWHjZrA8omrXmPtyUdfrZc9evBTlLC_UFWv0)
You somehow think that this seems legit.
(http://flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/meanwhile-australia.jpg)
Either, as I say above, all parts of a sphere earth are "top" in which case you must deal with the implications of my previous argument, or there is an underside of Earth and things on the underside are upside down.
Would you like to know the World's worst kept secret which your flat earth priests will never ever tell you?
EVERYBODY IS A FLAT EARTHER.
Nobody goes through life saying what part of Earth's orbit around the sun we are at. Nobody worries what side of the sun is facing Earth.
Everybody watches the sun rise and watches the sun set. Nobody watches the horizon dip or watches the horizon rise. Everybody goes through life as if Earth is stationary and motionless. The stars are luminaries in the night sky which have no obvious affect on our lives. Nobody worries about Earth's rotation speed or Earth's orbit speed around the sun.
Nobody thinks of Earth's tilt. The seasons happen to our surroundings and us. Everybody is concerned with their immediate visual surrounds which are East, West, North, South, up, and down - the small picture which is essentially a flattish piece of Earth.
Everybody lives in the illusion of flat earth even though in the back of everybody's mind is the fact we are all on a moving spinning globe in space.
Flat Earth is the comfortable illusion everybody lives in, while globe earth is the uncomfortable truth everybody knows.
Flat Earth is the illusion.
Globe Earth is the fact.
Does that help you feel any better? Maybe it's time you and your flerfer pals found a new hobby which is productive?
-
EVERYBODY IS A FLAT EARTHER.
We have been over this before. They aren't.
Most people don't give a damn at all.
That doesn't make them a FEer.
If you want to say you are a flat Earther, and accept all the baggage that comes with it, go ahead. But don't go proclaiming everyone else is.
-
straight light
Again, if light travels in a straight line, YOU ARE WRONG.
If light travels in a straight line, a flat surface will NEVER produce a horizon except at the very edge.
You keep all your laser level BS to yourself until you go back to the thread where you have already been refuted on it countless times, or you admit your claims about the perspective and the horizon are blatant lies and what we observe matches what is expected for a round surface and not what we expect for a flat surface.
Until then, DEAL WITH PERSPECTIVE!
Again, for a flat surface, the surface continues to rise FOREVER! It will approach 0, but never reach 0, nor will it magically stop and magically go back down.
With a round surface, initially the "slope" is insignificant, so perspective makes it appear to rise, but eventually the "slope" becomes too steep and it goes back down.
Again, flat surface does not match what is observed, round surface does.
No, it is the very opposite of what a curved surface would look like.
The surface appears to rise up more and more with more distance away, which can only happen if the surface is entirely FLAT.
A curved surface would curve downward more and more with more distance away, that is an absolute fact.
Let’s assume the curve is sharper than your ball Earth curve. The effects of perspective have less and less effect, by more and more curvature.
If you really believe things could curve downward suddenly after going beyond 3 miles away, then how could objects far higher up on the surface than ‘curvature’ would be, go out of all view?
If you can’t see or measure or identify or anything at all of there being a curved surface over the Earth, trying to make up endless excuses over and over seems pointless, basically
-
No, it is the very opposite of what a curved surface would look like.
No, it is exactly what a curved surface would look like, as explained repeatedly.
You ignoring that explanation and repeating the same refuted BS will not change that fact.
Again, for a curved surface, initially the ground will rise due to perspective, but after enough distance, the curvature means the slope (relative to a local cartesian coordinate system centred on you) is going down enough that the ground appears to sink.
This has been proven to you repeatedly.
And you have been entirely incapable of refuting it.
Repeating the same pathetic lies just shows how dishonest you are and how desperate you are.
Again, here is a simple image that shows you are lying:
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
The eye at the top of the red line can look straight down to see the ground below them.
They can look up slightly to the first purple line to see the ground a bit in front.
They can look up higher to see ground further away.
And this continues, with the ground appearing to rise until you reach the horizon where it instead goes back down.
Again, here is the simple graph that shows you are lying:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
And here is an interactive desmos plot you can play around with to see you are lying:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t71r8fecpt
Again, if your dishonest, delusional BS was true, if you looked towards any ball, you would just see a point.
This is shown most directly when you are standing directly above a ball looking down with the ball centred in your FOV.
If your dishonest, delusional BS was true, then no part of the ball could have an angle of elevation higher than that point.
That means the entire ball must have an angle of elevation of -90 degrees or below. That means it would appear as a single point.
The fact you can test this with any ball and see that you are spouting pure BS, shows just how dishonest and desperate you are.
The surface appears to rise up more and more with more distance away, which can only happen if the surface is entirely FLAT.
Why?
What magic disables perspective for non-flat objects?
If you are standing on a hill does that magically stop perspective and make it so Earth never appears to rise?
A curved surface would curve downward more and more with more distance away, that is an absolute fact.
Which is the very thing which explains the change from the ground appearing to rise, where that downwards curve is not significant enough yet, to where it forms the horizon and appears to go down.
So this fact is what explains what is observed.
It is is absolute fact that a flat surface does not have that, so there is nothing to negate perspective, so it will continue to rise forever, never producing a horizon (until you get to the edge).
Let’s assume the curve is sharper than your ball Earth curve. The effects of perspective have less and less effect, by more and more curvature.
You can already do this with the desmos graph I linked.
Although if you make it too small the small x approximation no longer holds.
If you want, I can even modify it to work for smaller radii so the small x approximation isn't needed.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2qszkrpaix
The non-approximation is added in orange.
But what we see is exactly what is expected for a round object.
This results in the horizon appearing lower and closer.
Keeping the observer height constant, making the ball smaller makes the horizon lower and closer, until it becomes incredibly close.
If you really believe things could curve downward suddenly after going beyond 3 miles away, then how could objects far higher up on the surface than ‘curvature’ would be, go out of all view?
It doesn't suddenly curve down.
It is merely the point where curvature beats perspective, or the point where a line from your eyes is tangent to Earth.
And that is focusing on the surface. For objects above the surface it takes more than 5 km to make them vanish.
That is why when objects go over the horizon, we see them appear to sink, with the bottom being obscured first, and more and more being hidden.
If you can’t see or measure or identify or anything at all of there being a curved surface over the Earth, trying to make up endless excuses over and over seems pointless, basically
Good thing we can measure it, and identify it.
The one making excuses here is YOU!
We have the horizon and the behaviour of objects near it which quite clearly demonstrates Earth is round.
But because you hate reality, you need to make up excuses for how it could magically work for a flat fantasy, and lie about the RE to pretend it can't happen on a round object.
So why don't you stop with the pointless excuse exercise and accept reality?
-
It would be a curve that is so very, very slight, as seen from the surface, and anywhere above the surface where we have been, that no curve can be seen or found anywhere at all.
We couldn’t see the horizon directly across our view, in planes, if Earth were a ball, the horizon would be very different and odd to look upon, but nobody has ever seen it before, so it’s hard to imagine how it would look, obviously.
You cannot say a curve couldn’t be seen or measured over a 3 or 4 miles distance, while also claiming the curve makes all objects vanish from sight!!
That’s nonsense.
-
EVERYBODY IS A FLAT EARTHER.
We have been over this before. They aren't.
Most people don't give a damn at all.
That doesn't make them a FEer.
If you want to say you are a flat Earther, and accept all the baggage that comes with it, go ahead. But don't go proclaiming everyone else is.
In your own world, you are, and we'll go over it yet again.
Otherwise, you would know where Earth is in relation to our moon, our sun, and all other planets in our solar system, at all times. You don't know and you aren't even concerned. If you say you do, you are lying.
If you were concerned and did know all those planetary dynamics at every second of everyday, you wouldn't be able to function in your everyday life. In everyday life, we do not need to be aware of the ENTIRE globe.
So, from a certain perspective, you are a flat earther. We all are.
You are on this forum, thinking about the shape if the Earth by virtue of the fact you pretty much live on this forum and are glued to it. But, the moment you walk away to wash your dishes or walk down to your letter box, you don't give a shit about the globe, you are only concerned with your immediate surroundings on a motionless, flattish plane.
The only difference between you and these flat earthers, is these flat earthers deny the globe. You switch between the two like we all do.
You didn't think of it this way before, did you Blacky?
-
It would be a curve that is so very, very slight, as seen from the surface, and anywhere above the surface where we have been, that no curve can be seen or found anywhere at all.
It is very very slight.
The rate of curvature is roughly 0.00000016 /m.
That is slight.
We have been over this.
And again, we can find the curve, quite easily.
Such as from the horizon.
You just need to be honest enough to look for it rather than trying to hide it at all costs.
We couldn’t see the horizon directly across our view, in planes, if Earth were a ball, the horizon would be very different and odd to look upon, but nobody has ever seen it before, so it’s hard to imagine how it would look, obviously.
Why?
Again, you assert pure BS with no justification.
Even in a plane we would still see the horizon.
You cannot say a curve couldn’t be seen or measured over a 3 or 4 miles distance, while also claiming the curve makes all objects vanish from sight!!
It can.
We can easily see it in the form of the horizon.
We can easily measure it with a theolodite.
Again, you are blatantly lying to pretend Earth isn't round.
If Earth was flat there would be no horizon except the edge.
-
In your own world, you are, and we'll go over it yet again.
No, I'm not.
Lying about me wont magically make me a flat Earther.
For my daily life, Earth is anything but flat. There is a quite substantial hill.
And again, most people don't give a damn about the shape of Earth, so they are not a flat Earther.
Otherwise, you would know where Earth is in relation to our moon, our sun, and all other planets in our solar system, at all times.
Why?
You are being just as bad as a FEer, spouting pure BS with no justification.
Why do I need to know where Earth is in relation to our moon, sun, etc, to not be a flat Earther?
That makes as much sense as saying everyone is a Round Earther, otherwise, they would know where the sun is above the disc, and because they aren't thinking about exactly where the sun is above the disk they are magically a round Earther and if they say otherwise they are lying.
So, from a certain perspective, you are a flat earther. We all are.
From an incredibly dishonest perspective where you could claim anyone is anything.
you don't give a shit about the globe
Or the shape at all.
So still not a flat Earther.
You didn't think of it this way before, did you Blacky?
Yes, I did, and I explained why your claims are BS before.
I am not a flat Earther.
-
It would be a curve that is so very, very slight, as seen from the surface, and anywhere above the surface where we have been, that no curve can be seen or found anywhere at all.
We couldn’t see the horizon directly across our view, in planes, if Earth were a ball, the horizon would be very different and odd to look upon, but nobody has ever seen it before, so it’s hard to imagine how it would look, obviously.
You cannot say a curve couldn’t be seen or measured over a 3 or 4 miles distance, while also claiming the curve makes all objects vanish from sight!!
That’s nonsense.
Turbonium, don't be afraid of maths.
The globe earth model is well researched. You know you can see a maximum of 5km out to sea, and the circumference of the Earth is known.
So, use your maths skills and calculate that if earth is a globe the size the authorities say it is, then how far below your level eye view, that horizon actually is.
-
In your own world, you are, and we'll go over it yet again.
No, I'm not.
Lying about me wont magically make me a flat Earther.
For my daily life, Earth is anything but flat. There is a quite substantial hill.
And again, most people don't give a damn about the shape of Earth, so they are not a flat Earther.
Otherwise, you would know where Earth is in relation to our moon, our sun, and all other planets in our solar system, at all times.
Why?
You are being just as bad as a FEer, spouting pure BS with no justification.
Why do I need to know where Earth is in relation to our moon, sun, etc, to not be a flat Earther?
That makes as much sense as saying everyone is a Round Earther, otherwise, they would know where the sun is above the disc, and because they aren't thinking about exactly where the sun is above the disk they are magically a round Earther and if they say otherwise they are lying.
So, from a certain perspective, you are a flat earther. We all are.
From an incredibly dishonest perspective where you could claim anyone is anything.
you don't give a shit about the globe
Or the shape at all.
So still not a flat Earther.
You didn't think of it this way before, did you Blacky?
Yes, I did, and I explained why your claims are BS before.
I am not a flat Earther.
No, ofcourse you're not, Blacky. You don't have anything in common with all those flat earthers you dissect, do you? Lol! You're not a flat earther at all, are you?
We know the truth, don't we Turbonium? ;)
Oh, and everyone is a round earther too, even if they don't know it or wilfully deny it.
Do what you usually do. Address this post, sentence by agonising sentence. Be sure to leave no stone unturned.
-
I’ve actually seen the horizon from planes high above Earth, directly across my window, they are NOT lower at all, because if they WERE lower, I couldn’t have seen them across from me, out my plane window.
This seeing a horizon so far away from me, directly across from me, at such a great height above Earth, is magnificent and so beautiful, to any who have seen it.
The best way to know Earth is not a ball, it is flat. Among the many things that also prove it is flat.
The surface does not actually rise upward at all, but appears to rise upward, objects on the surface also appear to be rising upward, more and more upward in lesser distances outward than before.
This happens when surfaces are entirely flat, most of all, like over large bodies of water, when calm and still, especially.
Horizons are always straight and horizontal across the Earths surface, even when thousands of miles across Earths surface, directly across from us in our view.
These features can only happen above a large flat surface.
When one tries to show the horizon from the ground, which is perfectly straight across, and rise above the surface, higher and higher, to finally show a ball Earth in view, it doesn’t ever work at all.
The horizon has to show a curve where we see it is completely straight across Earth, in planes.
When they start curving it higher than we see it in planes, it looks even more ridiculous.
We can’t fake the truth we have seen ourselves
-
I’ve actually seen the horizon from planes high above Earth, directly across my window, they are NOT lower at all, because if they WERE lower, I couldn’t have seen them across from me, out my plane window.
Again, the formula for horizon angle of dip is quite simple, assuming an observer height of h, and radius of Earth R, then the horizon will be at an angle of dip of:
a = acos(r/(R+h))
For an observer height of 2 m, the horizon is at an angle of dip of 0.045 degrees.
For an observer height of 10 km (32 800 ft), the horizon is at an angle of dip of 3.2 degrees.
That is still easily visible from a plane window.
Lower does not mean so low you can't see it.
As for "directly across my window", if you mean at eye level, BS:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
The horizon is observed to be below eye level, by an amount that decreases with increasing elevation.
You relying upon nothing more than your eyes to determine what is level is useless.
The best way to know Earth is not a ball, it is flat. Among the many things that also prove it is flat.
Again, the fact that there is a horizon at all shows it is round, not flat.
It is one of the many things that proves beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
You cannot offer a single thing which shows Earth is more likely to be flat than round.
The surface does not actually rise upward at all, but appears to rise upward, objects on the surface also appear to be rising upward, more and more upward in lesser distances outward than before.
This happens when surfaces are entirely flat, most of all, like over large bodies of water, when calm and still, especially.
And importantly, over a flat surface THAT NEVER STOPS!
It continues to rise forever.
It will NEVER magically stop and reverse.
For that, you need the angle of the surface to change. That change in angle of surface, such as from a round Earth is what causes the horizon.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, a small enough portion of a large enough round surface will be indistinguishable from a flat surface.
And that is very true.
For example, over the first 100 m, the curvature of Earth will cause a perfectly level surface to drop by 0.8 mm.
As a comparison, a human hair can be roughly 0.2 mm, and the sole of a shoe can be several mm.
Yet, at 100 m, you can normally easily see a level surface within your FOV when looking straight out.
So if the curvature of Earth was enough to magically prevent it from appearing to rise, then putting on shoes should remove the ground from view.
At 1 km, it only reaches 8 cm.
At 5 km, the distance to the horizon for an observer height of 2 m, it only drops by roughly 2 m.
Yet a height of 10s of m is not enough to remove Earth from view.
Horizons are always straight
No, they aren't.
The fact you can follow them all around you shows it is NOT straight. It shows it is a circle.
These features can only happen above a large flat surface.
Repeating the same pathetic lies wont make them a fact.
The only "horizon" for a flat surface is the edge.
But for a round object there is a horizon.
If the round object is a perfect sphere, then the horizon will be a perfect circle.
This matches with reality.
So once more, RE matches reality, FE does not.
When one tries to show the horizon from the ground, which is perfectly straight across, and rise above the surface, higher and higher, to finally show a ball Earth in view, it doesn’t ever work at all.
Prove it.
The horizon has to show a curve where we see it is completely straight across Earth, in planes.
i.e. when you see a curve.
If you would like an example, go get a ring, like a hula hoop. Hold it up at eye level, and see what it looks like.
Can you see the curve?
Because that is the curve you are looking for.
To make it to scale, assuming your hoop has a radius of 50 cm, you would need to hold it at a height of 0.4 mm, i.e. around the width of 2 human hairs, below your eye level to represent what is expected for an observer with an eye height of 2 m.
For an observer in a plane at 10 km, you would need to hold it 2.8 cm below eye level.
We can’t fake the truth we have seen ourselves
Like the truth that flat surfaces don't magically produce a horizon?
The truth that all the evidence that says one way or another points to Earth being round?
The truth that you are a compulsive liar, happy to spout whatever nonsense you can to pretend Earth is flat?
The truth that after you are repeatedly refuted, you still just ignore it all and pretend you aren't wrong?
-
Horizons are always straight and horizontal across the Earths surface, even when thousands of miles across Earths surface, directly across from us in our view.
These features can only happen above a large flat surface.
When one tries to show the horizon from the ground, which is perfectly straight across, and rise above the surface, higher and higher, to finally show a ball Earth in view, it doesn’t ever work at all.
The horizon has to show a curve where we see it is completely straight across Earth, in planes.
When they start curving it higher than we see it in planes, it looks even more ridiculous.
We can’t fake the truth we have seen ourselves
How flat is the face or the "horizon" of her cut?
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffeelgoodfoodie.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F08%2Fhow-to-cut-watermelon-1.jpg&tbnid=OIc95Jc4jXUeLM&vet=12ahUKEwiP86GHqZSDAxUdMmIAHdshBPUQMygPegUIARD0Ag..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffeelgoodfoodie.net%2Frecipe%2Fhow-to-cut-watermelon%2F&docid=si3eNNBUr8oShM&w=1200&h=1800&q=slice%20watermelon&client=ms-android-samsung&ved=2ahUKEwiP86GHqZSDAxUdMmIAHdshBPUQMygPegUIARD0Ag
-
I thought you were onto a profound insight to snap you out of your flat earth indoctrination, for a moment there!
You're the one indoctrinated.
At age 6 or so, you were told by teachers that the Earth is round. You were not in a position to debate with them, as they could fail you if you told them this was a load of crap.
For the next 12+ years, this continued until you were an adult, and out of whatever level of education you got.
If this weren't enough, every "science" magazine you read showed you picture after picture of RE.
The only way you would even think otherwise is if they goofed up somehow, and the seed of doubt was able to grow.
There isn't some conspiracy group of flat Earthers that pushes groupthink or indoctrination. On the other hand, if you have not been pressured to believe in RE, you had an abnormal childhood.
I have been shown repeatedly to be a liar. So I am just lying about what I have seen.
Yes, I know you are.
Flat Earth is the illusion.
Globe Earth is the fact.
You're very good at reality warping, but the fact is there are no facts. The state of being human is living inside an illusion. Now you can continue thinking that most people are flat Earthers, but I actually know of nobody who thinks that. You're not some daring freethinker as you seem to imagine. You're among the brainwashed majority.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." – Mark Twain
-
You're the one indoctrinated.
Accepting reality is not indoctrinated.
It is not indoctrination to accept you need oxygen to live.
At age 6 or so, you were told by teachers that the Earth is round.
As well as plenty of other truths you happily accept.
But because this one doesn't match your fantasy, you reject it and label it as indoctrination.
as they could fail you if you told them this was a load of crap.
Yes, they are in a position to fail you if you reject reality. That would be you failing to understand the content of the course.
There isn't some conspiracy group of flat Earthers that pushes groupthink or indoctrination.
There are plenty of youtubers doing exactly that.
Yes, I know you are.
And great job showing just how much of a compulsive liar you are.
You need to blatantly lie about what people have said, entirely fabricating quotes.
Truly pathetic.
You're very good at reality warping, but the fact is there are no facts.
There are plenty of facts.
You not liking them doesn't mean they aren't facts.
You're among the brainwashed majority.
Being in the majority doesn't mean you are brainwashed.
We are among the majority that has mountains of evidence to show you are spouting pure BS.
Just like you have been shown to be spouting pure BS in this thread.
You cannot defend the FE with any rational arguments, so you rely upon blatant lies.
-
You're the one indoctrinated.
Accepting reality is not indoctrinated.
It is not indoctrination to accept you need oxygen to live.
You need air to live. But then chemists (alchemists) called it oxygen. Actually, pure oxygen is toxic to the human body. We need air, not oxygen, to live.
https://myhealth.ucsd.edu/RelatedItems/3,90904
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-air-and-oxygen/
But that's exactly the sort of stuff I'd expect from you. This is why we can't trust anything you say. In the name of science, you tell lies to the public, and lies to yourself.
At age 6 or so, you were told by teachers that the Earth is round.
As well as plenty of other truths you happily accept.
But because this one doesn't match your fantasy, you reject it and label it as indoctrination.
You'd be surprised at how little from my childhood I still accept. I used to believe in dinosaurs too.
as they could fail you if you told them this was a load of crap.
Yes, they are in a position to fail you if you reject reality. That would be you failing to understand the content of the course.
The state of denial is astounding. In a free state, people are able to discuss ideas on their merits. Teachers are able to teach you why an idea is wrong. Their explanations make sense. In a propaganda state, teachers tell you that this is how things are, and if you ask them, "Why? I can definitely see that the sun seems to rise in the east and sets in the west, but I don't see any proof that the horizon is anything other than flat!" they tell you that you're denying reality, and give you an F. And it doesn't matter than you get a 90 on the test, you've committed a taboo, and they find an excuse to fail you.
I have not experienced that with Flat Earth (I was too young to question... interesting that secular globalists talk about Christians indoctrinating ppl because they teach the faith at a young age, but no comment about this), but I definitely experienced this exact phenomenon on two occasions. I told a teacher in a Cold War class that this blockade policy didn't seem to be working, and another in a Ethic class where I told them that this was all pop scenarios not real ethics. Both of them didn't like being questioned (just spit back the facts at me kid, like a good robot), and gave me an F and lowered my overall grade to a C. It was an A before that, both times.
There isn't some conspiracy group of flat Earthers that pushes groupthink or indoctrination.
There are plenty of youtubers doing exactly that.
Just keep telling yourself that. These people have no clout. Meanwhile, RE has teacher's unions making sure no teachers with FE ideas ever get jobs, no matter how their teaching is otherwise. They make sure no teachers who even allow questioning of the idea get hired. It has NASA. It has Youtube and Wikipedia literally doing this.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1185809443229806623/image.png)
Where is the fair and open analysis of facts here? Oh wait, it's not there. They shoehorn in an opinion about FE and RE, and then the first search is about how flat Earth is wrong. That sound unbiased? No, it sounds like I'm being pushed to believe something by people who would hold me at gunpoint if our government were a tad bit less free.
And great job showing just how much of a compulsive liar I am. I am truly pathetic.
You're welcome! ;D
You're among the brainwashed majority.
Being in the majority doesn't mean you are brainwashed.
You cannot defend the FE with any rational arguments, so you rely upon blatant lies.
[/quote]
I actually have several times. And if we're looking for proof that the majority is usually brainwashed, consider that at one point "everyone knew" that leeches were good medical remedy. And "everyone knew" that blacks were okay to enslave because they were descendants of Cain. I'm sure I can go on, but the majority is very seldom right, morally or intellectually. Science has never been about consensus (that's a lynch mob) but bucking the majority. What most people accept in school is bad enough, but if it makes or breaks your science career, this is something you ought to question.
Why? Because it means you have just found a golden calf. Something so sacred to the teaching dogma that the powers that be will literally try to ruin you if you reject it.
-
Perspective makes the surface appear to rise upward more and more with more distance away, it will not suddenly rise less and less over a flat surface, it stops rising completely and forms a horizon, which is called the vanishing point of perspective.
How could parallel lines converge any more than they do, as if they were one line?
Curved lines that match together at the same distance apart, seen in the distance, do NOT appear to be converging together more and more in the distance, because perspective doesn’t make curved lines apart from one another at the same distance appear to converge more and more with distance, that is how we know lines are straight and parallel to each other, and cannot be curved lines that match up to each other at the same distance apart.
It’s funny when you say the surface appears to keep rising up more and more, yet this surface would actually curve more and more downward, with more distance away.
Perspective doesn’t make curving down surfaces appear to rise more and more on a more and more downward curved surface, and then, suddenly stop rising at a point, and curving starts up because you say it does, but no curve ever is seen at all!
Have you ever seen something move over a ball? And move over a flat surface?
Perspective makes the object moving over a flat surface appear to rise, and makes the flat surface appear to rise.
But perspective does not make the curved surface or objects moving over it appear to keep rising. It only starts appearing to rise, if it does appear to rise at all.
Curved surfaces will always curve more and more over more distance, so if it WAS curving ever more downward in the distance, it would already ‘win out over perspective’ and we’d see it rise up less and less in the distance, not rise up more and more! That would mean perspective is ‘winning more and more over a curve more and more downward, which is ridiculous!
It wins more and more over a curve, then suddenly the curve whips it out of the blue!
Sounds like a Rocky movie to me, a pure fairy tale story that isn’t real in the least, but who cares about reality in movies or in a ball Earth fairy tale! It isn’t about being real at all, it’s purely fiction
-
I thought you were onto a profound insight to snap you out of your flat earth indoctrination, for a moment there!
You're the one indoctrinated.
At age 6 or so, you were told by teachers that the Earth is round. You were not in a position to debate with them, as they could fail you if you told them this was a load of crap.
For the next 12+ years, this continued until you were an adult, and out of whatever level of education you got.
If this weren't enough, every "science" magazine you read showed you picture after picture of RE.
The only way you would even think otherwise is if they goofed up somehow, and the seed of doubt was able to grow.
There isn't some conspiracy group of flat Earthers that pushes groupthink or indoctrination. On the other hand, if you have not been pressured to believe in RE, you had an abnormal childhood.
I have been shown repeatedly to be a liar. So I am just lying about what I have seen.
Yes, I know you are.
Flat Earth is the illusion.
Globe Earth is the fact.
You're very good at reality warping, but the fact is there are no facts. The state of being human is living inside an illusion. Now you can continue thinking that most people are flat Earthers, but I actually know of nobody who thinks that. You're not some daring freethinker as you seem to imagine. You're among the brainwashed majority.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." – Mark Twain
I'm disappointed that you of all people are not siding with me on my argument that everybody is a flat earther.
Look at science fiction movies about time travel. The traveller always only travels through time, not space, right? That would work fine on a motionless Earth that isn't moving, wouldn't it? That's hoe it works in the most popular time travel trilogy ever made - Back to the future.
But, with the globe Earth model, if I really want to travel into the past for instance, let's say six months, then I have to also be travelling through space to where Earth was, on the direct opposite side of the sun six months ago. Go back 30 years, and try plotting where globe Earth was 30 years ago!
So, the science fiction idea that a person can only move through time to arrive at a time in history, is a fallacy. That's why its entertaining fiction. In teal life it has to be through space also. So, right there in the back to the future movies is Earth presented as a motionless plane, just like in flat earth philosophy.
You don't feel the rotation of the Earth, do you? You don't feel the Earth moving at it's great speed around the sun, do you? All you see is the world around you, still and motionless with a sun that arcs across the sky, followed by stars, the moon, and planets.
That's how ingrained the immediate world in which we live, is. We couldn't survive otjerwise. The immediate world in which we live is the flat earth.
It is so convincing and unflinching in it's appearance, that people such as yourself can be tricked into thinking the globe is just nonsense. Just a fairytale. I can't say I blame you. It's easier to develop a close relationship with God if you leave all thoughts of the globe and the entire universe out of the equation.
Meanwhile, people like Blacky can't fathom for the likes of themselves what I'm saying. Blacky is actually in his own state of denial of being a flat earther in his everyday life.
The only reason people are quick to say they are not flat earthers is because they've never really taken the time to think about what being a flat earther is. Guaranteed if everybody in this discussion took s six week break from talking about the shape of the Earth and proving this and that, and just lived life, they would look back and realise what I'm saying is true.
-
You need air to live. But then chemists (alchemists) called it oxygen. Actually, pure oxygen is toxic to the human body. We need air, not oxygen, to live.
Wrong again. You do not need air to live. You need oxygen. You do not need the nitrogen.
If you replaced that nitrogen with another gas, like helium, you would not die.
You also need it at a certain pressure.
Too low and you die.
And plenty of people are given pure oxygen.
But that's exactly the sort of stuff I'd expect from you. This is why we can't trust anything you say. In the name of science, you tell lies to the public, and lies to yourself.
You mean this is why we can't trust anything you say.
In a desperate attempt to be right you spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend you are right.
The state of denial is astounding. In a free state, people are able to discuss ideas on their merits.
And you are.
But if you are consistent with it, you will fail.
If you continually tell your math teacher that 1+1 is 5, they will fail you.
Teachers are able to teach you why an idea is wrong. Their explanations make sense.
An explanation making sense is highly dependent upon the person hearing it.
For someone like you, with a deep seeded need to reject reality, reality will never make sense.
if you ask them, "Why? I can definitely see that the sun seems to rise in the east and sets in the west, but I don't see any proof that the horizon is anything other than flat!"
They show you the difference between a ball and a flat table, showing how the flat table doesn't have a horizon, but the ball does.
They get you to look at the ball, and draw a line at the edge of what you can see, then hold it side on to show you how it is flat.
Then then show the size of you compared to the ball, to get an understanding of just how tiny you are compared to Earth.
They might even draw pictures showing how the horizon is produced for a RE, and how a FE would never produce one.
But you hate all that, so you reject it, yell and throw a tantrum saying the teacher is wrong and Earth is flat, so you get an F.
I have not experienced that with Flat Earth
Because schools try to prevent BS being taught.
So you don't have FE "teachers" that give you an F for saying Earth is round.
But we do see the complete lack of answers provided by FEers, with them instead choosing to boldly proclaim Earth is flat so it must work, or just ignoring the issues.
Just like in this thread, as well as many other thread, you flee from simple issues which show Earth isn't flat, and instead spout all sorts of lies about the RE, only to have them refuted and flee from the refutation.
interesting that secular globalists talk about Christians indoctrinating ppl because they teach the faith at a young age, but no comment about this
No, it isn't.
The RE is based upon mountains of evidence. Religion is not.
Just keep telling yourself that. These people have no clout.
Look at the fools like you. It sure seems to be working.
Meanwhile, RE has teacher's unions making sure no teachers with FE ideas ever get jobs
Which isn't surprising.
If a teacher is that out of touch with reality, they shouldn't be teaching children.
They make sure no teachers who even allow questioning of the idea get hired.
No, they don't.
There is nothing wrong with questioning.
That leads to much better understanding.
The problem comes from people like you, who don't question but instead just reject it because they don't like it.
Where is the fair and open analysis of facts here?
Right there, correctly pointing out that FE is BS.
What FEers don't want.
Where FEers happily delete comments on their video that clearly explain why they are wrong.
You not liking those facts doesn't mean they are not facts.
If you want a fair and open analysis, then deal with the issue currently at hand. The FACT that a round surface DOES produce a horizon, just like observed in reality; while a flat surface doesn't.
Start actually dealing with all the issues that show beyond any sane doubt that Earth isn't flat.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lies and strawmen that have been refuted countless times.
If FEers didn't lie so much, you wouldn't need that disclaimer.
You're welcome! ;D
And more pathetic lies from you.
I actually have several times.
No, you haven't.
Instead you have spouted blatant lies and fled from the refutation of them.
That is not defending the FE with rational arguments.
And if we're looking for proof that the majority is usually brainwashed
Cherry picking a few simple examples wont save you.
There are plenty of things that the majority believe that are true.
Things like the sun is bright.
Most grass is green.
The sky appears blue during the day.
Stars can be seen at night.
If you put a normal piece of paper in water, it will get wet.
And so on.
And the examples you picked just further show you are wrong.
The majority does not think that leeches are a good medical remedy.
The majority does not think that blacks are the descendants of Cain.
Science has never been about consensus
No, it has been about evidence.
And when the evidence is so overwhelming, it is inevitable that the majority will eventually accept it.
That doesn't mean it is brainwashing.
-
Perspective makes the surface appear to rise upward more and more with more distance away, it will not suddenly rise less and less over a flat surface
That's right, for a flat surface it continues to rise at a decreasing rate, never stopping.
This means you do not get a horizon.
In order for the horizon to form, you need it to stop and rise less.
vanishing point
The vanishing point is infinitely far away, and has nothing to do with the horizon.
How could parallel lines converge any more than they do
How about going that infinite distance, so they become a single point, instead of still being separated:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/horizon-perspective.jpg)
Curved lines that match together at the same distance apart, seen in the distance, do NOT appear to be converging together more and more in the distance
Yes, they do.
Because perspective is simply a statement about angular size.
As the distance increases, the angular size of a given physical distance decreases.
Here is a simple example:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/ElyWestCurveRailwayUK.jpg/640px-ElyWestCurveRailwayUK.jpg)
(From Andy F on wikimedia)
See how as the tracks go into the distance they appear to get closer together, even though they are curving?
Why do you need to keep repeating this crap, pretending that perspective magically stops as soon as a curve is thrown in?
It’s funny when you say the surface appears to keep rising up more and more, yet this surface would actually curve more and more downward, with more distance away.
No, I don't say that. I say a flat surface will keep rising up more and more NEVER stopping, NEVER producing a horizon.
But a round surface will only initially appear to rise. Eventually that curvature wins and it appears to go down, producing a horizon.
Perspective doesn’t make curving down surfaces appear to rise more and more on a more and more downward curved surface, and then, suddenly stop rising at a point, and curving starts up because you say it does, but no curve ever is seen at all!
No, perspective alone does not.
The combination of perspective and curvature does.
Again, it is this simple formula, the angle of dip is given by:
a=atan(e/d + d/2R)
You have 2 parts to this.
The first part is effectively perspective, e/d.
i.e. the eye height divided by distance.
As distance increases, the eye height becomes less significant, reducing the value, meaning the object has a smaller angle of dip so appears higher.
The second term is where curvature is.
Notice how now d is on the top, so as d increases this value gets bigger meaning it goes lower.
This is a competition.
Perspective makes it go up, and curvature makes it go down.
At small distances the e/d term wins.
At large distances the d/2R term wins.
The point where they switch is when e=d^2/2R
Again, this is shown in the simple images you ignore.
For a round surface, the ground initially appears to rise, before reaching a peak and starting to appear to sink.
This is what causes the horizon.
Have you ever seen something move over a ball? And move over a flat surface?
Perspective makes the object moving over a flat surface appear to rise, and makes the flat surface appear to rise.
But perspective does not make the curved surface or objects moving over it appear to keep rising. It only starts appearing to rise, if it does appear to rise at all.
Yes I have, have you?
And have you then stopped to think about it?
Over a flat surface, the object continues to rise, never stopping.
But for a round surface, as you admit it only starts appearing to rise, after enough distance, it stops and instead appears to sink.
Which one of these matches reality?
THE ROUND ONE!
Curved surfaces will always curve more and more over more distance, so if it WAS curving ever more downward in the distance, it would already ‘win out over perspective’
No, it wouldn't.
Why should curving down magically mean it wins?
Again, that is like saying that because the ground is below me, it should win and I shouldn't ever see it rise.
Or if I look down a ramp, that going down should win and I should never see it rise.
It is pure BS, showing your desperation at rejecting the RE, while the FE is refuted.
Again, if you want to keep on asserting BS, how about you actually address what has been said, including the simple diagrams that show you are spouting pure BS.
-
Meanwhile, people like Blacky can't fathom for the likes of themselves what I'm saying.
I fully understand what you are saying. I just recognise it is pure BS, based upon cherry picked examples, and ignoring reality.
Just like FEers.
And just like FEers, you project onto the people explaining why you are wrong.
For example, time travel, there are countless examples of it, some of them have them in the same relative location. Others have them in different locations.
As time travel (of the kind seen in movies) is purely fictional, there is the massive question of how it works.
Until you can provide an explanation of how it works, the idea that it shows Earth as stationary is just baseless BS.
The fact that continental drift occurs shows they aren't just travelling through time on a stationary Earth.
Instead, they appear to have their motion somehow attached to what they are on.
This is akin to wormholes, where you travel through the wormhole to a different time/space, based purely upon where the ends are.
What would make an interesting extension is have them drive through a very long container, going through time right in the middle, then seal up the container and move it to another location and open it again.
Then where do they come out?
If a container doesn't work, try it on a large ship.
Likewise, your BS about not feeling Earth motionless is BS.
You don't feel motion.
When I'm on a plane I don't sit there wondering how long it will take for Earth to move around my stationary plane for my destination to reach me.
If I go to the bathroom on the flight, I don't think about how much further I need to travel to reach it due to the motion of the plane.
Instead, I recognise that motion is relative, and not felt.
And again, the world around me is not flat. It is hilly.
It is only when you try to go to the much larger scale that you can try saying it is flat, but at that point the curvature means it isn't.
Earth is not flat, and I do not think it is in everyday life.
-
Meanwhile, people like Blacky can't fathom for the likes of themselves what I'm saying.
I fully understand what you are saying. I just recognise it is pure BS, based upon cherry picked examples, and ignoring reality.
Just like FEers.
And just like FEers, you project onto the people explaining why you are wrong.
For example, time travel, there are countless examples of it, some of them have them in the same relative location. Others have them in different locations.
As time travel (of the kind seen in movies) is purely fictional, there is the massive question of how it works.
Until you can provide an explanation of how it works, the idea that it shows Earth as stationary is just baseless BS.
The fact that continental drift occurs shows they aren't just travelling through time on a stationary Earth.
Instead, they appear to have their motion somehow attached to what they are on.
This is akin to wormholes, where you travel through the wormhole to a different time/space, based purely upon where the ends are.
What would make an interesting extension is have them drive through a very long container, going through time right in the middle, then seal up the container and move it to another location and open it again.
Then where do they come out?
If a container doesn't work, try it on a large ship.
Likewise, your BS about not feeling Earth motionless is BS.
You don't feel motion.
When I'm on a plane I don't sit there wondering how long it will take for Earth to move around my stationary plane for my destination to reach me.
If I go to the bathroom on the flight, I don't think about how much further I need to travel to reach it due to the motion of the plane.
Instead, I recognise that motion is relative, and not felt.
And again, the world around me is not flat. It is hilly.
It is only when you try to go to the much larger scale that you can try saying it is flat, but at that point the curvature means it isn't.
Earth is not flat, and I do not think it is in everyday life.
You read my words but you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying which I'd expect from one rigidly reinforcing the globe earth model as you.
I'm talking about psychology, Black.
I said we don't feel motion, so why are you implying I said the opposite? All those things reinforce the flat earth illusion. Those are the flat earther proofs.
You recognise motion is relative and not felt. But are you recognising that all the time, or sometimes just living in the present moment as it presents to you? Your immediate world around you where no curvature is obvious?
Do you think a soldier on the battlefield is concerned with anything outside his visual range or maybe within 5kms? Our survival depends on our assessnent of the immediate world around us at any place. It doesn't depend on being accutely aware of seeing the forest for the trees. The immediate world around us is Flattish. Nobody is concerned with the average curvature for the bigger picture. Few of us get to be astronauts where the big picture is important for survival.
All self aware self proclaimed flat earthers are doing, is extending this Flattish earth psychology that we all have, beyond their immediate world, and trying to force the entire world to fit into it. They make it into a crusade and become fixated and consumed with the idea.
Ultimately, flat earth is the small picture illusion.
Globe Earth is the big picture reality.
-
You read my words but you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying which I'd expect from one rigidly reinforcing the globe earth model as you.
And more pathetic projection.
I am saying I do read your words, and do comprehend what they say.
I'm just pointing out they are BS.
Are you capable of reading and comprehending what I am saying and responding to it in an honest manner?
Or are you just capable of using the same old dishonest FE tactics of ignoring everything and just repeating the same refuted BS?
I said we don't feel motion, so why are you implying I said the opposite?
Because you go beyond saying we don't feel the motion of Earth to implying that means Earth is motionless.
This is based upon a pre-conceived idea that you should feel motion, which is wrong.
So not feeling motion doesn't add to any FE illusion, unless you are a moron.
This is because you don't feel motion. Not merely you don't feel the motion of Earth, but YOU DON'T FEEL MOTION AT ALL!
i.e. motion is not something humans directly perceive.
FEers lying about this to try to con people doesn't change that fact.
You recognise motion is relative and not felt. But are you recognising that all the time
YES!
Because whenever I need to move around, I think in relative terms.
I think about where I need to go relative to where I am now.
Or I think about where I am, relative to where I need to go.
I don't think about it in any magical absolute reference frame.
So yes, it is all relative, always.
It is also quite easy to have this made very apparent by getting off a train and walking beside it only to have it start moving. That can quite easily disorient people until they quickly adjust.
It can also happen if you are on an escalator which is off.
Your immediate world around you where no curvature is obvious?
Again, why continually focus on the curvature?
No flatness is obvious either.
Again, the only way to make it "flat" is if you go to a large area so you can ignore the irregularities of the terrain. But at that point, curvature can also become significant.
If you want to focus on a local perspective, you need to focus on that irregularity, where there are hills and valleys and mountains and so on.
Again, at best you get people not giving a damn.
That doesn't magically make them FEers.
Do you think a soldier on the battlefield is concerned with anything outside his visual range or maybe within 5kms?
Yes.
Especially with the advent of aerial warfare and even just modern mechanical warefar.
What you are saying is that a solider wouldn't be concerned with a bomber still under the horizon flying towards them.
That they wouldn't be concerned with an enemy unit (infantry, tanks, whatever) just beyond the horizon getting ready to launch an assault.
Situational awareness is important for soldiers on the battlefield.
And this is perhaps the worst case you could have used.
This is because the military will often use the horizon to their advantage, trying to stay below the horizon and below radar detection.
They will use the terrain, including the curvature of Earth, to remain undetected.
You also have artillery units with ranges well beyond the horizon, where they need to adjust for curvature and rotation.
And even longer ranges with cruise missiles.
Elevated positions can also offer an advantage.
These people are certainly not treating Earth as flat.
The immediate world around us is Flattish.
No, it isn't.
It is rough and irregular.
Stop repeating the same BS.
So no, we do not all have this BS FE psychology you want to project onto others.
Are you sure you aren't a closet FEer? Or have you just decided to troll everyone?
-
You read my words but you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying which I'd expect from one rigidly reinforcing the globe earth model as you.
And more pathetic projection.
I am saying I do read your words, and do comprehend what they say.
I'm just pointing out they are BS.
Are you capable of reading and comprehending what I am saying and responding to it in an honest manner?
Or are you just capable of using the same old dishonest FE tactics of ignoring everything and just repeating the same refuted BS?
I said we don't feel motion, so why are you implying I said the opposite?
Because you go beyond saying we don't feel the motion of Earth to implying that means Earth is motionless.
This is based upon a pre-conceived idea that you should feel motion, which is wrong.
So not feeling motion doesn't add to any FE illusion, unless you are a moron.
This is because you don't feel motion. Not merely you don't feel the motion of Earth, but YOU DON'T FEEL MOTION AT ALL!
i.e. motion is not something humans directly perceive.
FEers lying about this to try to con people doesn't change that fact.
You recognise motion is relative and not felt. But are you recognising that all the time
YES!
Because whenever I need to move around, I think in relative terms.
I think about where I need to go relative to where I am now.
Or I think about where I am, relative to where I need to go.
I don't think about it in any magical absolute reference frame.
So yes, it is all relative, always.
It is also quite easy to have this made very apparent by getting off a train and walking beside it only to have it start moving. That can quite easily disorient people until they quickly adjust.
It can also happen if you are on an escalator which is off.
Your immediate world around you where no curvature is obvious?
Again, why continually focus on the curvature?
No flatness is obvious either.
Again, the only way to make it "flat" is if you go to a large area so you can ignore the irregularities of the terrain. But at that point, curvature can also become significant.
If you want to focus on a local perspective, you need to focus on that irregularity, where there are hills and valleys and mountains and so on.
Again, at best you get people not giving a damn.
That doesn't magically make them FEers.
Do you think a soldier on the battlefield is concerned with anything outside his visual range or maybe within 5kms?
Yes.
Especially with the advent of aerial warfare and even just modern mechanical warefar.
What you are saying is that a solider wouldn't be concerned with a bomber still under the horizon flying towards them.
That they wouldn't be concerned with an enemy unit (infantry, tanks, whatever) just beyond the horizon getting ready to launch an assault.
Situational awareness is important for soldiers on the battlefield.
And this is perhaps the worst case you could have used.
This is because the military will often use the horizon to their advantage, trying to stay below the horizon and below radar detection.
They will use the terrain, including the curvature of Earth, to remain undetected.
You also have artillery units with ranges well beyond the horizon, where they need to adjust for curvature and rotation.
And even longer ranges with cruise missiles.
Elevated positions can also offer an advantage.
These people are certainly not treating Earth as flat.
The immediate world around us is Flattish.
No, it isn't.
It is rough and irregular.
Stop repeating the same BS.
So no, we do not all have this BS FE psychology you want to project onto others.
Are you sure you aren't a closet FEer? Or have you just decided to troll everyone?
Lol! So hilarious! I hope you have a blood pressure monitor at your fingertips!
You're so removed from reality from all your hundreds of thousands of hours fighting with flat earthers on your keyboard, aren't you?
Did you overlook that flat earth is a spiritual movement????
It's for people unlike yourself, who want to be on a spiritual journey and feel closer to God. They recognise that one way to be closer to God, it is easier to remove the clutter of the idea of Earth as a globe and the surrounding universe, which makes them feel small and insignificant. Flat earthers recognise that in day to day life, everybody lives life oblivious to globe earth facts and figures, as it is irrelevant to the important things in life, like how well you do your job, or how well you get on with friends and family.
In your life away from the keyboard, Black, you have a little flat earther inside you and you are living in denial. Everybody has a spiritual side, even a hard nosed man of science such as yourself.
The problem with the flat earth movement is instead of running with that simple recognition which I pointed out, they feel they have to be fanatical and over the top about it, setting out against the world to prove the actual physical world as a whole, is literally flat. That's where it is corrupted.
Take Eric Dubay for example. He's a nice guy, and very spiritual, but I watched his 200 proofs for a flat earth the other day, and it's unnecessary. I dispelled each of them - easily.
You are most likely debating against the flat earth movement elite here, Black. Do you realise that? If I were a flat earth spokesperson, I would visit here too, to hone my flat earth debating skills for sure.
Oh, and you don't comprehend what I'm saying. How long is it going to take you to address each of my paragraph this time around?
-
You're so removed from reality
I'm not the one rejecting reality and trying to cling to a fantasy for who knows what reason.
it is easier to remove the clutter of the idea of Earth as a globe and the surrounding universe
Again, why continually focus on the globe?
Why not just remove the shape entirely?
But now you are just saying religious nuts are FEers, not everyone.
But you still don't need a FE for that.
as it is irrelevant to the important things in life
Again, the SHAPE is irrelevant.
That doesn't magically make them FEers.
It doesn't magically mean they act as if they believe Earth is flat.
In your life away from the keyboard, Black, you have a little flat earther inside you and you are living in denial.
No, I don't.
And repeating the same pathetic lies while entirely ignoring what I have said wont magically change that.
Oh, and you don't comprehend what I'm saying. How long is it going to take you to address each of my paragraph this time around?
I do, which is why I have easily explained why you are wrong and you entirely ignore that just to reassert the same refuted BS.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same BS, it remains BS.
-
You're so removed from reality
I'm not the one rejecting reality and trying to cling to a fantasy for who knows what reason.
it is easier to remove the clutter of the idea of Earth as a globe and the surrounding universe
Again, why continually focus on the globe?
Why not just remove the shape entirely?
But now you are just saying religious nuts are FEers, not everyone.
But you still don't need a FE for that.
as it is irrelevant to the important things in life
Again, the SHAPE is irrelevant.
That doesn't magically make them FEers.
It doesn't magically mean they act as if they believe Earth is flat.
In your life away from the keyboard, Black, you have a little flat earther inside you and you are living in denial.
No, I don't.
And repeating the same pathetic lies while entirely ignoring what I have said wont magically change that.
Oh, and you don't comprehend what I'm saying. How long is it going to take you to address each of my paragraph this time around?
I do, which is why I have easily explained why you are wrong and you entirely ignore that just to reassert the same refuted BS.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same BS, it remains BS.
I can't decide whose posts are more entertaining - the flat earthers or yours.
Anytime someone says something you don't 100% agree with, it's instantly a pathetic lie isn't it?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You relentlessly refute flat earthers arguments and assertions over and over again with cold scientifically proven data and facts, expecting each flat earther recipient to yield and denounce their own foolishness. You're just as insane as they are.
My side line argument here, which even the flat earthers are shying away from, is everybody lives in their own little world down here, which is a two dimensional surface with features, objects, and other people. That's the flat earth paradigm baby, that we only need to see the trees and don't need to see the whole forest.
Our memories of events are of places on 2 dimensional planes, which don't include memories of Earth's orbital status or the status of the solar system around us.
The Flat earthers recognise this simple truth and naturally corrupt it by insisting the immediate 2 dimensional experience needs to be stretched to include the whole world, and that they are justified in stretching the immediate 2d plane environment experience to include the entire world.
There is a thread of truth in the flat earth religion, and I have pointed out what it is, and that is there is a little time flat earther living within each of us.
It's that little guy living inside you, Blacky, who doesn't give a shit about the entire shape of the Earth for your enjoyment or survival, who enables you to keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds in your day to day life on the immediate 2d plane of your environment.
It's BS you are living in this level of denial, Blacky boy, but, I guess you are insane, so you're excused. ;D
They say many homophobics are just afraid that they themselves are homosexual. I wonder if that's also true of flateartherphobics like you, Blacky? ;D ;D
-
Anytime someone says something you don't 100% agree with, it's instantly a pathetic lie isn't it?
No, it is when they continue to repeat it with such false confidence after it has been explained why it is wrong several times.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You relentlessly refute flat earthers arguments and assertions over and over again with cold scientifically proven data and facts, expecting each flat earther recipient to yield and denounce their own foolishness. You're just as insane as they are.
Who says I am expecting anything like that?
My side line argument here, which even the flat earthers are shying away from, is everybody lives in their own little world down here, which is a two dimensional surface with features, objects, and other people.
I live in a 3D world, where elevation matters as well, and Earth is not flat by any stretch of the imagination.
Our memories of events are of places on 2 dimensional planes, which don't include memories of Earth's orbital status or the status of the solar system around us.
No, it isn't.
Again, who is thinking of it taking place on a vast plane?
Again, most people don't give a damn about the overall shape, and that doesn't magically mean it is flat.
Again, repeating the same pathetic lies while ignoring what has been said doesn't help you.
There is a thread of truth in the flat earth religion, and I have pointed out what it is, and that is there is a little time flat earther living within each of us.
No, you haven't.
You have baselessly asserted BS and ignored the refutations of it.
Again, there is not a little time flat Earther living inside me.
It's that little guy living inside you, Blacky, who doesn't give a shit about the entire shape of the Earth for your enjoyment or survival, who enables you to keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds in your day to day life
On the clearly not flat Earth.
It's BS you are living in this level of denial
I'm not the one entirely ignoring posts to just repeat the same BS again and again, without even attempting to deal with the refutations of it.
That would be you.
You are the one who has constructed a fantasy that inside every person there is a FEer, and that in their day to day lives, everyone is a FEer.
And when someone explains why that is BS, you just deny it.
You can't deal with their explanation of why you are wrong, so you just resort to pathetic denial and insults.
Can you even attempt to address what I have said? Or are you only capable of repeating the same BS?
-
Anytime someone says something you don't 100% agree with, it's instantly a pathetic lie isn't it?
No, it is when they continue to repeat it with such false confidence after it has been explained why it is wrong several times.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You relentlessly refute flat earthers arguments and assertions over and over again with cold scientifically proven data and facts, expecting each flat earther recipient to yield and denounce their own foolishness. You're just as insane as they are.
Who says I am expecting anything like that?
My side line argument here, which even the flat earthers are shying away from, is everybody lives in their own little world down here, which is a two dimensional surface with features, objects, and other people.
I live in a 3D world, where elevation matters as well, and Earth is not flat by any stretch of the imagination.
Our memories of events are of places on 2 dimensional planes, which don't include memories of Earth's orbital status or the status of the solar system around us.
No, it isn't.
Again, who is thinking of it taking place on a vast plane?
Again, most people don't give a damn about the overall shape, and that doesn't magically mean it is flat.
Again, repeating the same pathetic lies while ignoring what has been said doesn't help you.
There is a thread of truth in the flat earth religion, and I have pointed out what it is, and that is there is a little time flat earther living within each of us.
No, you haven't.
You have baselessly asserted BS and ignored the refutations of it.
Again, there is not a little time flat Earther living inside me.
It's that little guy living inside you, Blacky, who doesn't give a shit about the entire shape of the Earth for your enjoyment or survival, who enables you to keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds in your day to day life
On the clearly not flat Earth.
It's BS you are living in this level of denial
I'm not the one entirely ignoring posts to just repeat the same BS again and again, without even attempting to deal with the refutations of it.
That would be you.
You are the one who has constructed a fantasy that inside every person there is a FEer, and that in their day to day lives, everyone is a FEer.
And when someone explains why that is BS, you just deny it.
You can't deal with their explanation of why you are wrong, so you just resort to pathetic denial and insults.
Can you even attempt to address what I have said? Or are you only capable of repeating the same BS?
You said it yourself, "Most people don't give a damn about the overall shape" (In reference to the shape of the Earth).
That's right, they don't, not the way you do. It dorsn't magically make it flat, but the immediate world around us is flat. Saying that most people live on a flat earth in their day to day life may be an oversimplification.
They live in their immediate Earth, does that sound better? What is their immediate Earth, if not a flattish plane of about 10 kilometres circumference, or 5 kilometres to the horizon at sea level. Maybe living on a mountain, that circumference is 60 kilometres. It's still the maximum immediate Earth environment that can be discerned with our eyesight, or maybe even our binoculars or telescope.
We can never see the whole shape of the Earth in our day to day life with our own senses while standing on the Earth? Agreed, Black?
Why don't you ask people in your real world who don't give a shit about flat earthers, the concept I am bringing to your attention. See if they say they live in their immediate Earth world or are preoccupied 24/7 with the overall shape of the Earth as you bullshittedly declare you are.
I'm addressing what you said and I'm calling you out on your bullshit. Are you too dumb to see I'm using the term Flat Earther as an oversimplification of people who only care about their immediate environment and don't think about the overall shape of the Earth as a globe spinning through space? Not even the flat earthers you continually bully and ridicule are this galactically stupid.
-
Why don't you ask people in your real world who don't give a shit about flat earthers, the concept I am bringing to your attention. See if they say they live in their immediate Earth world or are preoccupied 24/7 with the overall shape of the Earth as you bullshittedly declare you are.
I think if you step back you both are right.
Do people think about or ponder the shape of the earth in their daily lives? No. Not directly.
But they know they can't call their friend who is on an overseas trip in the afternoon because it's night there, and if you ask they will say because the sun isn't shining on that side of the planet.
Everyone who set up a Direct TV satellite dish knows you point it up at the satellite up in space. Probably even read in the instructions how you have to adjust for your position on the Earth.
Ask people in the real world why it's hot in Bermuda and cold in Alaska and they are going to tell you because it's hotter on the equator. I'm not going to expect much more of an answer than that though due to general scientific illiteracy. Ask about seasons and good number will probably remember it's due to axial tilt.
Heck, ask most Americans which way toilets flush in Austrailia and most people will confidently tell you it's opposite due to Earth's spin. They are wrong, but they still know the Earth spins.
I think the average person doesn't believe the earth is flat when they hear that because it contradicts all those things they know and use every day.
It's true that most people don't think about the shape directly or when washing dishes, but they do use their understanding of it's shape in many other ways every day.
-
You said it yourself, "Most people don't give a damn about the overall shape" (In reference to the shape of the Earth).
And that means they aren't thinking it is flat.
the immediate world around us is flat.
No, it isn't.
Even FEers accept the world around is isn't flat.
Instead, it is only if you expand to a large section so you can ignore the irregularities of Earth you can pretend it is flat.
The immediate world around us has hills and valleys and rivers and so on.
It is rough and irregular. It is not flat.
They live in their immediate Earth, does that sound better?
Yes, as it doesn't pretend it is flat.
What is their immediate Earth, if not a flattish plane of about 10 kilometres circumference
As above, a rough irregular area.
Not a flat plane.
I wouldn't even call it a flattish plane.
And depending on location, the curve can be apparent with distance to the horizon changing with elevation.
e.g. if you live near the ocean where there is a cliff, you can easily see a difference between how far you can view when on the cliff or when on the shore at sea level.
That is due to curvature.
This is also one way people can easily be acting as if Earth is NOT flat, when they go higher to see more.
If Earth was flat it wouldn't matter how high you are.
And most people wouldn't be thinking about the entire area anyway.
We can never see the whole shape of the Earth in our day to day life with our own senses while standing on the Earth? Agreed, Black?
You can't see all of Earth.
Why don't you ask people in your real world who don't give a shit about flat earthers, the concept I am bringing to your attention.
How about you try?
You go and ask them if they are acting as if Earth is flat?
See if they say they live in their immediate Earth world or are preoccupied 24/7 with the overall shape of the Earth as you bullshittedly declare you are.
And more pathetic strawmen.
Why not try that honestly?
I'm addressing what you said and I'm calling you out on your bullshit.
Yet when doing so, you have to change what your claim, and then try to end with a strawman.
I explained that most people do NOT act as if Earth is flat.
And when you finally respond to that, you accept that they don't give a damn about the shape and are just focusing on their immediate surroundings.
And you appear to have entirely dropped the idea about thinking Earth is still.
Are you too dumb to see I'm using the term Flat Earther as an oversimplification of people who only care about their immediate environment and don't think about the overall shape of the Earth as a globe spinning through space?
Not too dumb, I just see that as dishonest BS.
As shown by how I responded to it.
As I explained to you repeatedly, not thinking about the entire Earth all the time, and not thinking about how Earth is moving and so on, doesn't magically mean they think Earth is flat.
That does not make them a FEer.
And again, why continually say globe?
You can just end your sentence at shape of the Earth.
You seem to want to put globe in there to pretend they are FEers.
But guess what? Most FEers probably do the same spending their life just focusing on their immediate surroundings rather than thinking about their belief that it is flat.
Does that mean they have a REer inside? NO!
It simply means most people don't give a damn about the shape.
That is the point you kept on ignoring.
But now that you can't defend your BS of them being a FEer and want to pretend to respond, you switch to this new claim.
If you had simply said that they only care about their immediate environment and don't think about the shape, there wouldn't have been an issue.
But you weren't happy with that. You wanted to claim they were flat Earthers and that is pure bullshit.
Not thinking about the overall shape of Earth does not make them flat Earthers.
The overall shape of Earth, regardless of if you believe it is flat or round, requires thinking about the large scale, not just your immediate surroundings.
-
That's right, for a flat surface it continues to rise at a decreasing rate, never stopping.
This means you do not get a horizon.
In order for the horizon to form, you need it to stop and rise less.
No, on a flat surface like on Earth, the surface appears to rise more and more with more distance away, not less and less.
That’s why it eventually forms into a horizon, the limiting or vanishing point of our view of the surface and objects on the surface.
Beyond the horizon we only see objects higher than the horizon, or the upper parts of them higher than the horizon, until they are too distant as well past the horizon.
If the surface WAS curved, it WOULD rise less and less with more distance, because it would curve down more and more with more distance. Not rise more and more, while curving downward more and more, that makes no sense at all, and is NOT what happens at all.
Look at any ball, and imagine it is the Earth ball, and you are on it, at the same scale you’d be on an Earth ball.
The higher above the ball you are, the surface goes more and more downward, never upward or rising with you, it cannot rise up when you rise above a ball, only downward when you rise above it.
Perspective works over distances, and stops after a distance, forming a horizon over the surface, a horizontal line across the surface we always see.
The word horizon comes from the word horizontal, and vice versa.
What does horizontal mean? A straight, flat and level line, never curving at all, nor an arc or circular line whatsoever.
There’s no point in calling them horizons if they’re curved lines, they’d have called them arches across the spherical surface, not horizontal lines across the flat surface.
-
Are you planning on just continually repeating the same refuted BS while continually refusing to engage in any meaningful way with the refutation of that BS?
Again, these simple diagrams show you are blatantly lying to everyone:
(https://i.imgur.com/R8gCt3J.png)
For a flat surface, the ground appears to continue to rise, never stopping so never producing a horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
For a round surface, the ground initially appears to rise, but reaches a peak after which it appears to go back down, producing a horizon.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same refuted BS, these 2 simple diagrams are irrefutable proof that you are lying to everyone and that a round surface produces a horizon while a flat surface does not.
Likewise, this simple graph and simple equations that it uses show you are lying as well.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t71r8fecpt
If you want to pretend that you are telling the truth, and be in any way convincing you need to deal with these simple arguments that show beyond any doubt that you are lying to everyone.
Continuing to ignore them to just repeat the same refuted BS just shows how dishonest you are; how you are willing to blatantly lie to everyone and repeat the same refuted lies to pretend Earth is flat; it shows that you do not give a damn about the truth at all; that all you care about is propping up your delusional fantasy.
No, on a flat surface like on Earth, the surface appears to rise more and more with more distance away, not less and less.
i.e. it continues to rise FOREVER! It will NEVER produce a horizon.
In order to produce the horizon you need it to stop rising.
This is not hard to understand.
The horizon is the point where the ground appears to stop rising, where it appears to reach a peak.
That is exactly what you cannot get for a flat surface.
You cannot honestly say it forms a horizon if you are saying it continues to rise.
You can only have 1.
vanishing point
Again, the vanishing point, a hypothetical point where parallel lines meet, is infinitely far away and has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
Beyond the horizon we only see objects higher than the horizon, or the upper parts of them higher than the horizon, until they are too distant as well past the horizon.
Yes, exactly as expected for a curved surface.
If the surface WAS curved, it WOULD rise less and less with more distance
How about instead of using these clearly intentionally confusing words, what do you mean by rise more and more vs rise less and less?
By "rise more and more" do you mean that the angle of elevation will increase, with no comment on how quickly it increases; and by "rise less and less" do you really mean it will "drop more and more" with the angle of elevation decreasing, with no comment on how quickly it decreases?
Or, by "rise more and more" do you mean that the angle of elevation will increase at an increasing rate, and by "rise less and less" you mean the angle of elevation will increase at a decreasing rate?
I am going to assume you mean the former.
In which case, WRONG!
It has been explained repeatedly why that is pure BS.
because it would curve down more and more with more distance.
Again, if it was as simple as that, NOTHING below you would EVER appear to rise.
What you have is 2 competing effects.
There is the simple effect of perspective making it appear to rise, and the curvature making it physically lower.
You need to determine which effect is more significant, and this will not always be the same.
Again, the rate of change is proportional to e/d^2 or 1/2R. So for small values of d, one will dominate, for large values the other will.
That means initially it will rise, until the other term becomes more significant and it goes down.
Not rise more and more, while curving downward more and more, that makes no sense at all, and is NOT what happens at all.
Why does it make no sense at all?
We see this all the time when we look at a ball.
Do we see just a single point? NO! Even though it is curving "down" we still see the surface of the ball initially appear to "rise". This continues until the point being considered is far enough around the ball, such that the ball blocks the view.
Look at any ball, and imagine it is the Earth ball, and you are on it, at the same scale you’d be on an Earth ball.
And realise just how insignificant the curvature is at that point.
We can even compare it to a sloped surface.
Say you are on a hill 100 m high, and you can see the ground below 5 km away quite easily, with it appearing at a higher angle of elevation than the ground directly below your feet.
Realise that even if it was a perfectly straight line from the ground beneath your feet to the ground 5 km away, you would still be able to see it.
Then realise that for a RE, that drop is only 2 m.
Then realise that if instead of it being a straight line starting directly beneath your feet, it was instead a straight line starting a short distance in front, you would still be able to see it.
Then realise that that is basically just starting to form a round surface.
If you do that honestly, you realise that what we see is entirely consistent with a RE.
Now do the same for a flat surface, and realise regardless of how high above it you are, you can see all the way to the edge. There is no magical horizon produced, as there is nothing to get in the way.
Or just grab a ball, and hold it directly under your eye, with you looking straight down at it.
The point directly below your eye is at an angle of elevation of -90 degrees.
This makes it impossible for any part of it to be below that angle of elevation.
If your BS was true, you would just a single point.
But you don't.
Instead you see the surface of the ball appear to rise, with it taking up your entire FOV, in order to get it out of your FOV you need to look up, clearly showing that the surface appears to rise, directly contradicting your pathetic lies.
The higher above the ball you are, the surface goes more and more downward, never upward or rising with you, it cannot rise up when you rise above a ball, only downward when you rise above it.
Wrong again.
As you are higher, the amount it goes down is less significant.
So it more closely matches the behaviour expected for a flat surface for a much longer distance. This means you can see more of the ball, with the horizon being further away. However, it does also mean that the horizon will be at a lower angle of dip, exactly as observed in reality.
Perspective works over distances, and stops after a distance
No, it doesn't.
That is the pathetic lie you have been reduced to to pretend a FE works.
Perspective NEVER stops.
Perspective continues regardless of how much distance is involved.
What does horizontal mean?
Perpendicular to down.
There’s no point in calling them horizons if they’re curved lines, they’d have called them arches across the spherical surface, not horizontal lines across the flat surface.
And more delusional BS.
You are aware you can have a circle that is horizontal?
Like the horizon. Exactly as expected from a round Earth.
You also have your etymology the wrong way around.
Horizon comes from horizon kuklos, or limiting circle.
The horizon is the limit.
It is the limit beyond which you cannot see Earth, because Earth is blocking the view.
Horizontal came from horizon, because this limiting circle of Earth was horizontal, exactly as expected for the RE.
Now again, going to stop lying for once?
To put the truth above your delusional fantasy?
Or will you just keep repeating the same pathetic refuted lies?
-
You said it yourself, "Most people don't give a damn about the overall shape" (In reference to the shape of the Earth).
And that means they aren't thinking it is flat.
the immediate world around us is flat.
No, it isn't.
Even FEers accept the world around is isn't flat.
Instead, it is only if you expand to a large section so you can ignore the irregularities of Earth you can pretend it is flat.
The immediate world around us has hills and valleys and rivers and so on.
It is rough and irregular. It is not flat.
They live in their immediate Earth, does that sound better?
Yes, as it doesn't pretend it is flat.
What is their immediate Earth, if not a flattish plane of about 10 kilometres circumference
As above, a rough irregular area.
Not a flat plane.
I wouldn't even call it a flattish plane.
And depending on location, the curve can be apparent with distance to the horizon changing with elevation.
e.g. if you live near the ocean where there is a cliff, you can easily see a difference between how far you can view when on the cliff or when on the shore at sea level.
That is due to curvature.
This is also one way people can easily be acting as if Earth is NOT flat, when they go higher to see more.
If Earth was flat it wouldn't matter how high you are.
And most people wouldn't be thinking about the entire area anyway.
We can never see the whole shape of the Earth in our day to day life with our own senses while standing on the Earth? Agreed, Black?
You can't see all of Earth.
Why don't you ask people in your real world who don't give a shit about flat earthers, the concept I am bringing to your attention.
How about you try?
You go and ask them if they are acting as if Earth is flat?
See if they say they live in their immediate Earth world or are preoccupied 24/7 with the overall shape of the Earth as you bullshittedly declare you are.
And more pathetic strawmen.
Why not try that honestly?
I'm addressing what you said and I'm calling you out on your bullshit.
Yet when doing so, you have to change what your claim, and then try to end with a strawman.
I explained that most people do NOT act as if Earth is flat.
And when you finally respond to that, you accept that they don't give a damn about the shape and are just focusing on their immediate surroundings.
And you appear to have entirely dropped the idea about thinking Earth is still.
Are you too dumb to see I'm using the term Flat Earther as an oversimplification of people who only care about their immediate environment and don't think about the overall shape of the Earth as a globe spinning through space?
Not too dumb, I just see that as dishonest BS.
As shown by how I responded to it.
As I explained to you repeatedly, not thinking about the entire Earth all the time, and not thinking about how Earth is moving and so on, doesn't magically mean they think Earth is flat.
That does not make them a FEer.
And again, why continually say globe?
You can just end your sentence at shape of the Earth.
You seem to want to put globe in there to pretend they are FEers.
But guess what? Most FEers probably do the same spending their life just focusing on their immediate surroundings rather than thinking about their belief that it is flat.
Does that mean they have a REer inside? NO!
It simply means most people don't give a damn about the shape.
That is the point you kept on ignoring.
But now that you can't defend your BS of them being a FEer and want to pretend to respond, you switch to this new claim.
If you had simply said that they only care about their immediate environment and don't think about the shape, there wouldn't have been an issue.
But you weren't happy with that. You wanted to claim they were flat Earthers and that is pure bullshit.
Not thinking about the overall shape of Earth does not make them flat Earthers.
The overall shape of Earth, regardless of if you believe it is flat or round, requires thinking about the large scale, not just your immediate surroundings.
The flat Earth movement capitalises on the immediate environment here on Earth, we all live within. They capitalise on it because the immediate world in which we live is North, South, East, West with flat ground below and a dome looking sky above. Most people ignore thinking about the overall shape of the Earth.
So, how different is this to what the flat earth priests preach, aside from that concept expanded to include the whole Earth? I haven't ignored that it is motionless down here at ground zero, either, or that wherever one goes, water finds it's level wherever you are. It's all flat earth proofs of the immediate environment.
Make a list of all the things flat earthers preach and believe, Black. Its what we experience in our immediate environment, isn't it? The overall shape of the Earth may be in the backs of most people's minds, but most people ignore it. Most people don't even think about it. So, if that's true, how different are most people from flat earthers in day to day life?
Flat Earthers like people fighting the flat earthers, think about the overall shape of the earth all the time. That's abnormal. You and I and everybody else on this forum engaging in these flat earth debates are essentially, abnormal.
I can't run a poll on this site as to whether most people agree they primarily live in their immediate flat earth environment, ignoring the overall shape of the earth, because by virtue of being on this site, everybody here has already considered the overall shape of the Earth much more than most people. The results would be biased.
But it would be interesting to run such a poll outside this forum, wouldn't it Black?
So, answer this, Black:
If most people do psychologically live within their immediate flat earth environment surrounded by all those flat earth proofs, aside from not being preoccupied and fixated with what the overall shape of the Earth is, how different are most people really, to self-confessed flat earthers?
So, from that viewpoint, I can justifiably say there is a little flat earther living within each us, just as there is a little globe earther living within each of us. We all live in our immediate small-scale environment on a large-scale globe.
Still think I'm wrong? Run a poll outside this site and let's see how wrong I am......
-
Why don't you ask people in your real world who don't give a shit about flat earthers, the concept I am bringing to your attention. See if they say they live in their immediate Earth world or are preoccupied 24/7 with the overall shape of the Earth as you bullshittedly declare you are.
I think if you step back you both are right.
Do people think about or ponder the shape of the earth in their daily lives? No. Not directly.
But they know they can't call their friend who is on an overseas trip in the afternoon because it's night there, and if you ask they will say because the sun isn't shining on that side of the planet.
Everyone who set up a Direct TV satellite dish knows you point it up at the satellite up in space. Probably even read in the instructions how you have to adjust for your position on the Earth.
Ask people in the real world why it's hot in Bermuda and cold in Alaska and they are going to tell you because it's hotter on the equator. I'm not going to expect much more of an answer than that though due to general scientific illiteracy. Ask about seasons and good number will probably remember it's due to axial tilt.
Heck, ask most Americans which way toilets flush in Austrailia and most people will confidently tell you it's opposite due to Earth's spin. They are wrong, but they still know the Earth spins.
I think the average person doesn't believe the earth is flat when they hear that because it contradicts all those things they know and use every day.
It's true that most people don't think about the shape directly or when washing dishes, but they do use their understanding of it's shape in many other ways every day.
If most people are put on the spot and asked questions pertaining to the overall shape of the earth, most will answer in a way which agrees we live on a spinning globe. Most people however, are illiterate as to the scientific specifics.
But, it's impossible to sustain that awareness of the overall shape of the Earth in our waking hours, 24/7 and in many ways would be counterproductive to our lives if we did.
Our immediate environment, our small-scale world is our default for survival purposes. There's no use thinking about the overall shape of the Earth while we are ignoring the train bearing down on us on the railway tracks, is there? Our primary focus is and has to be, our immediate environment.
Our lives depend on it.
-
The flat Earth movement capitalises on the immediate environment here on Earth, we all live within.
Not really.
The capitalise on wilful ignorance, dishonest BS, and paranoia.
They capitalise on it because the immediate world in which we live is North, South, East, West with flat ground below and a dome looking sky above.
Repeating the same BS wont make it true.
The ground is quite clearly not flat.
And by that, I mean the immediate world around me does NOT have flat ground.
Continuing to ignore this fact, to repeat the same pathetic BS, makes you just as bad as the FEers.
I haven't ignored that it is motionless down here
You mean you wish to ignore that you cannot detect motion again?
Its what we experience in our immediate environment, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
It is extrapolating well beyond the immediate environment to ignore the parts of the immediate environment that show Earth isn't flat.
As well as inventing so much extra BS that isn't in our immediate environment to pretend the FE works.
For example, we see the sun set. In our immediate environment, this is because the sun has gone below Earth and Earth is now blocking the view, yet FEers need to entirely reject that.
So no, a flat Earth is not our immediate environment, and our immediate environment is not a flat Earth.
So, if that's true, how different are most people from flat earthers in day to day life?
Most people aren't that paranoid.
But if this is your standard, you may as well say most people breathe air, just like FEers, so they must be FEers.
Most people do not go around acting like the world is flat.
Even just limited it to their immediate environment, it still isn't flat.
But it would be interesting to run such a poll outside this forum, wouldn't it Black?
No, it wouldn't.
Your question is already biased, implying Earth is flat.
There is no way to ask the question without skewing the results.
If most people do psychologically live within their immediate flat earth environment
They don't.
So, from that viewpoint, I can justifiably say there is a little flat earther living within each us
If your fantasy was true, you could.
But as explained, the immediate environment is NOT flat, and plenty of things directly defy the FE.
So no, there is not a FEer living within each of us.
Again, people not caring about the shape doesn't mean they are a FEer or that there is a FEer living inside them.
-
So? What should the horizon indicator do if flying below sea level?
Posted this in another thread.
flying below sea level
-
If level meant level to Earth’s ‘curvature’, then laser levels wouldn’t work at all.
Laser light is a straight, flat line of light, there is no curve to it, at any distance outward.
And NASA claims they have hit small reflectors on the moon which were planted there by astronuts, which bounce right back to them at an exact point!
How accurate and straight and precise that must be! This is all bs, of course, but you say it’s true, so let’s assume it is.
We’d certainly be able to measure an 8 inch ‘curvature’ over a mile with lasers, easily!
They are either extremely accurate or they aren’t that accurate, which is it?
Not accurate enough to measure curvature, but extremely accurate to hit the little reflectors that are 250,000 miles away and back to one tiny point on Earth again!!
Nice to make things up anywhere at all, conflicts dont matter, all good!
-
If level meant level to Earth’s ‘curvature’, then laser levels wouldn’t work at all.
Again, how many times are you planning on repeating this same refuted BS?
For their range and accuracy, laser levels can't tell.
Repeating the same BS just shows your dishonesty.
And NASA claims they have hit small reflectors on the moon which were planted there by astronuts, which bounce right back to them at an exact point!
Which in no way requires them to pinpoint those reflectors on the moon.
The point of a retroreflector is to take incoming light and reflect it back regardless of orientation.
With the divergence of the laser beam, they just need to aim towards the moon.
Again, this BS of yours was already refuted.
Repeating the same BS just shows your dishonesty.
Nice to make things up anywhere at all
I wouldn't call your fabrications nice, I would call them pathetic.
Now care to stop with the pathetic deflections?
You have already implicitly admitted that you were blatantly lying to everyone about planes and you fully accept that they don't need to ascend or descend to maintain their altitude over a level surface.
Since then the discussion has moved on to the horizon.
Where you have basically admitted that for a RE, the ground will appear to rise initially, before going back down.
This is also what is expected, as demonstrated repeatedly.
What you have failed to do is show why perspective should magically stop for a FE and reverse to produce a horizon.
Again, here are the images for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/R8gCt3J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
And a link to the desmos graph:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t71r8fecpt
These clearly demonstrate a FE will NOT produce a horizon, that instead the ground will continue to appear to rise forever, never stopping, and approaching 0 degrees.
Conversely, a RE WILL produce a horizon, with the ground initially appearing to rise, until the effect of curvature becomes too significant at which point it starts to curve back down producing the horizon.
-
The flat Earth movement capitalises on the immediate environment here on Earth, we all live within.
Not really.
The capitalise on wilful ignorance, dishonest BS, and paranoia.
They capitalise on it because the immediate world in which we live is North, South, East, West with flat ground below and a dome looking sky above.
Repeating the same BS wont make it true.
The ground is quite clearly not flat.
And by that, I mean the immediate world around me does NOT have flat ground.
Continuing to ignore this fact, to repeat the same pathetic BS, makes you just as bad as the FEers.
I haven't ignored that it is motionless down here
You mean you wish to ignore that you cannot detect motion again?
Its what we experience in our immediate environment, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
It is extrapolating well beyond the immediate environment to ignore the parts of the immediate environment that show Earth isn't flat.
As well as inventing so much extra BS that isn't in our immediate environment to pretend the FE works.
For example, we see the sun set. In our immediate environment, this is because the sun has gone below Earth and Earth is now blocking the view, yet FEers need to entirely reject that.
So no, a flat Earth is not our immediate environment, and our immediate environment is not a flat Earth.
So, if that's true, how different are most people from flat earthers in day to day life?
Most people aren't that paranoid.
But if this is your standard, you may as well say most people breathe air, just like FEers, so they must be FEers.
Most people do not go around acting like the world is flat.
Even just limited it to their immediate environment, it still isn't flat.
But it would be interesting to run such a poll outside this forum, wouldn't it Black?
No, it wouldn't.
Your question is already biased, implying Earth is flat.
There is no way to ask the question without skewing the results.
If most people do psychologically live within their immediate flat earth environment
They don't.
So, from that viewpoint, I can justifiably say there is a little flat earther living within each us
If your fantasy was true, you could.
But as explained, the immediate environment is NOT flat, and plenty of things directly defy the FE.
So no, there is not a FEer living within each of us.
Again, people not caring about the shape doesn't mean they are a FEer or that there is a FEer living inside them.
Lol! How did I miss replying to this arrogance filled little gem?
If my fantasy were true? My fantasy?
Why dont you take your family out this evening to watch the sunset and then listen to their words as they describe the experience of what they see. They will tell you they watched the sun go down. They watched the setting sun. They watched the sun moving and the whole world around them going from light to dark. Then they might watch the stars moving from East to West.
You don't know whether most people psychologically live within their immediate environment which want for a better terminology is akin to the flat earth proofs. You don't know because you've never taken the time to consider it. All you care about is hard science. Everything to you is black and white, right or wrong.
You don't know because such a study has never been conducted to my knowkedge. You are making an assumption without taking the time to get your facts straight.
Ironically, Jackblack, you are exactly like the flat earthers.
All you know is what's going on in that big head of yours.
-
Lol! How did I miss replying to this arrogance filled little gem?
Says the one arrogantly claiming that everyone has a little FEer inside and entirely ignoring points which show that isn't the case at all.
Why dont you take your family out this evening to watch the sunset and then listen to their words as they describe the experience of what they see. They will tell you they watched the sun go down.
As opposed to flat Earthers, that claim the sun goes off into the distance.
Great job proving my point.
You don't know whether most people psychologically live within their immediate environment which want for a better terminology is akin to the flat earth proofs.
I do know they don't, because the immediate environment is not akin to the flat earth "proofs".
You don't know because you've never taken the time to consider it. All you care about is hard science. Everything to you is black and white, right or wrong.
You don't know because such a study has never been conducted to my knowkedge. You are making an assumption without taking the time to get your facts straight.
Ironically, Jackblack, you are exactly like the flat earthers.
Says the one making bold claims about others, while ignoring the refutation of those claims, and projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
-
Our instruments measure what is indicated on them, a vertical post is straight up at 90 degrees to a horizontal line, which is flat and level, and measures flat and level with our instruments.
We see the surface is flat, and appears to be rising upward in the distance, and is always seen as flat, while appearing to be rising upward at the same time.
Yet the real surface is seen on horizons, which are all flat, straight across imaginary lines on the surface, which is not skewed by perspective like when seeing the surface outward from us. Horizons are the true view of our surface, which is perfectly flat.
-
If you had many 100ft vertical posts, 100ft appart, standing perpendicular on a circle that was 130,000,000ft circumference, what would the angle/ added difference be between the tops of the posts?
-
Our instruments measure what is indicated on them
You ignore the dip of the horizon with a Theodolite.
Horizon dip measured 1
Theodolites are precise instruments used by surveyors and other professionals to measure angles, both vertical and horizontal. A very simple task for a Theodolite is to measure the angular dip of the horizon. Theodolites are extremely sensitive and are certified to measure angles to 1 arcsecond or less. That is 0.00028 degrees.
These measurements were take at Williams Reset by The Maine Surveyor, a professional geodetic surveyor.
Coordinates: 43° 37′ 26.52402″ N, 070° 12′ 37.43712″ W
Elevation: 21.986 meters
Note that there are two views, one at 90 degrees, one at 270 degrees. These two measurements are to negate the effect of any collimation errors. The final image has field notes and calculations from The Maine Surveyor. A total of 20 measurements were taken, 10 for each face of the theodolite. By averaging equal numbers of measurements from each face collimation errors are eliminated.
The key thing to identify here is that the horizon does, indeed drop when measured. The measured drop is 7′ 39″ with a standard deviation of +/- 3 arcseconds.
Earth's Radius Follow-Up 2
Using “instruments”, the earth measures spherical.
So. What’s your next lie, goalpost moving, change of subject.
Our instruments measure what is indicated on them, a vertical post is straight up at 90 degrees to a horizontal line,
So. What instrument measures that. And a post can be “perpendicular” to the highest point on a curve.
And you don’t set posts like that because the ground or horizon is “ lumpy”.
These posts are perpendicular to what part of the horizon?
(https://i.imgur.com/LPDUQuW.jpg)
You set posts using a plum bob or level. Which work because of gravity.
Plumb bob
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumb_bob
is used with a variety of instruments (including levels, theodolites, and steel tapes) to set the instrument exactly over a fixed survey marker or to transcribe positions onto the ground for placing a marker.
-
Our instruments measure what is indicated on them, a vertical post is straight up at 90 degrees to a horizontal line, which is flat and level, and measures flat and level with our instruments.
It is flat or level, not both.
The best you get is not being able to tell the difference.
We see the surface is flat, and appears to be rising upward in the distance, and is always seen as flat, while appearing to be rising upward at the same time.
No, it isn't.
For the most part it is seen as rough and irregular.
But the fact that it stops rising, to produce a horizon shows beyond any doubt that it is curving.
No amount of your pathetic lies will change that.
Yet the real surface is seen on horizons
A physical, roughly circular line around you; clearly demonstrating Earth is not flat.
If Earth was flat there would be no horizon.
And as it is roughly the same distance all around, it is a circle, not a straight line.
-
It's pretty simple to me as to why the artificial horizon works on a plane or on anything that offers a potential angle.
This is explained by my atmospheric stacked layering which I've mentioned so many times.
Same as a theodolite or a simple spirit level or a water level.
Buildings go up based on this and they go up as high as needed with extreme tolerances to vertical plumb from any central point.
You could angle any plane or building and fill it with water and the water will self-level within the angled structures.
Your artificial horizon gauge is just a moving centralised spirit level.
-
It's pretty simple to me as to why the artificial horizon works on a plane or on anything that offers a potential angle.
It is pretty simple to most people, a gyroscope with a self righting mechanism reliant upon gravity.
This is explained by my atmospheric stacked layering which I've mentioned so many times.
Your nonsense explains nothing.
You have failed every single time.
You have failed to explain why the atmosphere should stack.
You have failed to explain why this should result in a greater pressure the lower down it is.
You have failed to explain how the air magically defies this pressure gradient so the low pressure air above magically pushes and overcomes the higher pressure air below resisting it so the object goes down.
You have failed to explain why this only occurs if the object in question is dense enough and why when the object is not dense enough it instead gets pushed up as any honest, sane person would expect the pressure gradient to do.
In short, you have entirely failed to explain anything.
Instead, you have continually deflected and then fled the topic when you are repeatedly refuted.
Buildings go up based on this
No, they don't.
That is because your nonsense doesn't work. Nothing is based upon it.
Your artificial horizon gauge is just a moving centralised spirit level.
No, it isn't.
That is basically the inclinometer, a part of the turn coordinator or turn and slip indicator.
To understand why, consider this:
When water is in a container which is turning, the surface is not perpendicular to down.
-
It's pretty simple to me as to why the artificial horizon works on a plane or on anything that offers a potential angle.
Then why did your run away that they utilize gravity and vacuum? And they self correct for things like the curvature of the earth?
This is explained by my atmospheric stacked layering which I've mentioned so many times.
The atmosphere driven by gravity. With no indication and explanation how less pressure potential above can push something down into greater pressure potential below. When fluids alone move items it’s from high pressure (greater potential and energy) to lower pressure (to lower potential and lower energy).
Same as a theodolite
A theodolite works also with sight.
Buildings go up based on this
Building are based on columns usually vertical or inline with gravity. And loading based on gravity.
You could angle any plane or building and fill it with water and the water will self-level within the angled structures.
Air planes usually use artificial horizon with a gyroscope and use pendulous vanes that correct for errors using vacuum and gravity.
Water would go crazy in dives, rolls, flying upside down.
Your artificial horizon gauge is just a moving centralised spirit level.
Which would be a lie on your part.
it won't change reality and the reality is simple.
And again..
You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.
Shrugs…
Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
And…
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
Walk us through this for the artificial horizon indicator as an airplane passes over an ever increasing horizon as it flys towards the increasing slope and horizon of a mountain range?
Anyway…
https://flatearth.ws/artificial-horizon
An artificial horizon, or attitude indicator, is a flight instrument that indicates the aircraft’s orientation relative to Earth’s horizon and gives an immediate indication of the smallest change of orientation. An artificial horizon utilizes a gyroscope to detect the change of orientation and pendulous vanes to continuously correct the orientation relative to the level.
Flat-Earthers claim that an artificial horizon should drift over time if the airplane is flying over the spherical Earth because the gyroscope will eventually drift and no longer points toward Earth’s center. In reality, an artificial horizon has a self-correcting mechanism, keeping the gyroscope upright if it is displaced for any reason, including by the aircraft’s motion following Earth’s curvature.
Preflight Actions:
When an aircraft engine is first started and pneumatic or electric power is supplied to the instruments, the gyro is not erect
A self-erecting mechanism inside the instrument actuated by the force of gravity applies a precessing force, causing the gyro to rise to its vertical position
The attitude indicator should not bank more than 5° in taxi turns
https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/avionics-and-instruments/attitude-indicator
Attitude indicators have mechanisms that keep the instrument level with respect to the direction of gravity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
Flat Earth - Yes an aircraft Artificial Horizon self corrects in flight - Pt 1
Their artificial horizon shows you this.
The vacuum powered instruments that uses gravity?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pendulous Vanes | Pilot Tutorial
Ep. 60: Inner Workings of an Attitude Indicator | Gyroscope
Like this source better…
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/presolo/special/understanding-gyroscopic-instruments
Gyro instruments react to short-term movements of the airplane. In fact, the attitude indicator contains a set of weights intended to drive the instrument toward level flight by sensing gravity. These weights move the instrument face about 3 degrees per minute. So if you were to maintain a 30-degree coordinated banked turn for 10 minutes,
Commonly, the AI and HI are powered by vacuum pneumatic systems.
-
It's pretty simple to me as to why the artificial horizon works on a plane or on anything that offers a potential angle.
It is pretty simple to most people, a gyroscope with a self righting mechanism reliant upon gravity.
It doesn't self right it's helped to balance once again because the gyroscope gets back into atmospherically stacked order once the plane is levelled out.
No such thing as gravity. It's just a story of fiction told and sold to those who want to accept it based on nothing physically proven.
Your artificial horizon gauge is just a moving centralised spirit level.
No, it isn't.
That is basically the inclinometer, a part of the turn coordinator or turn and slip indicator.
To understand why, consider this:
When water is in a container which is turning, the surface is not perpendicular to down.
The water in a turning container compresses the atmosphere and pushes it away and up which then compresses back into the water void ensuring the water is compressed to the sides.
This is the same as the fairground rota where people are compressed to the sides.
-
Then why did your run away that they utilize gravity and vacuum?
What are you talking about?
And they self correct for things like the curvature of the earth?
They are corrected by the atmospheric stacking which is level without interference.
This is explained by my atmospheric stacked layering which I've mentioned so many times.
The atmosphere driven by gravity. With no indication and explanation how less pressure potential above can push something down into greater pressure potential below. When fluids alone move items it’s from high pressure (greater potential and energy) to lower pressure (to lower potential and lower energy).
less pressure can never offer anything against higher pressure. It takes a higher pressure to compress less pressure into a higher pressure to create a return movement so have a rethink.
Same as a theodolite
A theodolite works also with sight.
Everything works with sight.
Buildings go up based on this
Building are based on columns usually vertical or inline with gravity. And loading based on gravity.
Buildings are put up by offering a push out of the way of atmosphere which then self-levels against the building materials.
You could angle any plane or building and fill it with water and the water will self-level within the angled structures.
Air planes usually use artificial horizon with a gyroscope and use pendulous vanes that correct for errors using vacuum and gravity.
Water would go crazy in dives, rolls, flying upside down.
You misread what I said. Maybe on purpose but who knows?
-
What are you talking about?
The explain an artificial horizon works without gravity and and vacuum.
-
less pressure can never offer anything against higher pressure. It takes a higher pressure to compress less pressure into a higher pressure to create a return movement so have a rethink.
Which is bullshit. Low pressure can’t push down high pressure. High pressure will equal with low pressure. The force of gravity as weight works on individual molecules of O2, N2, and CO2 to keep them bunched up at the surface of the earth. The force of gravity forces them together to over come their tendency to bounce off each other until pressure reaches equal potential. Without gravity, there should be no pressure gradient.
We know atmosphere doesn’t push things down to make them accelerate towards earth.
One. Low pressure can’t push things into higher pressure. Such as from lower pressure of the upper atmosphere to higher pressure at lower altitudes.
Two. You remove “pressure” by reducing atmosphere in a vacuum chamber, things fall faster. If you remove the motive force for things to fall in your delusion things fall faster. The is backwards from your model.
Three. If enough atmosphere is removed from a chamber to make air resistance negligible. Objects fall at the same rate.
-
No such thing as gravity.
You never did answer this. Why does a half liter of soda fall at the same rate as a full liter of soda?
Why can a gravity model actually predict acceleration and rates.
While your model horribly fails.
-
And they self correct for things like the curvature of the earth?
They are corrected by the atmospheric stacking which is level without interference.
If the earth was flat why would there need to be correction.
-
They are corrected by the atmospheric stacking which is level without interference.
Except in the case of the artificial horizon the atmosphere inside with the mechanisms isn’t “stacking”, its under constant air movement and mixing.
Air-Driven Attitude Gyro
Most of our airplanes are equipped by an air-driven attitude indicator powered by the aircraft’s vacuum or pressure system. The heart of the instrument is a gyroscope: a massive metal rotor disk that spins at about 10,000 RPM in the horizontal plane about a vertical axle. The gyro is gimballed with pivots in both the roll and pitch axes.
The rotor of the air-driven gyro is mounted in a sealed housing. Filtered air is brought into the gyro housing through passages in the rear pivot, the gimbal ring, and the side pivots. The air then blows against the rotor through two angled nozzles on opposite sides of the housing. The circumference of the rotor is machined with dozens of little bucket-like cutouts which allow the airflow to spin the rotor like a waterwheel (but a whole lot faster). Having done its work, the air then exits through exhaust ports on the lower part of the sealed gyro housing, whereupon it is sucked out of the instrument case by the vacuum pump.
If the gyro tilts so that its axle is not plumb, the pendulous vanes shift so that one exhaust port is more-than-half-covered and the opposite exhaust port is less-than-half-covered. The resulting imbalance of discharge air exerts a force on the rotor housing at right angles to the direction of tilt, causing the gyro to precess to the erect position. As soon as the gyro is erect, the pendulous vanes return to a balanced condition to remove the precessing force.
https://www.avweb.com/avionics/the-gyro-with-an-attitude/
There is clearly a force acting on the pendulous vanes down that is separate from the turbulent atmosphere provided that doesn’t allow for stacking in the instrument case it operates in.
You could angle any plane or building and fill it with water and the water will self-level within the angled structures.
Air planes usually use artificial horizon with a gyroscope and use pendulous vanes that correct for errors using vacuum and gravity.
Water would go crazy in dives, rolls, flying upside down.
You misread what I said. Maybe on purpose but who knows?
You have been shown what happens to liquids in free fall.
I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.
Hmm..
As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhNjcSGF/images-8.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You're getting weaker by the second.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.
Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?
Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions?
Because denpressure is real. Gravity is fiction and so is nuclear as far as I'm concerned.
No. Den pressure is your delusion that would get people killed if you tried to utilize it in the real world of power plants.
-
It doesn't self right it's helped to balance once again because the gyroscope gets back into atmospherically stacked order once the plane is levelled out.
That sure sounds like a fancy way of saying it self-rights.
No such thing as gravity. It's just a story of fiction told and sold to those who want to accept it based on nothing physically proven.
Except the mountains of evidence supporting it and the fact that it actually works as an explanation unlike your delusional BS.
The water in a turning container compresses the atmosphere and pushes it away and up which then compresses back into the water void ensuring the water is compressed to the sides.
This is the same as the fairground rota where people are compressed to the sides.
And it demonstrates your claim is delusional BS.
If planes used a spirit level for the attitude indicator, then during plenty of manoeuvres it would show an incorrect attitude.
less pressure can never offer anything against higher pressure.
Which is why your garbage is DOA.
Your garbage relies upon low pressure overcoming higher pressure.
You admit this is not possible.
This means there is no way at all for the low pressure air above the object to magically push the object down into the higher pressure air below.
Your model simply doesn't work.
It has no way to work.
You CANNOT have the air work as a substitute for gravity.
The air would push things up, not down.
So have a rethink.
Buildings are put up by offering a push out of the way of atmosphere which then self-levels against the building materials.
No, buildings are constructed with an understanding of their weight.
No is mentally thinking about pushing the atmosphere out of the way. Especially as the materials are already in the atmosphere.
You misread what I said.
No, we correctly what you said and recognised it was pure BS.
Your idea was that the attitude indicator is a spirit level.
You even made comparisons to filling things with water to find their level.
You just now realise it is BS and entirely indefensible and are trying to back out.
-
That's right, for a flat surface it continues to rise at a decreasing rate, never stopping.
This means you do not get a horizon.
In order for the horizon to form, you need it to stop and rise less
No, you need it to rise more and more until it stops rising completely, and forms a horizon, which it does.
The continually greater rise over more distance does not occur over a spherical object with a constantly curving downward surface. Look above the surface of a ball. You are always on the top of a ball, at any point on it. You are not on the side of your ball Earth, you’re on top of it from your position, right?
When you look outward from the top of a huge sphere, it’s size doesn’t make it constantly rise up more and more, because it curves downward more and more, no matter how large the sphere is.
Imagine you are on the most massive sphere possible. You’re always on top of it, no matter how large it is. Everywhere out from you is curving downward, no matter how slightly it is.
Perspective acts on flat or mostly flat surfaces, but any curved surfaces will curve more and more over more distance, so they appear to rise less and less over more distance, not rise up more and more over distance.
That is why Earth’s surface cannot be curved, because it rises more and more over distance, which is not possible on a curving down surface. It is the very opposite of how we’d see a curved surface over a distance.
Showing me their calculations of the physical properties and measurements doesn’t show what WE see, as a rising surface. The actual surface measures as flat, calculates as flat, but that’s not how we see it as.
You’ll never accept a surface of three miles long can be built as flat, which is easily done, all the time. You’ll say they are level to Earths ‘curvature’, not flat.
Somehow you believe we cannot make a flat surface, because you believe our instruments measure level to your made up non-existent curvature, that your made of non-existent force makes our instruments read as level, but is not flat, because your made up force wants it to measure Earths curved surface instead as being level.
-
No, you need it to rise more and more until it stops rising completely, and forms a horizon, which it does.
And the point is A FLAT SURFACE WILL NOT DO THAT!
It will NEVER stop for a flat surface.
For a flat surface it just continues to rise FOREVER!
So in order to have it stop you need the surface to change orientation.
e.g. you can have a corner, such the corner at the edge of a table, where that corner results in the surface no longer appearing to rise.
Or you can have a curve where it continues to change orientation, eventually reaching a point where it stops rising.
And no, you don't need it to stop rising. You need it to appear to drop back down to cause objects to disappear from the bottom up.
The continually greater rise over more distance does not occur over a spherical object
Because it reaches a point WHERE IT STOPS and then goes back down!
i.e. it does the very thing you admit it needs to do to work.
Look above the surface of a ball.
Yes, go ahead, look at it.
Observe how the surface initially appears to rise, until it reaches a point where it stops rising.
Observe how the larger the ball is or the closer you are to it, the more it appears to rise before it stops and goes back down.
When you look outward from the top of a huge sphere, it’s size doesn’t make it constantly rise up more and more, because it curves downward more and more, no matter how large the sphere is.
Only because you eventually reach a point where it stops.
Imagine you are on the most massive sphere possible.
Possible in what way?
Are you just talking about a hypothetical?
If so, fine.
Lets imagine we are on a massive sphere, with a radius of
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 km.
i.e. 1 sextillion km.
What would this look like?
And more importantly, how much does it differ to a hypothetical flat Earth?
Consider the point observed to actually be on the horizon for an observer with an eye height of 2 m above the level surface (which matches a RE).
The eye height is 2 m above a hypothetical flat reference plane.
So for a FE, that horizon is a circle 2 m below eye height.
For a the real round Earth it would be roughly 4 m below.
And for this hypothetical, using the simple approximation of drop=distance^2/(2*R) gives us a drop of 0.00000000000000001 m.
That is 0.00000001 nm.
That is tiny.
It is much less than an atom.
You would be able to fit this distance roughly 10 million times inside a hydrogen atom.
If a flat surface would magically make a horizon at a distance of 5 km, then so would this, because of just how little difference there is.
Even if we were on one side of the hypothetical pizza planet you love, and were looking all the way across, a distance of 40 000 km, that would have a drop of 0.8 nm.
That is roughly 7 hydrogen atoms.
A single grain of sand is millions of times more significant than that.
So if the sphere was large enough it would be entirely indistinguishable from a flat surface.
Any sufficiently small portion of a sufficiently large sphere is indistinguishable from a flat surface.
A flat surface can be seen as the limit of a spherical surface as the radius approaches infinity.
Size DOES matter.
Earth is not a tiny ball.
It is a massive ball.
Everything "curving down" doesn't magically mean it instantly goes out of sight.
Perspective acts on flat or mostly flat surfaces, but any curved surfaces will curve more and more over more distance, so they appear to rise less and less over more distance, not rise up more and more over distance.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, PERSPECTIVE DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE SHAPE OF THE SURFACE IS!
Perspective is merely a statement that far away things appear smaller. That as distance to the object increases, the apparent size of the object decreases.
And as has been explained to you, and proven beyond any doubt, a round surface WILL rise due to perspective, but only to a point. After some point it will stop and curve back down.
which is not possible on a curving down surface.
PROVE IT!
Stop just spouting the same pathetic lies.
You continually ignoring this to repeat the same pathetic lies, without even attempting to refute the proof that you are spouting pure BS, just demonstrates your dishonesty and your desperation.
If you want to claim that perspective magically stops working so any ball you look at appears as nothing more than a single point, then PROVE IT!
If you can't, then stop spouting the same dishonest BS.
It is the very opposite of how we’d see a curved surface over a distance.
No. It is EXACTLY how we would see a curved surface, as explained repeatedly, and even shown with examples.
A curved surface will appear to rise until it reaches a horizon where it stops and instead appears to go down.
We see this with balls, we see this with smooth, round hills, we see this from the math clearly describing what we should see.
Showing me their calculations of the physical properties and measurements doesn’t show what WE see
The calculations are to show you what you would expect to see for a round surface and a flat surface.
This would allow any honest person to compare what is predicted for a particular surface type to reality, to see which surface matches reality.
The calculations show a flat surface does not have a horizon, but a round surface does.
This means the fact we have a horizon is incredibly strong evidence that Earth is round.
The fact that the distance to the horizon, and the angle of dip of the horizon changes with observer altitude, in a manner entirely consistent with a RE, is further incredibly strong evidence that Earth is round.
If you want to pretend Earth is flat, you need to explain how a flat surface magically produces a horizon, as there is absolutely no reason for it.
The actual surface measures as flat, calculates as flat, but that’s not how we see it as.
No, it doesn't
Pathetic measurements can't tell if it is curved or not.
But highly accurate measurements such as those used to map out large areas to a very high degree of accuracy measure with curvature.
Measurements of the angle of dip to the horizon measure it as curved.
Nothing which is capable of measuring the curve of Earth measures it as flat.
We do not see it as flat either.
Again, the horizon is clear evidence that we see it as round. The measurements of the angle of dip to the horizon is measuring it as round.
You repeatedly lying will not change that fact.
-
You’ll never accept a surface of three miles long can be built as flat
I accept that it can be built as flat, which is quite difficult.
It is very easy to make a surface which is level. It is much harder to make a surface that large which is flat.
Making it level allows you to use a device to determine level at any point.
Making it flat requires you to accurately transfer a reference.
Say you have a device capable of measuring over 100 m.
This device is accurate to 0.01 degrees, either to level, or to a reference.
If this devices determines level, then the entire surface can be made level to within 0.01 degrees.
That equates to 0.9 m, assuming it was as misaligned as possible, over the entire 5 km.
But if instead you are trying to make it flat, using a device for that, then at each point of intersection of those 100 m long segments, you can introduce an error of 0.01 degrees.
For the same 5 km distance, the last segment could be off by 0.5 degrees. That means that 1 segment alone can introduce an error of 0.9 m.
Making something flat is much harder than making it level.
It is possible, with VERY accurate equipment, or by actually taking into account Earth's curvature; but it is not anywhere near as easy as making a level surface.
The problem is your dishonest BS where you pretend a level surface is flat, to pretend a flat surface produces a horizon, when it has no mechanism to.
you believe our instruments measure level to your made up non-existent curvature
No, I accept the fact that instruments which measure for level are simply measuring perpendicular to down.
With the very real curvature of Earth, it will naturally account for that, as the direction of down changes.
that your made of non-existent force makes our instruments read as level, but is not flat, because your made up force wants it to measure Earths curved surface instead as being level.
No, that the REAL force of gravity (which you have repeatedly failed to show a fault with and repeatedly failed to provide a viable alternative to) causing instruments to measure perpendicular to down.
There is no magic force which makes magic devices measure relative to a magic flat reference.
-
How is force deteremined on a thing coming to its natural satate of being "on the ground"?
Take an elastic.
A force is used to stretch it.
And its internal tension snaps it back.
A rock.
Lifted up.
Then let go, freely allowd to drop.
Are you saying the dense mass on its own, snaps it back?
Or is there an internal tension between the ground and the rock?
Some attraction?
-
Mountainsides have a distinct edge.
Wehn viewed from very far away.
This sideizon behaves very similar to the "edge" of something else.
Yes no?
Do circles and triangles behave differently on cones than theybdo on spheres?
-
That's right, for a flat surface it continues to rise at a decreasing rate, never stopping.
This means you do not get a horizon.
In order for the horizon to form, you need it to stop and rise less
No, you need it to rise more and more until it stops rising completely, and forms a horizon, which it does.
The continually greater rise over more distance does not occur over a spherical object with a constantly curving downward surface. Look above the surface of a ball. You are always on the top of a ball, at any point on it. You are not on the side of your ball Earth, you’re on top of it from your position, right?
When you look outward from the top of a huge sphere, it’s size doesn’t make it constantly rise up more and more, because it curves downward more and more, no matter how large the sphere is.
Imagine you are on the most massive sphere possible. You’re always on top of it, no matter how large it is. Everywhere out from you is curving downward, no matter how slightly it is.
Perspective acts on flat or mostly flat surfaces, but any curved surfaces will curve more and more over more distance, so they appear to rise less and less over more distance, not rise up more and more over distance.
That is why Earth’s surface cannot be curved, because it rises more and more over distance, which is not possible on a curving down surface. It is the very opposite of how we’d see a curved surface over a distance.
Showing me their calculations of the physical properties and measurements doesn’t show what WE see, as a rising surface. The actual surface measures as flat, calculates as flat, but that’s not how we see it as.
You’ll never accept a surface of three miles long can be built as flat, which is easily done, all the time. You’ll say they are level to Earths ‘curvature’, not flat.
Somehow you believe we cannot make a flat surface, because you believe our instruments measure level to your made up non-existent curvature, that your made of non-existent force makes our instruments read as level, but is not flat, because your made up force wants it to measure Earths curved surface instead as being level.
Mark Sargent and other flat earth priests, implore their followers such as you, to do your own research. So, why is it you never ever do? Is it because you're just too lazy?
All you have to do, to test your theories, is to buy a large beach ball. You never will. You know that if you ever did, everything you say about Earth's surface not possibly being curved, would be revealed to be complete and utter shit.
-
No, I accept the fact that instruments which measure for level are simply measuring perpendicular to down.
With the very real curvature of Earth, it will naturally account for that, as the direction of down changes.
No, you would measure over any curved surface as level by your argument. Only measuring a surface at one point downward from it, perpendicular to the instrument, reading level at one point below it on a ball, perpendicular to that point!!
A single point on ANY surface below an instrument will measure ‘level’ that way!!
When we measure a shelf on a wall, for level, the whole surface of the shelf is measured for level, not a single point, or points along it.
Surfaces have a distance over them, not a bunch of different points over a surface, independent from each other point on that surface, as it couldn’t measure any surface, if points on it were measured over it, again and again, for a point down perpendicular to each point over the surface.
Take a spirit level, and hold it just above a ball below it.
Adjust it until it reads level above the ball, at a point downward to it, perpendicular to it.
When you move the level over the ball so slightly a distance, while still measuring as level, the point downward, perpendicular to level, is going more down on the ball, than the first time you measured it.
That’s because the instrument measures level over a surface, not one point of a surface.
Instruments have to measure over a distance, which is the instrument itself’s length, or two separate points on the instrument, measuring between those two points, for level.
Every point downward from instruments must be perpendicular to the instrument as being level, not just a single point in its centre, all points over it are perpendicular lines downward, imaginary lines going straight down at 90 degrees to it!
A single point over the whole instrument will obviously be perpendicular downward from it, every point over it will be perpendicular downward to the instrument!!
Every point along the instrument measures for level, and are all perpendicular to straight down at 90 degrees to level.
-
No, you would measure over any curved surface as level by your argument.
No, you wouldn't.
It would only measure as level if it was concentric to Earth.
I have explained how measuring for level isn't magic like you want it to be.
When we measure a shelf on a wall, for level, the whole surface of the shelf is measured for level, not a single point, or points along it.
Using either a level that is long enough, or just aligning the shelf using a single point.
Do you have a level that is 40 000 km long?
No.
I have explained how your BS doesn't work.
Take a spirit level, and hold it just above a ball below it.
Take it over a ball that has a radius of 6371 km, not your pathetic strawman.
Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Instruments have to measure over a distance, which is the instrument itself’s length
And as explained, that only helps for the length of the instrument, and only to the accuracy of that instrument.
Do you have a 40 000 km long level? No.
Every point downward from instruments must be perpendicular to the instrument as being level, not just a single point in its centre
Wrong again.
Especially considering that is basically physically impossible due to the impossibility of constructing something straight to infinite precision.
Most spirit levels have a single point near the centre which is used to determine the level of the instrument.
For laser levels it is the laser itself.
That is the part which determines level, the rest is merely the construction of the device.
Again, the simple fact is that all instruments have a limit of accuracy and capabilities for what they can actually do vs what they can't.
If you are using a level, you are not determining if a hypothetical level surface on Earth is flat or round. You are merely confirming it is level.
To determine if it is flat or round, you need angles relative to a reference. That relies upon accuracy of the alignment between whatever you are using and the reference.
This means Earth's curvature doesn't cause problems for a small enough level.
But back to the previous argument you fled from because you were shown to be wrong repeatedly:
A flat surface doesn't have a horizon. It continues to rise forever.
A curved surface has a horizon. It initially rises before reaching a peak and going back down.
-
Earths horizons can only occur on a flat surface, not a curved surface.
The surface is always flat, not curving down more and more with more distance out from you. Only a flat surface appears to rise more and more with distance, the very opposite of what a curved surface would do and look like in the distance.
Why would perspective make it appear to rise more and more on a surface curving more and more downward? That makes no sense at all.
In other words, why would perspective have more effect when it would have the least effect on that surface? An anti-perspective causing opposite effects to occur?
More magical, anti-perspective makes curved surfaces look perfectly flat, too!
A curved surface would appear to rise slightly, at closer distances, not further out, though. You’re on top of the ball surface, everywhere outward is down from you, not the same height as you, or above you.
-
Earths horizons can only occur on a flat surface, not a curved surface.
Repeating the same lie wont save you.
Forget about Earth for now.
A HORIZON in general CANNOT occur on a flat surface.
It is physically impossible for it to do so.
The horizon is a point where a line from your eye is tangent to the surface.
You need a curve (or sharp corner) for that to happen. You cannot have it happen on a flat surface.
The basic principles of perspective show quite clearly that a flat surface will rise FOREVER, never stopping, never reversing; and that means no horizon.
Conversely, for a round surface it shows that initially it will rise until it reaches a peak and then it drops down.
That is the horizon.
The only way to get a horizon for Earth, excluding those from mountains, is if Earth is round, or the horizon is the edge of Earth.
The surface is always flat, not curving down more and more with more distance out from you.
Again, the fact we have a horizon demonstrates that claim of yours is pure BS.
The fact we have a horizon demonstrates that the ground is sloping down more and more with distance out from you (using a cartesian reference frame centred on and level with you).
Only a flat surface appears to rise more and more with distance, the very opposite of what a curved surface would do and look like in the distance.
Again, lying will not save you.
Perspective does not magically only work on flat surface.
It works on all.
Both a flat and a round surface will appear to rise with distance.
The distinction is what happens with even more distance.
For a flat surface it will continue to rise forever, never stopping, never producing a horizon.
A round surface does stop, when the curve becomes too great, at which point it starts going back down and produces a horizon.
Again, if your dishonest BS was true, then a ball would appear as a single point.
Even if the ball was 1 km wide, it would just appear as a single point in your vision.
That is the level of dishonest BS you are spouting.
Why would perspective make it appear to rise more and more on a surface curving more and more downward? That makes no sense at all.
Why would perspective magically not work on it? That makes no sense at all.
The only way your pure BS could make any sense at all is if you say anything below you will not be visible.
Again, people looking down a ramp or a hill shows your claim is pure BS.
If your claim was true, they would never be able to look down it, because as soon as you get to the point closest to you, the rest would have to appear lower, in the ground and hidden by it.
The way to analyse it simply, without using math, is to note you have perspective which makes it appear higher, and it being physically lower making it appear lower.
These are 2 competing effects and you can't simply say which wins.
The best you can do without math is going to the extremes. For a sphere, the point directly below you is level. That means it isn't getting lower, so the only effect at play is perspective (Note: JUST THAT POINT, we are looking at one end). For the other extreme, we have a point 90 degrees away, the sphere is going straight down, so perspective has no effect.
Combining that it means initially perspective is the only thing at play and the surface appears to rise, but curvature will start having an affect as you move along, until you eventually reach a point where it wins and the surface starts going down, and then eventually reach a point where perspective has no effect.
More magical, anti-perspective makes curved surfaces look perfectly flat, too!
No, they don't. You are yet to provide a single observation where it appears perfectly flat.
Instead you appeal to your inability to tell if it is flat or curved to lie and claim it is flat.
A curved surface would appear to rise slightly, at closer distances, not further out, though. You’re on top of the ball surface, everywhere outward is down from you, not the same height as you, or above you.
i.e. exactly what I have said.
At "closer" distances it appears to rise. But "further out", it appears to drop.
The question then becomes at what distance do you change from "closer" to "further out"? And how does this depend upon the radius of the sphere and eye height?
That is one where you do need math, as you are trying to find a number.
And I already did that for you.
E.g. these posts, where I also showed how you were lying:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92054.msg2413817#msg2413817
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92054.msg2414034#msg2414034
There are many ways to arrive at the formula and number.
But the end result is that this switch is when e=d^2/2R
Or alternatively, when d = sqrt(2Re), there d is the distance (in cartesian coordinates), e is the eye height above the sphere, and R is the radius of the sphere.
For an eye height of 2 m, and a radius of 6371 km, that works out to be a distance of roughly 5 km.
That matches reality quite well.
Again, reality matches what is expected for a RE, where the ground appears to initially rise up, reaching a peak (the horizon) before dropping down.
For a FE, it should never stop, and we would never get a horizon.
Earth's horizons (and horizons in general (with this meaning)) can only occur on a round or cornered surface, not a flat surface.
-
Where is an equation that shows what we see as a rising surface?
Where do they have an equation that shows why the surface appears to rise more and more on a curved surface that curves down more and more?
One can make physical equations, but they don’t reflect what we actually see at all. Our eyes are not based on physical geometry, which shows two parallel lines going out and remaining parallel, which they are, but not to what WE see of them, converging together.
And the ground only appears to rise, it never appears to go downward at all. Ships appear to go downward past the horizon, the surface is always seen upward from us.
The increasing rise of the surface we see, is completely contradictory to an increasingly curving downward surface you believe exists on Earth.
How can you possibly resolve for that contradiction? Assuming there is perspective of course, it would have less and less effect over an ever more downward curving surface, well before it reaches its HIGHEST point at the horizon.
-
Where is an equation that shows what we see as a rising surface?
Where do they have an equation that shows why the surface appears to rise more and more on a curved surface that curves down more and more?
Plenty of locations.
For example, back in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92054.msg2413817#msg2413817
I gave the equation.
This equation is basic trig.
In this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92054.msg2414034#msg2414034
I provided simple pictures to show it, and even a link to a desmos graph so you can see how changing the radius effects it.
One can make physical equations, but they don’t reflect what we actually see at all.
They most certainly do match what we see, at least to a decent approximation. Refraction complicates it.
What doesn't match is a flat Earth.
The RE does match reality, the FE does not.
Our eyes are not based on physical geometry, which shows two parallel lines going out and remaining parallel, which they are, but not to what WE see of them, converging together.
This depends on what you mean by "physical geometry".
Ultimately, our eyes work based upon angles.
If you try to use lengths instead of angles, it wont match.
But if you convert those physical lengths into physical angles, it does.
If you have 2 parallel lines going out, the angular separation between them shrinks.
And the ground only appears to rise, it never appears to go downward at all.
Pure BS.
The surface appears to rise, until it appears to stop and appears to go down.
The point at which it stops and changes direction is called the horizon.
You can't see the ground appearing to go down because it is past the horizon.
But we can tell with observations of distant objects, including ships.
When a ship goes over the horizon, it doesn't just magically vanish. Instead it disappears from the bottom up, as if the boat is sinking.
If you look at a distant object, like a tower across a lake, you see the bottom is missing; and if you take a different picture, where you can see it all, and scale it down, you can see that the bottom would be well below the horizon.
Here is a great example of that:
https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/toronto.jpg
So what we observe is the ground appear to rise before it stops and then appears to go down.
This matches what is expected for a RE.
For a FE, you would expect it to continue to rise forever
Ships appear to go downward past the horizon, the surface is always seen upward from us.
The only reason we don't see the surface going down, is because the surface going up in front of it blocks the view.
How do you think the ship appears to go down if the surface doesn't?
The increasing rise of the surface we see, is completely contradictory to an increasingly curving downward surface you believe exists on Earth.
As above, it matches quite well.
You are yet to show any contradiction.
Instead you just repeatedly assert that there is a problem and that we shouldn't see this on a RE; even though literally everything which indicates anything on the topic shows you are wrong.
What is contradictory is a FE.
For a FE, it should continue to rise forever, never stopping, never producing a horizon.
How can you possibly resolve for that contradiction?
I don't need to resolve the contradiction because I'm not promoting a FE, and that is the one with the contradiction.
Assuming there is perspective of course, it would have less and less effect over an ever more downward curving surface, well before it reaches its HIGHEST point at the horizon.
This statement could be interpreted 2 ways. One is an entirely pointless statement, effectively no better than saying perspective has the greatest effect at your feet.
The other is entirely meaningless where you are taking something which is a continuum and saying it should happen before it reaches a point.
For that you are going to need a threshold.
The only to make sense of that is to say that curvature should start beating perspective to make the surface appear to go down well before it reaches its highest point.
The problem is that is literally a contradiction.
The point at which perspective loses and curvature wins by definition is the highest point.
Before that point, perspective wins and the surface appears to rise.
After that point, curvature wins and the surface appears to fall (at least it would if you could see it.
Again, this is all simple math, as shown in the links above.
-
The point at which perspective loses and curvature wins by definition is the highest point.
Before that point, perspective wins
Not when it keeps on rising more and more until its highest point, that is the contradiction here.
The surface always appears to rise higher and higher up to the horizon, where it peaks, and nothing more is seen of the surface, only objects above the horizon are seen, in part or whole in air.
The horizon is the highest point seen of the surface, and past it is not seen at all. The horizon is a virtual ‘cut line’ of our view over the surface, where only things above this cut line are seen beyond.
-
Like when we see parallel lines converge in the distance because of perspective. How can they converge any more than that? They cannot, perspective doesn’t act past that point on parallel lines. Same as a horizon, perspective cannot act anymore.
Your argument is that a horizon wouldn’t form on a flat surface, it would keep rising, only less and less. But it rises more and more up to the horizon, and you believe this is on a curving down surface!
Wouldn’t that mean it would rise even higher on a flat surface tjen? If it rises more and more on an ever more downward surface, as you would believe, it would rise much higher on a flat surface which does not curve down at all!
How could it rise up more and more going downward, but rise less and less on a flat surface, isn’t possible at all. It’s nonsensical gibberish
-
Not when it keeps on rising more and more until its highest point, that is the contradiction here.
You're still not making any sense.
Again, by definition, the highest point is the highest point.
How do you plan on having the highest point before the highest point?
The surface always appears to rise higher and higher up to the horizon, where it peaks, and nothing more is seen of the surface
Again, while the surface is not seen, we can tell how it is going from how other objects are.
The horizon is a virtual ‘cut line’ of our view over the surface, where only things above this cut line are seen beyond.
There is nothing virtual about it.
Like when we see parallel lines converge in the distance because of perspective.
Which takes an infinite distance.
Again, it is simple geometry.
The horizon is NOT the point where parallel lines converge. We know this from both observations which show this, and from basic geometry showing the point parallel lines converge is infinitely far away and the horizon is a finite distance away.
Your argument is that a horizon wouldn’t form on a flat surface, it would keep rising, only less and less.
With a specific meaning, that it rises at a slower rate; not that it doesn't rise to the same height.
e.g. if you stand 2 m high above a flat surface, in the first 2 m, it will rise 45 degrees, going from -90 to -45.
Over the next 2, it only rises 18.4, up to roughly -26.6.
And as the distance increases, the rate it appears to rise for a given increase in distance will decrease.
After enough distance it approximates doubling the distance halves the angle of dip.
So yes, it will keep rising, but at an ever decreasing rate, slowly approaching 0.
Again, this is basic geometry and matches all observations of a flat surface.
So right now, you are playing semantics, and trying to switch the meanings of words to pretend there is a contradiction.
-
Like when we see parallel lines converge in the distance because of perspective.
Which has nothing to do with why the radiation and light of the sun becomes physical blocked by the curvature of the earth which casts a shadow that is night fall.
How does a single point light source like the sun “converge”?
-
You don’t understand how perspective works.
The surface appears to rise more and more with more distance outward, it never goes less and less higher, which WOULD be the case if the surface was curved, it would curve DOWNWARD more and more with distance, it cannot rise upward more and more over a curved down surface, it makes no sense at all, it is going the opposite direction it would go in.
A continually rising surface is a feature of flat surfaces, not downward curving ones.
When we look out over the surface, it is entirely flat throughout. No curves seen anywhere on it. How can it be seen as entirely flat if it’s curving downward? There is no curve at all.
-
So what we observe is the ground appear to rise before it stops and then appears to go down.
This matches what is expected for a RE.
No, the surface appears to rise higher and higher in the distance, to the horizon, the vanishing point of perspective over flat surfaces.
At no point does the surface ever curve downward, the horizon is the highest point we see on the surface, and that’s all we see of it, nothing of it is seen beyond the horizon.
When we see ships go past the horizon, the only part we see of them is higher than the horizon, like a plane above goes past the horizon but is seen because it is higher up than the horizon is at that point. Planes aren’t going downward to the surface at all either, nor are ships going downward on the surface. Both appear to be going downward because of perspective, once again.
-
How do you think the ship appears to go down if the surface doesn't?
The same reason it appears to rise up when the surface doesn’t rise, because of perspective in both cases.
You try to ignore that it doesn’t rise, but it appears to be rising up and up to the horizon, where a line seems to cross the surface, and is a flat, horizontal line across the surface, nothing of any curve at all over it.
Objects seen going past the horizon seem to dip down, but they are still the same height, when they appear to rise up before they reach the horizon and when they appear to dip down when going beyond the horizon.
You can’t say its perspective causing them to appear to rise up, and say it’s really curving down after the horizon line.
The horizon already appears higher than it is, ships aren’t really rising up on a rising surface either, it doesn’t stop because you want it to fit your ball Earth fairy tale story.
-
No, the surface appears to rise higher and higher in the distance, to the horizon, the vanishing point of perspective over flat surfaces.
No, the surface of the real Earth appears to rise higher and higher into the distance, until it reaches the horizon, which is well before the vanishing point, with observations of objects beyond the horizon showing the surface appear to go down.
The vanishing is infinitely far away.
It would NEVER produce a horizon a finite distance away as that is physically impossible.
The horizon has NOTHING to to with the vanishing point.
At no point does the surface ever curve downward
Again, observations of objects beyond the horizon clearly demonstrates that past the horizon the angle of elevation of the ground goes down.
If you could see through the ground, you would see the ground beyond the horizon appearing to go down.
When we see ships go past the horizon, the only part we see of them is higher than the horizon
Yes, as if they have gone over a hill and the hill, going down on the other side, is making the ship appear lower, and the hill you can see obstructing your view to the ship.
i.e. just like you would expect on a round Earth.
If the horizon really was the vanishing point, the ship would vanish when it reaches the horizon.
And if Earth was flat, the bottom would not magically vanish.
Both appear to be going downward because of perspective, once again.
Except perspective demands that over a flat surface, an object below you should continue to rise forever. That means the bottom of the ship should continue to rise forever and never go out of view.
The same reason it appears to rise up when the surface doesn’t rise, because of perspective in both cases.
So you are saying perspective magically stops and switches?
That for something BELOW you, it will first appear to rise, until it magically stops and switches and appears to go down?
That makes no sense at all, and doesn't happen with any surface which can be verified as flat.
You try to ignore that it doesn’t rise, but it appears to be rising up and up to the horizon
I'm not trying to ignore anything at all.
Conversely, you are directly contradicting yourself; saying it doesn't rise, only to say it does.
where a line seems to cross the surface, and is a flat, horizontal line across the surface, nothing of any curve at all over it.
You mean the clearly roughly circular horizon? Which we know must be roughly circular, because we can trace it around ourselves.
Objects seen going past the horizon seem to dip down
Yes, the very thing I was pointing out.
You can extrapolate to the bottom of the object, i.e. the ground, and observe how that appears to go down.
We can't see it, because the curvature of Earth blocks the view. But by viewing the object above Earth, we can easily determine that Earth is appearing to go down.
when they appear to rise up before they reach the horizon and when they appear to dip down when going beyond the horizon.
You can’t say its perspective causing them to appear to rise up, and say it’s really curving down after the horizon line.
Quite the opposite.
I can in fact say that.
That is because I can say there are 2 competing effects. There is "perspective" which ALWAYS makes it appear to rise, and curvature which makes it go down.
For small distances the down from curvature is negligible, so it appears to go up due to perspective. But it eventually reaches a point (dependent upon observer elevation) where the drop due to curvature becomes significant enough to cause it to appear to go down.
And we also know this MUST be the case. That is because perspective, for an object below, will make it appear to get higher with distance. There is no way for it to make it appear to go down.
So if the object is below you, and appearing to go down as it gets further away, that must be because it IS going down at a rate greater than can be compensated for by perspective.
The one who cannot have it both ways is YOU!
You cannot have perspective make it appear to rise, only to magically flip and make it go down.
There is no reason at all for that.
It is just your pathetic attempt to ignore the fact that Earth is round.
The horizon already appears higher than it is, ships aren’t really rising up on a rising surface either
That depends upon what you mean by "higher than it is".
The horizon appears at the angle it should given the distance.
You see in terms of angles, not height. So the 2 quantities you are comparing are incomparable.
it doesn’t stop because you want it to fit your ball Earth fairy tale story.
Except I'm not the one saying it stops.
I'm the one saying another effect becomes more significant, to show why we know Earth is round in reality.
Conversely, you are the one desperately trying to pretend perspective should magically stop making things below you appear higher with distance; all to save your flat Earth fairy tale.
And yes, that is literally what you are doing.
You are claiming perspective magically stops, yet cannot provide any reason for why it should.
-
So you are saying perspective magically stops and switches?
That for something BELOW you, it will first appear to rise, until it magically stops and switches and appears to go down?
No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward, just like a plane above us appears to be going downward towards the surface when going into the distance do.
Perspective makes objects above us, appear to be going downward in the distance, and is also due to perspective.
It’s not magic, it is an illusion of how we see things in the distance, both rising up, and sinking down.
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.
Planes don’t really sink downward in the distance, and nor do ships sink downward past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve, but it helps your fairy tale to believe it curves down but never seen at all. It’s there somewhere, we just never see it anywhere we look!!
-
No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward
Wrong again.
It is relative to YOU, not the horizon.
If something is BELOW YOU it appears to rise.
plane
I know you are desperate to try to move the conversation to planes because you can pretend you aren't wrong with them, but no.
Stick to things BELOW you.
Things like ships observed at sea when you are standing on a hill by the shore, where you can clearly tell the ship is below you, and watch it as it appears to rise only to stop and appear to sink.
That is the key part you can't explain. Why it magically stops going up and starts going down instead.
Perspective makes objects above us
Again, stick to talking to things BELOW us, things which appear to rise until the reach the horizon and appear to sink.
What magic causes that in your flat fantasy?
Again, the RE explains it trivially.
But the FE needs pure magic.
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
No, only 1 does.
That is because the ship is below you.
So you cannot appeal to what happens to things above you.
You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.
I'm not.
I'm picking the one that applies.
Things PHYSICALLY below you appear to go up.
Things PHYSICALLY above you appear to go down.
And that applies to the ground as well.
The one trying to pick the one you like and ignore the one you don't is YOU!
Where you want to pick the curvature to pretend the RE should magically make things go down instantly, while ignoring perspective which makes it appear to rise.
past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve
Again, the horizon is clearly seeing the curve.
If Earth was flat, the horizon wouldn't exist.
Objects going over this curve and have Earth obstruct the view to the bottom as it appears to get lower and lower is also clearly seeing the curve.
Just what more of this clearly visible curve do you expect to see?
-
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars. Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall.
-
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars.
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall.
It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
-
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
Meaningless word salad that has nothing to do with why the light of the sun is physically blocked by the horizon, or why the light reflecting off a ship blocked by the horizon can’t be gathered by a pair of binoculars because it’s physically blocked.
It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
The light from the sun or the ship physically gets blocked by the horizon. That is why a pair of binoculars can’t bring them in view once they are over the horizon. Because, a pair of binoculars can gather more light and magnify an object to aid the human eye, it can’t gather light physically blocked by the curvature of the earth.
Pretty simple, pretty much kills flat earth.
-
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
i.e. pure magic with nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round?
If it was simply light not making it back to the eye, we would have a band of darkness.
Instead, objects are observed to appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.
There is no reason at all for just the bottom to vanish, nor for the entire object to appear lower.
If your delusional BS was true, what we would observe would be more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UAni1Pw.png)
With a region of darkness where the light is blocked, where we don't see anything.
Why don't you try drawing a diagram?
It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
Then why do so many observations indicate it does?
-
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars.
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall.
It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
Yep, like I said.
Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!
Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?
Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.
-
So you are saying perspective magically stops and switches?
That for something BELOW you, it will first appear to rise, until it magically stops and switches and appears to go down?
No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward, just like a plane above us appears to be going downward towards the surface when going into the distance do.
Perspective makes objects above us, appear to be going downward in the distance, and is also due to perspective.
It’s not magic, it is an illusion of how we see things in the distance, both rising up, and sinking down.
Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.
You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.
Planes don’t really sink downward in the distance, and nor do ships sink downward past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve, but it helps your fairy tale to believe it curves down but never seen at all. It’s there somewhere, we just never see it anywhere we look!!
What is this, Trubalonium? Flat earth storytelling day?
Absolute pure balonium!
The only time a plane looks like it is going down to the surface is when it is either doing aerial stunt work, or is is literally heading towards the ground to crash.
You're big into videos, so where are any of your videos, proving your point, trubalonium2?
Planes cruising at high altitude remain cruising at high altitude and never appear to sink towards the ground. Boats on the horizon however, to appear to sink into the Earth because they are going behind the Earth - behind the sea water.
-
[quote{The only time a plane looks like it is going down to the surface is when it is either doing aerial stunt work, or is is literally heading towards the ground to crash. [/quote]
No, planes that are flying near ground or over water fly past the horizon and soon are no longer seen past horizons, haven’t you ever seen that before? Watch a seaplane fly out over water at low altitude, or water bomber planes over a fire, or old prop planes fly over a field or whatever near the ground.
They appear to be flying downward towards the surface in the distance, and often are blocked out of sight past horizons too.
I’ve lived near an airport most of my life, seen seaplanes fly out of sight past the horizon over seas, and so on.
Where the hell do you think they are seen while flying away only a few hundred feet above ground?
Get serious
-
planes
Again, forget the planes. And forget your secret FE buddy smoke.
Focus on the boats.
Boats which are BELOW you. Boats which are observed to go down. Something perspective can't make them do.
-
They appear to be flying downward towards the surface in the distance, and often are blocked out of sight past horizons too.
How can they be blocked from view by a flat earth when you the viewer and the aircraft are both above the earth.
Please draw out how that works.
-
What makes the surface appear to rise up higher and higher in the distance, when it is the same height throughout?
You would believe a flat surface would not appear to ever rise at all, by your same argument it would show all things to us, seeing outward above the surface.
But you already know it doesn’t work like that. It does appear to keep rising up higher in the distance.
The physical surface is flat, it cannot account for what we actually see of it, which is very real to us, when seeing it rise up in the distance.
If the surface was curving downward, it would curve down more and more in the distance, and rise less and less in the distance.
A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.
But over a second mile out, there is more of a curve downward, and less effect of perspective as well.
Perspective is how our eyes view things over distances. They do not see the real heights or sizes of things in the distance, the non-physical world is the reality to us.
Our instruments that you believe would show us objects hundreds of miles away if the surface was flat, cannot, because they are based ON our eyesight.
The surface won’t appear to stop rising up through binoculars or telescopes, either.
How would they see beyond a horizon on a flat surface then?
They magnify what we’d see with our eyes, not what isn’t there TO be seen by our eyes.
The constantly rising higher surface we see, is a feature only found on a flat surface. A slanted up flat surface would rise much more than our flat surface does, a curved surface would rise less and less, not more and more like ours does.
Curved surfaces may appear at first to be rising up, being more flat over a shorter distance, the ideal surface for perspective is flat.
When you said the surface appears to rise at first because the curve is so slight over a small area, that is saying it rises up because it is almost a flat surface.
The closer it is to a flat surface, is why it would appear to rise up like on a truly flat surface!!
Yes indeed
-
What makes the surface appear to rise up higher and higher in the distance, when it is the same height throughout?
Again, it isn't really that it appears to rise up. It is simply the line from your eye to the ground is at a greater angle of elevation.
This applies to both a round and flat surface.
The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.
You would believe a flat surface would not appear to ever rise at all, by your same argument it would show all things to us, seeing outward above the surface.
The surface would "appear to rise", as above. But it would continue to do so forever and never block the view. So yes, it would show all things.
That is one way we know Earth isn't flat.
The physical surface is flat, it cannot account for what we actually see of it
No, a flat surface does not account for what we see.
A round surface does.
That is how we know the physical surface is round.
A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.
Yes, as I have explained before.
A round surface will rise initially. But eventually it reaches a point where the drop due to curvature is more significant than perspective, and it stops rising.
That is the important distinction you keep on ignoring.
A round surface eventually stops appearing to rise. A flat surface does not.
Perspective is how our eyes view things over distances. They do not see the real heights or sizes of things in the distance
No, they work based upon angles.
Just like I provided before.
Remember, a=atan(h/d)?
The surface won’t appear to stop rising up through binoculars or telescopes, either.
How would they see beyond a horizon on a flat surface then?
A flat surface wouldn't produce a horizon.
A flat surface continues to rise forever.
Never stopping, never going back down.
So never producing a horizon.
The constantly rising higher surface we see, is a feature only found on a flat surface.
No, that is not what we see at all.
Stop lying.
What we see is a surface which appears to rise until it stops appearing to rise.
That is what you keep on ignoring, and keeping on lying about, and jumping around with.
The real Earth does NOT rise constantly.
a curved surface would rise less and less, not more and more like ours does.
No, a curved surface matches what is observed.
When you said the surface appears to rise at first because the curve is so slight over a small area, that is saying it rises up because it is almost a flat surface.
No, it is simply a statement about how perspective works based upon angles.
Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflection and address the massive issue:
A flat surface will constantly rise, with each extra bit of distance making it appear higher, without end, never stopping, never producing a horizon.
A curved surface will initially appear to rise until the drop becomes to great and it stops (and goes back down, but out of view).
The surface we observe in reality appears to initially rise before it stops (and goes back down, but out of view).
What we observe in reality matches a round surface, not a flat one.
-
No. The surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher with more distance away, until the horizon itself forms at the end.
The higher it is, the more it would curve downward, total nonsense, once again!
You can’t rise ever higher on an ever lower surface, perspective isn’t a bizarro flipper illusion, see if it works backwards on a ball, it’d be even more amazing to see!!
You believe Earth is a ball, so you’ve never seen if horizons are on flat surfaces, you cannot say you know, you don’t know squat if never seeing it.
More bs, as usual
-
No. The surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher with more distance away, until the horizon itself forms at the end.
Yes, exactly as we expect a round surface to do, and nothing like what we expect a flat surface to do.
A flat surface should continue to rise FOREVER!
It will never stop.
It will never form a horizon.
The higher it is, the more it would curve downward, total nonsense, once again!
No, it isn't. For the very reason you pointed out before.
It is NOT PHYSICALLY RISING!
It merely APPEARS higher.
And there is no contradiction with that.
You even admit:
A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.
That is you admitting that even while it is physically getting lower, it is appearing higher.
Again, at the simplest level, you have 2 effects.
Perspective making it appear higher, and curvature making it physically lower.
You need math to show which one wins when.
You can’t rise ever higher on an ever lower surface
Sure you can, at least if you mean have the surface appear to rise higher.
All it takes to see that is look down a ramp.
If your delusional BS was true, you could never look down a ramp, as the point at the top would be the highest, and anything beyond that was lower.
perspective isn’t a bizarro flipper illusion
Which is why we know your claim is BS.
We know how perspective works.
It makes a flat surface appear to rise continually. Never stopping. Never forming a horizon.
YOU are the one making it a bizarro flipper illusion where it just magically stops for no reason at all.
You believe Earth is a ball
I accept the mountains of evidence which show Earth is round. Including the fact the we have a horizon which is a short distance away over level terrain, and Earth blocks the view to more distant objects, starting from the bottom; which is impossible on a flat Earth.
so you’ve never seen if horizons are on flat surfaces, you cannot say you know, you don’t know squat if never seeing it.
Quite the opposite.
I have seen plenty of flat surfaces, and NONE produce a horizon until you get to the edge, where the flat surface stops, e.g. the edge of a table.
Likewise I have seen plenty of round surface, which all have a horizon, a point where the curve is tangent to a line from the curve to my eye; beyond which you cannot see the curved surface.
I also understand how perspective works. It is merely a statement that our eyesight works based upon angles.
When something "appears higher", what that actually means is that the angular position is higher.
I also know the basic math required to understand that the angle for a flat surface would be given by a=atan(h/d). This means it would rise forever, never stopping.
And I also know the basic math for a round surface would instead be given by (approximately) a=atan(h/d + d/2R); meaning it will initially rise, until it stops and goes back down.
Conversely, you are desperate for Earth to be flat.
To you, Earth MUST be flat AT ALL COSTS!
There is no way for you to ever accept that Earth is round.
So because the horizon exists in reality, you only options are wilful rejection of such a common everyday occurrence everyone would correctly label you as insane; or to desperately cling to the idea that a flat surface can magically make a horizon, even though you cannot provide a mechanism, nor rationally respond to anyone showing why your claim is pure BS.
Or to sum it up like you lie:
Because you believe Earth is flat, you falsely claim that a flat surface can magically produce a horizon, even though no other flat surface observed does this, nor can you explain how it should magically do this.
More bs, as usual
Thanks for summing up your post.
Care to stop with all the BS and instead try to make a rational argument addressing the fact that perspective and the existence of the horizon shows Earth isn't flat?
-
The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.
It does not go upward forever, it will rise more and more until it stops rising up at its highest point - the horizon is that highest point of the surface, and that’s where it ends.
Why would the surface keep on rising more and more with more distance, then start rising up less and less somewhere further out? There’s no indication it is rising less and less at all, only the very opposite is happening to it.
Even worse, you say it’s curving down more and more while going upward in the opposite direction on your ball Earth, that’s a remarkable feat indeed!
-
The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.
It does not go upward forever
For Earth it does not, which is your problem.
For a flat surface it does.
That is what the math demands.
Continually ignoring that fact, while being entirely incapable of providing any reason for why perspective should magically stop shows just how desperate you are.
Why would the surface keep on rising more and more with more distance, then start rising up less and less somewhere further out?
That is the question FOR YOU!
Why would a flat surface appear to rise up, only to magically stop?
What magic is causing it to stop?
Again, a curved surface explains it fine.
Initially the incremental change due to perspective is quite substantial while the incremental change due to curvature is not. This makes it go up.
At a greater distance, the incremental change due to curvature is more substantial than perspective, so it goes down.
Again, this is what the math shows.
Even worse, you say it’s curving down more and more while going upward in the opposite direction on your ball Earth, that’s a remarkable feat indeed!
Again, that is not worse.
That actually addresses the issue and clearly explains why it stops.
It stops going up because curvature wins.
Your BS argument relies upon entirely ignoring perspective. Pretending it wont do anything on a RE. Otherwise, you have 2 competing effects.
So again, curvature explains it perfectly.
So how do you explain it for a flat Earth?
What magic causes perspective to stop?
What magic causes perspective to reverse?
Why don't we see this magic on any small flat surface?
-
Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.
i.e. pure magic with nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round?
If it was simply light not making it back to the eye, we would have a band of darkness.
Instead, objects are observed to appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.
There is no reason at all for just the bottom to vanish, nor for the entire object to appear lower.
If your delusional BS was true, what we would observe would be more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UAni1Pw.png)
With a region of darkness where the light is blocked, where we don't see anything.
Why don't you try drawing a diagram?
It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.
Then why do so many observations indicate it does?
Blacking out a portion of a picture offers you nothing against what I'm saying.
Demagnification does not mean painting black over a picture as if you have some kind of argument.
How about using an actual telescope or a pair of binoculars and see what you have to alter the focus?
This is what the atmosphere is doing and is the reason why you can see farther or nearer depending on the atmospheric magnification or demagnification.
-
atmospheric magnification or demagnification.
A meaningless word salad in no why explains how a flat earth would block objects physically from view.
Part three. Modern proof.
I came across this video. I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.
Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
(https://i.imgur.com/LKrCzBd.jpg)
The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.
Part four, the classic. Ships disappearing bottom up.
During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNACybk.jpg)
Then a ship farther away.
(https://i.imgur.com/uH4QbOc.jpg)
If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon. There is always my go to ship video.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq5W3G9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7L2pQJ6.jpg)
Why are things increasingly blocked from physically from view bottom first as they go more and more over the horizon.
-
Yep, like I said.
Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.
It depends on who is reading the bull.
You're trying to argue against me based on nothing more than picking up a relevant article to argue your case for you.
Blind acceptance of things that are said to be factual does not mean you know the facts.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!
Use as many name-callings as you feel comfortable using. If it helps you to feel a bit stronger from your weak self then who am I to knock that from you?
Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?
I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.
Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.
Comics eh? It makes sense.
-
atmospheric magnification or demagnification.
Used these jets in another thread.
But, why don’t they become physically blocked from view at distances greater than the horizon.
But if I was on the coast, ships much closer would start to become physically blocked from view bottom up as they went beyond the horizon.
Where these jets much father away don’t exhibit any properties of disappearing bottom up?
1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video.
Hmm.
Besides the things pointed out by jack that your wrong?
I was watching a jet. It was about 10 or 20 miles away? Way outside your supposed parabola of perception. I’m guessing it’s was flying around 360 miles per hour. (6 x 60 mph to make the math easy) I watched with my naked eyes and recorded the jet just over two minutes. I can post the video if you like. So. In 2 minutes the jet would have traveled around 12 miles. The edge to your parabola from the center in 1.5 miles? 12 miles being 8 times the distance to the edge of what you call our perception. Plus the jet already being 10 or 20 miles away.
The jet contrail from the engines was entirely visible the entire time. The contrail disappeared from evaporation close to me, away from me, towards the jet.
Remember this is 3x zoom.
(https://i.imgur.com/T9ThqYB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7szbsfU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tOh8BJV.jpg)
Close up of the last picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3nJ9pT.jpg)
Another jet recorded for 1:28 minute. About 10 miles away. Could see with the naked eye. Using 3x zoom.
(https://i.imgur.com/3NexJja.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qjuVZBZ.jpg)
. There is no indication of a “perception wall” and “light breaking down” such as your delusional parabola. There is a limit of resolution based on the object’s size with distance, how well it is illuminated, clarity of the atmosphere, and the ability to gather light. Again. Objects over the horizon can’t be brought back with zoom because they are physical blocked by the curvature of the earth.
-
Use as many name-callings
Den pressure has been proven to be a delusion and a lie, inadequate at accurately modelling and accurately predicting the simplest of physics
Anyone by extension posting it as an accurate working model is a liar.
-
Yep, like I said.
Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.
It depends on who is reading the bull.
You're trying to argue against me based on nothing more than picking up a relevant article to argue your case for you.
Blind acceptance of things that are said to be factual does not mean you know the facts.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!
Use as many name-callings as you feel comfortable using. If it helps you to feel a bit stronger from your weak self then who am I to knock that from you?
Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?
I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.
Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.
Comics eh? It makes sense.
Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.
As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.
But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.
Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.
Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.
Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.
-
Blacking out a portion of a picture offers you nothing against what I'm saying.
This is not simply blacking out a portion of an image.
It is cutting the image in 2, separating it out and putting a black region in.
It is a demonstration of the kind of delusional BS you are spouting.
If what you are saying is true, that the air is just blocking the view, that is what you would expect to see, approximately.
If you want to try claiming something different, why don't you try drawing it and explaining it?
What magic is causing objects to appear to sink?
I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.
You mean it would be lost on people that actually think, rather than just accepting whatever delusional BS is spouted to save your flat Earth fantasy?
You are yet to offer any meaningful explanation for anything. And what you say contradicts yourself.
You wont draw a diagram because you know it will show your claim is pure garbage.
And instead of dealing with that fact, you just insult us because we don't accept your BS.
-
… it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level.
No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.
I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.
They cut halfway up my window seen straight across from it, as many others have seen over and over again, there’s no doubt it’s seen directly across from us in planes at all altitudes.
-
No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.
Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.
I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.
You mean you have seen it across from you, with no measurement of the angle.
Remember, all measurements have uncertainty. What was the uncertainty of the angle for your "measurement"?
Or a better question for you: how does perspective magically stop?
-
… it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level.
No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.
I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.
They cut halfway up my window seen straight across from it, as many others have seen over and over again, there’s no doubt it’s seen directly across from us in planes at all altitudes.
Hurray
Getting closer.
So on a circle seen on the XY place
When a perpendicular stick off the surface rises, the circlesurface-tangent to top-operepndicular-stick-which-can-be-thought-of-as-eye-level allows the viewer to see a farther horizon line.
That viewed horizon line being the tabgent intersdction and the 360degree slice around the Zaxis.
Yes no?
Do.circlss and triangles not exist in your reality?
-
atmospheric magnification or demagnification.
Used these jets in another thread.
But, why don’t they become physically blocked from view at distances greater than the horizon.
But if I was on the coast, ships much closer would start to become physically blocked from view bottom up as they went beyond the horizon.
Where these jets much father away don’t exhibit any properties of disappearing bottom up?
1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video.
Hmm.
Besides the things pointed out by jack that your wrong?
I was watching a jet. It was about 10 or 20 miles away? Way outside your supposed parabola of perception. I’m guessing it’s was flying around 360 miles per hour. (6 x 60 mph to make the math easy) I watched with my naked eyes and recorded the jet just over two minutes. I can post the video if you like. So. In 2 minutes the jet would have traveled around 12 miles. The edge to your parabola from the center in 1.5 miles? 12 miles being 8 times the distance to the edge of what you call our perception. Plus the jet already being 10 or 20 miles away.
The jet contrail from the engines was entirely visible the entire time. The contrail disappeared from evaporation close to me, away from me, towards the jet.
Remember this is 3x zoom.
(https://i.imgur.com/T9ThqYB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7szbsfU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tOh8BJV.jpg)
Close up of the last picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3nJ9pT.jpg)
Another jet recorded for 1:28 minute. About 10 miles away. Could see with the naked eye. Using 3x zoom.
(https://i.imgur.com/3NexJja.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qjuVZBZ.jpg)
. There is no indication of a “perception wall” and “light breaking down” such as your delusional parabola. There is a limit of resolution based on the object’s size with distance, how well it is illuminated, clarity of the atmosphere, and the ability to gather light. Again. Objects over the horizon can’t be brought back with zoom because they are physical blocked by the curvature of the earth.
First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.
They are high up in the sky and create no theoretical horizon line to the eye because they're always saturated with light against light, not a dark dense sea or land.
Also, the jets do get smaller to the eye which is simply demagnification from your eye which you can bring back with magnification using a scope but also be made to appear more magnified depending on the local (to you) climate.
-
Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.
As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.
But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.
Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.
Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.
Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.
You seem very frustrated.
One day it might help you to put some thought into something.
Surely going beserk and name-calling and digging like hell can't satisfy you after all this time.
Hanging onto the coattails of some of the globalists on here and trying to have as much global paraphernalia at hand ready to argue for your mates and their globe, doesn't offer you any facts.
It just offers you the chance to feel smug enough to have any answer at the drop of your hat. That's not using your intelligence, it's merely regurgitating reactionary stories at a click, on a whim.
Just an extension of the rest.
-
Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.
-
First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.
They demonstrate there is no magic disappearing from “atmosphere”.
The reason a ship gets blocked bottom up as it travels over the horizon where the bottom can’t be brought back into view by binoculars or telescope is because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.
It really is that simple. No matter what word salad lies you post changes that fact.
Sorry.
-
You seem very frustrated.
One. The individual doesn’t.
Two. You’re the one with nothing but lies.
-
Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.
why is it theoretical?
i can literally see a distinct sky and a distinct land/sea.
if i literally draw two concentric circles and then a stick coming off the inside circle, but not touching the out circle, i can draw a line from the top of the stick-tangent inside circle-hits point on outside circle
the outside circle is the sky
the inside circle is the earth
the stick is my eye level.
the tangent line intersection is the horizon
do triangles and circles not exist in sceppy's world?
-
Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.
As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.
But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.
Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.
Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.
Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.
You seem very frustrated.
One day it might help you to put some thought into something.
Surely going beserk and name-calling and digging like hell can't satisfy you after all this time.
Hanging onto the coattails of some of the globalists on here and trying to have as much global paraphernalia at hand ready to argue for your mates and their globe, doesn't offer you any facts.
It just offers you the chance to feel smug enough to have any answer at the drop of your hat. That's not using your intelligence, it's merely regurgitating reactionary stories at a click, on a whim.
Just an extension of the rest.
I name call everybody. No need to feel special or targetted. Unless sceptimatic is your name in the outside world as well?
I'm not frustrated and expect nothing less from what I get from you. Maybe one day you'll take my advice and put your crazy ideas into a comic book where they belong. I'm sure you can read, right? So, I'm sure you've read the arguments I have with Jackoff and DribbleOverFlow, aka the Dribbler?
No coattails to swing from there, just like there is nothing theoretical about a photo showing the horizon out at sea or anywhere else. How can you say a photo of something is just theoretical when it can be photographed?
The horizon line is a physical line. It's a line of the shape of the Earth. If i want to do a seascape painting, I'll be painting the horizon line. The rest of your flat earth tribe use the horizon line which at first glance is straight, as evidence the Earth is flat. Here you are, going against your tribe, saying the horizon isn't evidence of anything, it's just an illusion created by an eyeball, which you forget is duplicated by any camera.
-
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is ... a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
If you are going to say it doesn't rise to eye level, don't then go and effectively claim that it rises to eye level.
The horizon is theoretical
No, it is very much physical.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest it is theoretical.
Observations of it show it is located a certain physical distance away from you (which varies depending on factors such as your altitude), and remains that regardless of what optics are used.
Observations of it show how the Earth below blocks the view to distant objects.
It is just as physical as the horizon on a basketball.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
Again, if that pure BS was true, you would have a region of darkness.
That BS of yours cannot explain why objects appear to sink and appear to be blocked by Earth.
Stop just asserting crap and try drawing a picture explaining how it works.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink and be blocked by Earth from the bottom up.
-
The horizon is theoretical
No. It’s an actual physical thing that can be calculated and measured.
and only the pinpoint centre of your eye
Something you made up that is not seen in mirrors, convex mirrors, concave mirrors, and the various sizes of lenses and camera sensor sizes.
-
First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.
They demonstrate there is no magic disappearing from “atmosphere”.
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.
The reason a ship gets blocked bottom up as it travels over the horizon where the bottom can’t be brought back into view by binoculars or telescope is because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.
It really is that simple. No matter what word salad lies you post changes that fact.
Sorry.
No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.
All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.
-
Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.
why is it theoretical?
i can literally see a distinct sky and a distinct land/sea.
Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.
if i literally draw two concentric circles and then a stick coming off the inside circle, but not touching the out circle, i can draw a line from the top of the stick-tangent inside circle-hits point on outside circle
the outside circle is the sky
the inside circle is the earth
the stick is my eye level.
the tangent line intersection is the horizon
do triangles and circles not exist in sceppy's world?
That's you drawing a line. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Unless I'm missing your point and if so then clarify what you're saying.
-
I name call everybody. No need to feel special or targetted. Unless sceptimatic is your name in the outside world as well?
It matters not about the name and whether it's an alias or real. The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are. That's all I'm saying and you're well within your rights (as far as I'm concerned) to use whatever wording you wish against me as it does actually make me smile and I'm simply pointing out your weaknesses.
I think you're fairly interesting in some ways but you do suffer from the above.
I'm not frustrated and expect nothing less from what I get from you. Maybe one day you'll take my advice and put your crazy ideas into a comic book where they belong. I'm sure you can read, right? So, I'm sure you've read the arguments I have with Jackoff and DribbleOverFlow, aka the Dribbler?
I read most things and your little games with various posters are quite funny in a way where you try to divide opinion and play your games.
No coattails to swing from there, just like there is nothing theoretical about a photo showing the horizon out at sea or anywhere else. How can you say a photo of something is just theoretical when it can be photographed?
I never said a photo was theoretical. It's a picture but what it depicts is only what the eye perceives which is simply a theoretical horizon line if taken over an area of contrast.
The horizon line is a physical line.
Nope, it's not.
Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water? ;)
It's a line of the shape of the Earth.
How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?
If i want to do a seascape painting, I'll be painting the horizon line.
You'll be painting a contrast of colouring that's all. You will not be drawing any line.
The rest of your flat earth tribe use the horizon line which at first glance is straight, as evidence the Earth is flat.
I don't have any tribe so what others say is their thoughts.
I use a theoretical horizon line so this is what you're dealing with, with me.
Using others as an argument offers nothing against what I'm saying.
Here you are, going against your tribe, saying the horizon isn't evidence of anything, it's just an illusion created by an eyeball, which you forget is duplicated by any camera.
The only thing duplicated is what you see which is placed onto a background of paper/material. It's light contrasts.
-
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is ... a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
If you are going to say it doesn't rise to eye level, don't then go and effectively claim that it rises to eye level.
I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times, not rising nor falling, and is dependent entirely on the actual person rising or falling whilst keeping eye level.
Two entirely different scenarios.
The horizon is theoretical
No, it is very much physical.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest it is theoretical.
There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.
Observations of it show it is located a certain physical distance away from you (which varies depending on factors such as your altitude), and remains that regardless of what optics are used.
The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time. Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why? VBecause your eye level dictates the distance of contrasting light back to your eyes.
Observations of it show how the Earth below blocks the view to distant objects.
No it doesn't.
It is just as physical as the horizon on a basketball.
You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it and simply looking from a distance from it to create your so-called line.
If you want to argue your horizon line then do it from the point of you being on that basketball looking with a level sight.
Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
Place a camera on that basketball and level it and understand that to level it over a continuous downward curve will never offer you a view of any so-called line of that ball.
Go on and try it.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
Again, if that pure BS was true, you would have a region of darkness.
You do have a region of contrast at all times and some of it will always be darker to your eye due to light filtering below than above due to the terrain or water not being able to return the light to the entirety of the eye.
That BS of yours cannot explain why objects appear to sink and appear to be blocked by Earth.
Stop just asserting crap and try drawing a picture explaining how it works.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink and be blocked by Earth from the bottom up.
I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.
-
The horizon is theoretical
No. It’s an actual physical thing that can be calculated and measured.
Explain how you can measure it?
Tell me how you hit this supposed line of yours.
and only the pinpoint centre of your eye
Something you made up that is not seen in mirrors, convex mirrors, concave mirrors, and the various sizes of lenses and camera sensor sizes.
Not sure what you're getting at with this.
-
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify
See. You start off with a lie. It gains a distance where the relative angular size becomes to small in resolution for the human eye to discern. With good weather, the jet many many miles away can still be brought into resolution with a good telescope or pair of binoculars. What 20 or 30 miles away? The whole jet can be brought back into view. The airplane doesn’t disappear bottom up in anyway.
A ship starts to disappear bottom up because of the physical horizon around 4 or 5 miles. The distance to the horizon can be calculated. The amount it disappears bottom up increases as it goes farther over the horizon. A pair of binoculars or a telescope can’t bring back the blocked portion because it is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.
Like this.
Part three. Modern proof.
I came across this video. I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.
Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
(https://i.imgur.com/LKrCzBd.jpg)
The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.
Part four, the classic. Ships disappearing bottom up.
During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNACybk.jpg)
Then a ship farther away.
(https://i.imgur.com/uH4QbOc.jpg)
If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon. There is always my go to ship video.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq5W3G9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7L2pQJ6.jpg)
So. There you go.
Proofs the earth is curved. The Chicago skyline. The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science. The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube. And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”. And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”
sceptimatic, you are derailing this thread with totally debunked and meaningless word salad. It’s pretty sad. You have what? Dedicated your posts for 10 years to lies that are easily proven to be lies?.
-
Modern proof.
I came across this video. I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.
Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
(https://i.imgur.com/LKrCzBd.jpg)
The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNACybk.jpg)
It seems your 29.7 miles is very very close to the 8 inches per mile squared for what the globe would be said to offer.
So are you going with this?
Are you now accepting your globe to be 8 inches per mile squared?
Seeing as you're offering this then I'd assume you are.
Yes or no and explain if no.
sceptimatic, you are derailing this thread with totally debunked and meaningless word salad. It’s pretty sad. You have what? Dedicated your posts for 10 years to lies that are easily proven to be lies?.
You tend to use this excuse when you're struggling.
The thread was derailed way before I entered.
In fact all threads with lengthy posts get derailed because that's the nature of arguments within them.
-
Does the formula for parabola make a circle?
Or are you purposefully ignoring the 8in rule is only practiaclly rsasonable to a certain distance?
-
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.
No, it will not offer any physical horizon line, until its angle of elevation puts it close to Earth.
Your BS doesn't work.
No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
This can be observed quite easily.
Go to a large port city where the ships go out to the ocean.
Watch them leave and watch them as they go over the horizon.
The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.
Repeating the same lie will not help you.
Everything demonstrates that the horizon is physical.
That it it due to the curve of Earth, and as a ship goes over that curve, it disappears from view, from the bottom up, with Earth blocking the view.
You have nothing to suggest otherwise, nor do you have a mechanism explain how such delusional BS would work.
All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.
Again, you have no reason at all for it to sink.
If we merely lose light, it goes black.
If we lose contrast, it fades to a blur.
There is no way for it to magically appear lower.
What magic is causing the boat to appear lower?
What magic is causing the boat to appear to sink into Earth?
Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.
It is as much a line as any other edge of any other object.
Why should we believe your claim that it is theoretical?
The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are.
So you admit you are weak based upon your repeated attempts to call people brainwashed and deluded and stupid?
Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water?
Congratulations on demonstrating Earth is round.
Take a basketball and look at it. You see the edge. Feel free to mark it with something. Then rotate it around (equivalent to you moving around).
Does your inability to see a clearly drawn line there mean the edge magically isn't physical? No.
How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?
By the real globe offering a downwards curve, which when combined with perspective, causing the ground to go to a higher angle of elevation until it reaches a peak and goes to a lower angle of elevation, creating that edge (as well as countless others).
I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times
i.e. the ground rises to eye level.
You are just trying to play semantics here.
And you claim this, even after clearly being shown to be wrong.
There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.
I did. Read my above refutation.
The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time.
No, there is no theoretical line.
The REAL PHYSICAL horizon is located at a certain distance away from you.
If you remain in place, there is NOTHING you can do to change it.
Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why?
Because Earth is round.
Take a flat surface, then the edge is the edge of the surface, so as you walk to the edge, that edge remains there.
Now take a hill (that goes above you), as you walk over this hill the area you can see changes, simply due to the curve of the hill blocking your view.
No it doesn't.
Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
The fact that you can take a photo of the object, and then scale it to match the object in another photo where the bottom is missing, and clearly demonstrate that Earth is in the way of the bottom, shows that Earth is blocking the view.
You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it
Your vision doesn't give a damn if you are standing on it or not.
The horizon of Earth is just as "theoretical" as the edge of the basketball.
Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
You mean here is a dishonest pile of BS you will use to try to reject reality.
The problem with your "challenge" is scale.
Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km.
That means an observer with a height of 2 m is roughly 0.0000003 radii above.
Forget a basketball for now. If you take a ball with a radius of 1 m, that would mean the location you need to place the camera to get the same view is 0.0000003 m above it. That is 300 nm above it.
We do not have a camera that small.
If you want to go to an observation from the peak of Mt Everest, that is roughly 8 km high. That is 0.001 times the radius. So again going to a ball with a radius of 1 m, that works out to be 1 mm.
Earth is not a tiny ball, stop pretending it is.
I have already explained what FOV you would need to avoid seeing the horizon on a round Earth.
Here is a more honest challenge for you.
Go find a nice curving hallway, with a radius as large as possible.
Then go place a camera on the wall, as close as possible to the wall, looking parallel to a tangent to that curve.
Then see if you can see the wall in the camera.
Or even better and simpler:
Explain what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface, including explaining why objects beyond the horizon appear to sink.
I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.
No, you haven't.
-
You tend to use this excuse when you're struggling.
I’m not struggling at all. You have no credible argument why Turning Torso becomes increasingly physically blocked from view bottom up with distance. Curvature of the earth explains this, and why the potion physically blocked from view can’t be brought back into view with binoculars or a telescope.
Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
(https://i.imgur.com/LKrCzBd.jpg)
-
Explain how you can measure it?
Tell me how you hit this supposed line of yours.
There are a few different ways.
As a simple one, go place markers in a line, with a certain distance between them.
Then looking just to the side, see where the markers are on the horizon. That gives you the distance.
Use a theodolite, precisely level it, and then observe the angle of dip to the horizon.
It seems your 29.7 miles is very very close to the 8 inches per mile squared for what the globe would be said to offer.
So are you going with this?
Are you now accepting your globe to be 8 inches per mile squared?
Seeing as you're offering this then I'd assume you are.
Yes or no and explain if no.
The DROP due to the curve of Earth, over a short enough distance, can be approximated as h=d^2/2R.
This works out to be roughly 8 inches per mile squared.
This is NOT the amount that is hidden, as that is affected by refraction, and more importantly, requires you to separate it into 2 parts, the part from the observer to the horizon, where none is hidden, and then the distance from the horizon to the object, which causes it to be hidden.
Refraction under "standard conditions" can be approximated by letting R=R*7/6.
As an example, with an observer 2 m high, the drop over 5 km is roughly 2 m.
That means the horizon will be roughly 5 km away.
It also means that they will be able to see an object that is 2 m above the ground roughly 10 km away.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IvFXt5G.gif)
-
The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.
That is what shows us it is absolutely a flat surface. So does the outward view, but less distinct due to perspective.
With your curved surface you claim appears to rise more and more upward, over a more and more downward surface, that would appear on the cross-sectional viewpoint of this surface, over the same 3 mile distance, but it is perfectly straight across it, when adjusting it as a straight line of same distance out from the first line of sight outward over the surface.
After we have two separate viewpoints over the same area of surface, one going outward, the other following the first path of view, these are perpendicular viewpoints on one path, outward and across it.
When that is seen, from two viewpoints, it is exactly how engineering drawings are done, showing the cross-sectional views, among others sometimes.
You obviously want to ignore this cross-sectional viewpoint of the surface, it proves you wrong.
When we see the surface from this viewpoint, we would see it is entirely flat over the surface.
And we would also see that there is nothing of a curve over the surface. When you claim that ‘curvature’ finally shows up as a curved surface, but is entirely out of all sight, because it is blocked out behind a surface that doesn’t ever rise upward as it appears to, what would ever be blocking out things on a flat or curved downward surface, does not exist higher to block out anything past it, so how can it physically block out things when it is NOT physically that height upward on the surface.
Why do you think the surface is physically blocking out things when it’s not physically that high up as it looks?
-
The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.
That is what shows us it is absolutely a flat surface. So does the outward view, but less distinct due to perspective.
Once more, if it was straight it would be seen in one direction.
You would not see it circle us.
The fact you can trace all the way around you, demonstrates beyond any doubt that it is a circle.
The fact that it is roughly the same distance away from you in every direction (assuming you are on a level surface) demonstrates it is a circle.
Again, going to an observer height of 2 m, the horizon is ~5 km away. The distinction between FE and RE is the FE has it ~2 m below the observer while RE has it ~4 m below.
The other important distinction is the RE can explain it, while the FE cannot.
With your curved surface you claim appears to rise more and more upward, over a more and more downward surface, that would appear on the cross-sectional viewpoint of this surface
Yes, a CROSS SECTION view.
The horizon is NOT such a view.
The horizon is a cross section in that runs parallel to a plane passing level at your position.
So to see that as a cross section, you need to look down. That requires you to be quite high above the ball to get it all in your FOV.
Again, for both of those issues:
imagine you are standing in the middle of a bowl, with the rim of the bowl at eye level.
Do you see the curve there? No. What you see is the "horizon" appearing to be a "straight line" cutting across your view.
This shows your claim is BS.
You obviously want to ignore this cross-sectional viewpoint of the surface, it proves you wrong.
Not in the slightest. But I do notice you are doing whatever you can to avoid the issue that is raised, so you shouldn't be suggesting people want to ignore things.
And we would also see that there is nothing of a curve over the surface. When you claim that ‘curvature’ finally shows up as a curved surface, but is entirely out of all sight, because it is blocked out behind a surface that doesn’t ever rise upward as it appears to, what would ever be blocking out things on a flat or curved downward surface, does not exist higher to block out anything past it, so how can it physically block out things when it is NOT physically that height upward on the surface.
Why do you think the surface is physically blocking out things when it’s not physically that high up as it looks?
As shown before:
(https://i.imgur.com/BA6CUZb.png)
Not difficult to understand.
Now care to explain what magic causes a FE to block the view?
What magic causes a FE to stop rising?
-
We always see horizons going straight across us, at each end of them we see.
There is no curve or arc anywhere at all, it is all straight lines and flat surfaces we see.
What we see from all points outward, is about three miles away, so if we follow along the center of a horizon, then it IS seen as a straight line throughout it.
When we stay in one position, and view it while WE circle around that one point, that is a circle of 3 miles out from us.
But when we move along a straight line, along a horizon, it is seen as a straight line, 3 miles out over it.
Nice try.
-
We always see horizons going straight across us, at each end of them we see.
All this means is that it is at the same angle of dip.
Again, if you are standing in a bowl, with the rim of the bowl level with you, that would also appear like that.
You are not showing there is no curve.
Again, the fact that demonstrates it is a curve is that there is a horizon in the first place.
Something you cannot explain on a flat Earth.
You cannot explain why perspective should magically stop after some finite distance.
You cannot explain why a flat surface should magically block the view to a more distant object.
There is no curve or arc anywhere at all
Yes there is, which is easily demonstrated by following it around you.
You cannot follow a straight line around you.
If you don't believe, go draw a straight line on the ground. Then stand some distance away from it.
Then try following it.
If it was straight, the maximum you can follow it for is 180 degrees.
But if it is a circle, you can follow it all around.
The horizon is not straight.
It is a circle.
It is not a straight line.
-
All we see is a straight across line, in a circle around us, or in a straight path, with a straight line across the horizon.
They are always straight and flat across the surface, from any viewpoint or paths taken by us over the surface.
If there was a curved surface, that curves ships out of view after three miles away, which is simply an illusion of perpesctive, but it was curving down out of view at three miles, how would we know which one is right?
Viewing the ships path atop the horizon, from 3 miles out, perpendicular to its path.
So the ship is seen at one end, sailing atop the horizon. Then you follow along the horizon at the same distance away, 3 miles out. Then when it seen outward at their horizon, and goes past it out of their view, you are still seeing it 3 miles away, and beyond that, past their horizon, where they can’t see it anymore.
This proves it is entirely a flat surface, and proves there is no curve that ‘wins out’ over perspective at the horizon, and proves it is not blocked by a curved ball surface they made up ages ago.
-
All we see is a straight across line, in a circle around us, or in a straight path, with a straight line across the horizon.
It is a circle, not a straight line.
The sole reason you have to repeatedly claim it is a straight line, is to pretend it shows no curve.
But it IS a curve, a circle.
how would we know which one is right?
Again, we know this because of the horizon.
If Earth was flat, the horizon would not exist.
Instead, the ground would continue to rise forever and not block more distant objects from view.
But if Earth was round, then you would eventually reach a distance where the curvature has a greater effect than perspective, so the ground stops appearing to rise, and it blocks more distant ground and starts blocking objects.
i.e. we know Earth is because of these observations.
You have nothing to suggest Earth is flat, nor any way to explain these observations for a FE.
Viewing the ships path atop the horizon, from 3 miles out, perpendicular to its path.
So the ship is seen at one end, sailing atop the horizon
I'm pretty sure you brought up this BS before, and had refuted before.
The horizon is NOT a perpendicular path.
(https://i.imgur.com/thab8QN.png)
A boat sailing away into the distance along the grey line for a viewer with a horizon of the purple circle.
Someone standing away, looking towards it from a perpendicular direction has the blue circle as the horizon.
Notice that the horizon is not the grey line?
So you are lying yet again.
And I was right:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=89659.msg2367944#msg2367944
You already had that BS refuted.
Now stop with all the pathetic deflection.
Explain what magic causes perspective to magically stop to produce a horizon on a flat surface.
Explain what magic causes a flat surface to magically block the view to an object above it.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink.
-
The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.
Then why is there a measurable dip of the horizon.
-
This is amazing
Railroad tracks converge at a distance.
The left-right come to apoint in the distance.
But do they really?
So why then do oyu think the ground rises up?
Why do you think it not possible that the updown dont also converge due tobpersepctive?
-
It is a circle, not a straight line.
It is always SEEN as a straight line, not a circle you doofus!
If you look at a hula hoop or a crepe along its edge, what you see is a straight line. They are flat surfaces in a circular shape, not spheres like your made up ball Earth is.
We see across the surface the same way. Along a plane, like a pancake viewed from its edge. We have no idea of it’s outer shape, it could be a square or res tangle or circle, it doesn’t matter, along their edge they are flat and straight, not squares of circles.
You aren’t a moron, so why play one here?
‘Duh , it looks flat and straight over the surface, but it’s really a circle, even though a circle is flat on one viewpoint’
Where do you SEE the horizon as a circle? You don’t. How is a circle seen along a side view seen? It is seen flat and level and lstraight across.
I can’t believe I have to explain to you that when we look at any horizon, we see it as a straight line across the surface.
The entire perimeter of the surface could be a massive square, circle, or wedge, or any OTHER shape, but it is always a FLAT square, circle or wedge. That is what the surface of Earth is, and is seen as - flat and with straight across horizons.
-
The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.
Then why is there a measurable dip of the horizon.
There IS no ‘measurable dip’ in a horizon. Where do you see a dip past the horizon on the surface? You don’t. How could you see the surface past a horizon dipping down? It would not be seen, right?
An imaginary curve you believe that is never seen and proven not to exist, never seen to sexist, never measured to exist, is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. But that’s the ball Earth story in a nutshell, built on things that don’t exist, aren’t seen, aren’t measured.and making bs claims to the world that they have seen 5 distinct belts on it which slowly are seen rotating around very skowky.
If you want to see what Saturn actually looks like in person, without degradation sfter putting it online, you can rent out this telescope yourself, and look at Saturn directly as they would have seen it.This is even BETTER than looking at raw footage, it is a live view of it, same as they would have had back then, except through a vastly superior telescope than they had. I cannot take a video of Saturn with this telescope and post it online as if it were what U saw, or is raw footage.
Why do you not use your own intelligence, and an unbiased viewpoint of the evidence presented in front of you, on snd looki through this 60 “ telescope yourself?
If you want to directly see Saturn as it really IS seen through a far superior telescope than they had, to prove what Saturn looks like much better, much closer up, much sharper and defined than THEY would have seen it 400 years ago through a scrapped piece of junk,, then you should see through this telescope yourself.
-
It is always SEEN as a straight line, not a circle you doofus!
I wouldn't suggest calling people a doofus, when you are boldly proclaiming a circle is seen as a straight line.
If you look at a straight line, and follow it along, you see that it extends no more than 180 degrees around you.
But you can look at the horizon, and see it go a full 360 degrees.
The horizon is NOT seen as a straight line.
What you really mean, is that you see a line with the same angle of dip.
That is NOT a straight line.
Yet like in other cases, you lie, intentionally using the wrong words to pretend other claims are true.
You specifically choose to use the word straight so you can pretend it means Earth is flat.
If you look at a hula hoop or a crepe along its edge, what you see is a straight line. They are flat surfaces in a circular shape
Just like the horizon for a round Earth.
You aren’t a moron, so why play one here?
I would say ask yourself that, but you are yet to show you aren't.
I'm not the one playing the moron.
I'm not the one claiming the horizon, which is a circle, is a straight line.
I'm not the one stupidly proclaiming that because the horizon is a "straight line" it means Earth must be flat, while continuing to ignore a trivial example of a hypothetical human sized bowl you are standing in, which has the horizon at the same angle of dip all around.
I'm not the one suggesting the horizon is a cross section, and then acting like it is the cross section of a plane.
I'm not the one boldly proclaiming that perspective would result in more distant objects appearing higher, only to directly contradict that and claim it magically stops.
I'm not the one boldly proclaiming the vanishing point of perspective (the point where parallel lines meet, a point infinitely far away) is just a short distance away.
But your actions show more dishonesty than stupidity.
Especially with how you flee from the points you cannot refute.
That is what the surface of Earth is, and is seen as - flat and with straight across horizons.
Again, if Earth was flat, the only horizon you would see is the edge.
The fact that the horizon exists shows Earth is not flat.
There IS no ‘measurable dip’ in a horizon. Where do you see a dip past the horizon on the surface?
There is a measurable dip. But because you can't refute this, you dishonestly pretend people are saying something else.
It is the angle of dip of the horizon.
i.e. you get a nice highly accurate device like a theodolite. You accurately level it, and then you look through the glass and see what the angle of the horizon is.
And you see it is not 0 degrees. It is below level.
But as for your current dishonest BS, that has already been explained.
You compare it to something which you can see.
e.g. a tall building where you can see the lower portion missing.
Either this lower portion has gone into Earth, or Earth's surface at that distance needs to be lower.
Even a child can understand this.
e.g. if you watch someone go over a hill, and see them go down on the other side, you recognise the ground goes down there.
An imaginary curve you believe that is never seen and proven not to exist, never seen to sexist, never measured to exist
You mean repeatedly seen, proven and measured to exist countless times.
Including proven to exist by the existence of the horizon which you keep fleeing from because you cannot explain it in your flat fantasy.
You are literally in a thread where you have repeatedly failed to disprove a proof of the curve, and repeatedly fled from it, yet here you are yet again lying that it has never been proven.
Look at how you yet again flee from this proof by trying to bring up pure BS about entirely unrelated subjects?
If you want to claim Earth is magically flat, and the curve is never seen or proven to exist, then you need to explain the horizon.
You need to explain what magic magically causes perspective to magically stop such that more distant land doesn't appear higher, but instead you magically get a horizon.
You need to explain what magic magically causes objects beyond the horizon magically appear to magically sink into Earth so it magically appears that Earth is magically blocking the view, even though there is no possible way for it to do so.
The RE can explain it, you can't.
Until you can explain it, the horizon remains proof of curvature.
Why do you not use your own intelligence
I have. I see you ignoring basic geometry, fleeing from questions which expose your BS, spouting a bunch of lies again and again, and bringing up irrelevant crap.
That shows beyond any doubt that you have no idea how to honestly and rationally defend a FE, or you have no interest in doing so.
-
Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons, you don’t believe that the surface is flat, so how could you know what they look like or don’t look like, if never seeing one? You just ‘know’ they’d not have horizons, right?
Why would the surface rise up more and more, if the surface curved down more and more at the same time? Does that make sense to you?
You think that perspective creates opposite illusions of some sort?
You think the surface seems to rise up more and more on a curving down more and more surface? What would you think would happen on a flat surface then?
It would rise up even more and more than this? It’s blocking out everything we see, so how can we see for thousands of miles out on the surface, when it’s blocking out half the sky at only three miles away? It slows the rising up later on, you just know that it would slow way down, right?
-
Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons
Because that is what the math and evidence shows.
Every flat surface I have looked at only has "horizons" on the edge.
This "horizon" remains in place as long as I remain on that side of the flat surface.
Conversely, every round object I have looked at has a horizon which varies in location as I move around.
Earth matches round surfaces, not flat surfaces.
The real question is why do you think flat surfaces do produce a horizon?
And the answer is truly simple. You are desperate to pretend Earth is flat, and Earth has horizons, so you are desperate for a flat surface to have a horizon.
You can't provide an example of any other flat surface having a horizon other than the edge.
You cannot provide an explanation for why or how a flat surface magically produces a horizon.
You cannot provide an answer to why perspective should magically stop.
Instead you desperately assert that flat surfaces will magically produce a horizon, and get so incredibly dishonest that you need to pretend I have never seen a flat surface.
you don’t believe that the surface is flat, so how could you know what they look like or don’t look like, if never seeing one?
Earth is not the only surface available to us.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
With this line of BS, you demonstrate just how dishonest, desperate and pathetic your position is.
How about you stop with all this dishoneset BS, and explain the magic that causes a flat surface to have a horizon.
Explain the magic that causes perspective to stop.
See if you can answer this question:
I am carefully looking towards the horizon on your hypothetical magic planet, and a carefully measure the angle to infinite precision.
I now want to know what the angle to a piece of land more distant along this magical flat surface is.
Will this angle being higher, lower or the same? And more importantly, WHY?
Why would the surface rise up more and more, if the surface curved down more and more at the same time? Does that make sense to you?
Yes, this does make sense to me and has been explained to you repeatedly.
But because you are so dishonest and so desperate to pretend Earth is flat, you continually ignore this.
You cannot show a fault with the explanation and even admit that a round surface would do this.
Again, see this image you have been provided with several times:
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
As we can clearly see from the angle of the purple lines, if you starting looking straight down, and follow the ground, it initially goes to a higher angle (as you would say it "appears to rise", before reaching a point where it goes back down.
You think that perspective creates opposite illusions of some sort?
No. That is what YOU believe.
I believe perspective, for an object below you, will make it appear to rise forever.
YOU claim this is not the case, and that after some magical distance it will magically stop and magically reverse, causing objects below you to appear to sink into the ground.
You cannot explain why it perspective should magically cause this magically opposite effect. Instead you just repeatedly assert it does so you can pretend Earth is flat.
Conversely, I stick to perspective making it appear higher, until the drop due to curvature becomes so significant perspective cannot counter it.
Notice the key distinction?
You believe perspective magically stops/switches. I accept reality of 2 effects at play, one making it go up which is most significant at short distances, and one making it go down which is most significant at large distances.
Again, the RE can explain it, the FE cant.
You think the surface seems to rise up more and more on a curving down more and more surface? What would you think would happen on a flat surface then?
The distinction is quite simple:
On a flat surface it continues FOREVER! This means the ground will ALWAYS appear to rise. It doesn't matter how far away you consider, a point a bit further away will still "appear higher".
For a round surface, eventually curvature will win and it will stop appearing to rise.
That is the distinction and why the FE cannot explain reality.
It would rise up even more and more than this?
Why wouldn't it?
The rules of perspective is quite simple, the further away the higher it appears.
Why should it magically stop?
We also know this as it based upon simple geometry.
Again, a=atan(h/d).
You can either plot this out, or look at how it changes.
As d increases, h/d is always getting smaller, so the angle of dip is always getting smaller.
You can NEVER have it stop or reverse.
But for a round surface:
a=atan(h/d+d/2r) (approximately)
Now, while the h/d term gets smaller, the d/2r term gets larger.
The h/d term starts out massive for tiny values of d, while the d/2r term starts out as basically nothing.
So that means overall, the thing inside the brackets gets smaller so the angle of dip gets smaller, i.e. the ground appears to rise.
But eventually, with h/d getting smaller, and d/2r getting bigger, the d/2r term becomes large than the h/d and dominates the equation, and now the overall part in the brackets get large, and the angle of dip increases.
Again, the RE can explain, your delusional BS can't.
It’s blocking out everything we see
In reality, it blocks out things which you would need to look through it to see.
For a RE, that is fine.
For a FE, every object above the surface and the surface itself is not blocked from view as the light to that does not need to pass through the surface.
What you are doing is basically this:
"Reality shows Earth is round, but I want Earth to be flat, so I will lie and say that was observed in reality on a round Earth which proves Earth is round will magically happen on a flat Earth, so this clear proof that Earth is round magically doesn't prove Earth is round."
That is the level of your dishonesty.
So how about you tell us, maybe draw a diagram to show, how does the horizon or the land before it block the view to more distant land?
It slows the rising up later on, you just know that it would slow way down, right?
Slow down is not stop.
And yes, I know it would slow down.
The math is easy to calculate, and I have shown it before:
(https://i.imgur.com/u7RVu6N.png)
For a FE, with an observer height of 2 m, the ground at 1 km is 0.115 degrees below level.
At 2 km it is 0.057.
At 3 km it is 0.038.
At 4 km it is 0.029.
At 5 km it is 0.023.
At 6 km it is 0.019.
At 7 km it is 0.016.
At 8 km it is 0.014.
At 9 km it is 0.013.
At 10 km it is 0.011.
Yes, the apparent rise is slowing down, but it is continuing to rise.
It never stops.
As the rise slows down, so does the rate at which it slows down.
Compare this to the RE, something which can explain reality.
For a RE, with an observer height of 2 m, the ground at 1 km is 0.119 degrees below level.
At 2 km it is 0.066.
At 3 km it is 0.052.
At 4 km it is 0.047.
At 5 km it is 0.045.
At 6 km it is 0.046.
At 7 km it is 0.048.
At 8 km it is 0.050.
At 9 km it is 0.053.
At 10 km it is 0.056.
Notice a key difference?
It reaches a minimum angle of dip of 0.045 degrees at 5 km.
Both closer and further away will appear lower.
Again, the RE can explain what is observed in reality. Your FE fantasy can't.
-
Again, see this image you have been provided with several times:
(https://i.imgur.com/h4WIMi0.png)
As we can clearly see from the angle of the purple lines, if you starting looking straight down, and follow the ground, it initially goes to a higher angle (as you would say it "appears to rise", before reaching a point where it goes back down.
Your lines are not looking level at any time.
You are showing a view that offers only an angled descent of view on any of those lines.
Try offering up those lines from a level view. A pinpoint telescopic view from a level start and see where the lines take you.
Let's see you do that.
-
The lines indicate from a height what wouls be seen in a field of view.
A field ofnview that wiuld see infinite lines of sight.
The line angle increases slowly from looking at your feet and eventually seeing rhe hoirzon.
The tangent line where you see past the ground.
Amazing!
-
Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons,
Ok. Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.
Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.
(https://i.imgur.com/YEszcDU.jpeg)
Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.
(https://i.imgur.com/g52ndyo.jpeg)
Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/E10aoOd.jpeg)
Let’s zoom the above picture by cropping.
Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?
(https://i.imgur.com/LCGYJfj.jpeg)
Hmm. Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal. Like this. Did have to weigh down the ends.
(https://i.imgur.com/COxynRt.jpeg)
Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.
(https://i.imgur.com/YHHRyTl.jpeg)
Let’s zoom the above picture by cropping.
Well. The bottom is physically blocked from view.
Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/wBlbZVZ.jpeg)
vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.
(https://i.imgur.com/LCGYJfj.jpeg)
-
Your lines are not looking level at any time.
And that applies for both the RE and the FE.
It would take an infinite distance for the ground to be level with your eyes.
It is also a very much not to scale diagram.
Try offering up those lines from a level view. A pinpoint telescopic view from a level start and see where the lines take you.
Again, how big is the FOV?
Why don't you provide a picture of Earth, preferably 2 from the same location, one with a large FOV and one with a "pinpoint telescopic view", and then tell us how large this FOV is?
Because we have been over this countless times.
For an observer 2 m above a level surface, a flat fantasy has the ground 5 km away (the distance to the horizon) at 0.023 degrees below level.
A RE, with an actual horizon which doesn't need to invoke pure magic, has it at roughly 0.045 degrees below level.
If your "pinpoint telescopic view" has a FOV of 0.1 degree, you will still see the horizon on a RE.
If your alignment is off by a mere 0.045 degrees downwards, you will still the horizon on a RE.
If it is a perfectly levelled pinpoint view with a FOV less than 0.04 degrees, you wont see the ground on a FE.
Why don't you stop with all this dishonest BS, and instead try to explain what magic causes the horizon on a FE?
-
The rules of perspective is quite simple, the further away the higher it appears.
Why should it magically stop?
We also know this as it based upon simple geometry.
Again, a=atan(h/d).
You can either plot this out, or look at how it changes.
As d increases, h/d is always getting smaller, so the angle of dip is always getting smaller.
You can NEVER have it stop or reverse.
Yet it only rises higher and higher in the distance, until the horizon is seen.
There is no ‘magic’ to it, we do see the surface appear to rise more and more.
At that rate, the surface would keep rising higher and higher, despite it not being geometrically true, until it blocks out everything past a blanket of surface at some distance away, which might be 20 or 30 miles out from us, blocking out everything past 20 or 30 miles out.
That’s why your trying to say the surface suddenly stops rising up higher and higher, and starts rising up less and less from that point on!
Your argument doesn’t make any sense, it conflicts with your argument in fact
There is no reason that a flat surface would rise up higher and higher out the distance, and NOT continue to rise higher and higher, the further is goes out, being you think there wouldn’t be a horizon firm on it, so it would keep rising higher and higher after its 3 miles out, based on the pattern of more and more of it appearing to rise ever higher up over the first 3 miles out!
What would be the rules of perspective making flat surfaces rise more and more in the distance all the way out to a distance of 3 miles, would suddenly make it rise less and lass, beyond a 3 mile distance on a flat surface?
It doesn’t make any sense it would suddenly change after 3,miles out, and rise less and less afterwards
-
The rules of perspective is quite simple, the further away the higher it appears.
Why should it magically stop?
We also know this as it based upon simple geometry.
Again, a=atan(h/d).
You can either plot this out, or look at how it changes.
As d increases, h/d is always getting smaller, so the angle of dip is always getting smaller.
You can NEVER have it stop or reverse.
Yet it only rises higher and higher in the distance, until the horizon is seen.
There is no ‘magic’ to it, we do see the surface appear to rise more and more.
At that rate, you’d have the surface always rising higher and higher, despite it not being geometrically true, until it blocks out everything past a blanket of surface at some distance away, which might be 20 or 30 miles out from us, blocking out everything past 20 or 30 miles out.
That’s why your trying to say the surface suddenly stops rising up higher and higher, and starts rising up less and less from that point on!
Your argument doesn’t make any sense, it conflicts with your argument in fact
There is no reason that a flat surface would rise up higher and higher out the distance, and NOT continue to rise higher and higher, the further is goes out, being you think there wouldn’t be a horizon firm on it, so it would keep rising higher and higher after its 3 miles out, based on the pattern of more and more of it appearing to rise ever higher up over the first 3 miles out!
What would be the rules of perspective making flat surfaces rise more and more in the distance all the way out to a distance of 3 miles, would suddenly make it rise less and lass, beyond a 3 mile distance on a flat surface?
It doesn’t make any sense it would suddenly change after 3,miles out, and rise less and less afterwards
You try changing the reality, as two examples show.:
The first is saying the surface, which is always seen flat over a distance, will rise higher and higher over a more and more downward curving surface, which is absurd. You cannot rise higher on a lower curved surface, that is utter nonsense.
A greater downward curving surface would lessen the effects of perspective, which acts on large flat surfaces seen outward, that’s why we see them rise upward as a fat slope or angle upward, a fkat surface is entirely seen over 3 miles of it, rising up as flat, no curves going downward at all.
Why would the entire surface rise up and seen flat, if it’s supposed to curve over it?
And if you don’t believe this is a flat surface rising, how much flatter would it look if it WAS flat? You can’t see a flatter surface than we see it as, so a flat surface would not look any different than what we see today?
-
Yet it only rises higher and higher in the distance, until the horizon is seen.
No, not until the horizon is seen, FOREVER!
Because you have no way to make a horizon.
There is no ‘magic’ to it, we do see the surface appear to rise more and more.
There quite clearly is magic, as you need magic to produce the horizon and block the view to more distant objects.
Again, from the other thread:
Again, simple geometry. Try addressing it:
Again, this is the RE:
(https://i.imgur.com/4WU80iS.png)
Initially the angle of elevation to the ground will increase (i.e. the angle gets higher) until you reach a line which goes tangent to Earth, and then it drops back down.
Your line of sight to the object beyond the horizon needs to pass through Earth, which means Earth blocks the view.
No magic needed.
Conversely, this is for a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/pPzRAGL.png)
There is NOTHING to produce the horizon.
There is no mechanism for it. There is no reason for it.
Instead, the ground beyond is still at a HIGHER angle, meaning it should continue to "appear to rise" rather than produce a horizon.
The more distant object still has a clear path from it to your eyes, with nothing blocking the view.
So instead, you need this:
(https://i.imgur.com/JmvkAag.png)
The magical horizon magically forms when the magic kicks in to magically start hiding things and magically making them appear magically lower (the latter not shown in this).
This magic then magically blocks the view to objects beyond the magical horizon to magically make them appear to sink, and this magically includes magically blocking the view to the land beyond magical horizon causing the magical horizon to form.
So FE needs magic. RE needs basic geometry.
Why should anyone accept your delusional claims that a flat surface should produce a horizon?
Especially when a round surface explains it so well, with you needing to contradict yourself and assert pure BS to pretend it doesn't; while also contradicting yourself to pretend a flat surface should?
Why should a flat surface produce a horizon?
What MAGIC is causing this?
What MAGIC causes perspective to stop, so a more distant point on the ground (or object above it) magically doesn't appear at a greater angle of elevation as basic geometry and perspective demand?
What MAGIC causes the bottom of objects to be magically hidden when there is NOTHING to block the view? And what MAGIC causes them to appear to sink?
Until you can explain this magic, the horizon and the behaviour of objects near it, is clear proof that Earth is round.
See the magic shown in red? That is what your BS needs.
The RE doesn't need magic, your dishonest, delusional BS does.
At that rate, the surface would keep rising higher and higher, despite it not being geometrically true, until it blocks out everything past a blanket of surface at some distance away, which might be 20 or 30 miles out from us, blocking out everything past 20 or 30 miles out.
No, it wouldn't
It would continue to follow basic geometry, rising at an ever decreasing rate.
This will NEVER stop.
This will NEVER block the view to more distant objects.
And it will NEVER go above 0 degrees.
That’s why your trying to say the surface suddenly stops rising up higher and higher, and starts rising up less and less from that point on!
No, I say that because that is what all the evidence shows.
The fact we have a horizon shows there are 2 competing effects.
One effect makes the ground go to a higher angle of elevation.
The other makes it go to a lower angle of elevation.
And the dominant effect changes.
There is no reason that a flat surface would rise up higher and higher out the distance, and NOT continue to rise higher and higher, the further is goes out
That is my argument, not a conflict with it.
And that is the truth. Simple facts based upon simple geometry.
Facts which demonstrate you are spouting pure BS.
On a flat surface, it continues rising and never stops.
There is no reason for it to stop.
There is no reason for it to magically block the view.
What would be the rules of perspective making flat surfaces rise more and more in the distance all the way out to a distance of 3 miles, would suddenly make it rise less and lass, beyond a 3 mile distance on a flat surface?
There are none, which is why your fantasy is wrong.
Again, for a FE, the angle is atan(h/d).
This continues to rise forever.
For a RE, the angle is atan(h/d+d/2r) (approximately).
This initially rises, but stops and goes back down.
It isn't perspective magically creating a horizon and magically making it go back down.
It is the curvature of Earth that makes it go down.
So no, there is no contradiction in my argument.
Instead, all you are doing is reiterating the fact that my argument proves that the horizon proves that Earth is not flat.
The contradiction is in yours.
Where you claim perspective makes it appear higher, but then claim it magically stops and produces a horizon.
It doesn’t make any sense it would suddenly change after 3,miles out, and rise less and less afterwards
Yet that is exactly what you are claiming. That perspective magically stops for no reason.
Again, for the FE, the formula is atan(h/d).
This does not change at 3 miles out. It still results in a smaller angle below 0, so it is still appearing higher.
But again, for the RE it makes perfect sense.
Again, for the RE the formula is (approximately) atan(h/d+d/2r).
At small distances, h/d is large, approaching infinity as d approaches 0; while d/2r is tiny, approaching 0 as d approaches 0.
But at large distances, h/d is small, approaching 0 as d approaches infinity; while d/2r is large, approaching infinity as d approaches infinity.
We can even directly compare their sizes, and find the value of d such that the 2 are equal.
i.e. when does h/d=d/2r?
Before this h/d is dominant, After this d/2r is dominant.
So to solve:
h/d=d/2r
2*r*h = d^2.
d=sqrt(2*r*h).
Now, we put in r=6371 km and h=2 m.
This gives us d=sqrt(25.484 km^2) = 5.05 km
That is 3.14 miles.
So the RE directly provides a reason for why it changes at roughly 3 miles for an observer height of 2 m.
And if you want it more technically, you need to find the derivative w.r.t. d of h/d+d/2r;
which is 1/2r - h/d^2
Which tells you how that inner part changes.
Then find when that hits 0:
1/2r - h/d^2 = 0
d^2-2*r*h=0
d^2=2*r*h,
just like before, and then see which side is positive and which side is negative.
But the FE has no reason at all. You just contradict yourself.
-
You try changing the reality, as two examples show.:
No, that would be you.
Were you dishonestly claim the surface is always seen as flat, in a thread clearly demonstrating that it is NOT seen as flat.
If it was seen as flat, then like all other flat objects, it would continue to rise forever, never stopping.
Likewise, you are trying to change reality, when you pretend that perspective, which makes things below you appear higher (i.e. at a greater angle of elevation) the further away they are, will magically stop to produce a horizon.
Why do you say this? Not because you can justify it in any way, but to pretend Earth is flat, because this observation clearly demonstrates it isn't.
You cannot rise higher on a lower curved surface, that is utter nonsense.
No more absurd than rising higher on a flat surface.
Again, in both cases the surface is not physically rising higher. Instead, it is seen at a higher angle.
And as simple geometry and plenty of observations from reality show (and even you admitted), both a flat surface and a curved surface will at least initially go to a higher angle of elevation.
The distinction is that a flat surface continues to forever, while a curved surface eventually stops.
Again, if your dishonest BS was true, any time you look at a ball you would see nothing more than a single point.
So a simple observation of looking at a ball shows that you are lying, that you are trying to change reality to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.
Why would the entire surface rise up and seen flat, if it’s supposed to curve over it?
It isn't seen rising up as flat.
A PORTION of the surface is seen rising up before it reaches the horizon and is obstructed from view by the curve.
This shows it is NOT flat.
If it was flat, the entire surface would be seen rising up, without a horizon until the edge.
And if you don’t believe this is a flat surface rising, how much flatter would it look if it WAS flat?
Much flatter, with the horizon infinitely far away.
The distance to the horizon is quite simple to calculate on a RE, as is the angle of dip of the horizon.
The angle of dip is given by acos(r/(r+h)).
The distance, along the surface, is given by r*acos(r/(r+h)); which is approximately equal to sqrt(2*r*h).
If it was flatter, r would be bigger, with a flat surface having r as infinity.
As r approaches infinity, r/r+h approaches 1, so the angle of dip approaches 0 degrees, and the distance to the horizon approaches infinity.
So the distance to the horizon, and the angle of dip, from a given elevation, is a simple way to determine the curve.
If Earth was flatter, the horizon would be further away and closer to 0 degrees.
If Earth was flat, the horizon would be infinitely far away, i.e. there would be no horizon.
If Earth had a smaller radius, the horizon would be closer to the observer, and further from 0 degrees.
Again, this is basic geometry.
If it was curved, just how much less flat would it appear?
Try being specific about exactly what would look different.
You can’t see a flatter surface than we see it as, so a flat surface would not look any different than what we see today?
Sure we can, by seeing a surface without a horizon, except the edge.
Matching the countless observations of flat surfaces like tables.
Again, this is you trying to change reality.
We see Earth as round, as clearly demonstrated by the horizon.
You don't like that, so you lie and claim we see it as flat, yet you cannot explain how, and need to continually flee from the horizon which shows it as round.
-
The surface appears to rise up more and more, the very opposite of a more and more curved downward surface, that’s amazing, it’s a magical surface, indeed!
It would stop rising up, or at least not rise up more and more, if there were a curved surface, going down more and more at the same time
-
The surface appears to rise up more and more
Only until a point.
i.e. THE VERY THING YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR A ROUND SURFACE.
Something that has been shown to be true countless times.
Again, for a flat surface it should continue forever.
So again, we have a round surface which matches reality, or a flat surface which does not.
Again, what is expected for a RE:
(https://i.imgur.com/4WU80iS.png)
We see Earth appear to rise until a point (the horizon) after which it would appear to go down if you could see through Earth, but instead Earth blocks the view, including to both the ground and more distant objects.
Again, what is expected for a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/pPzRAGL.png)
We would see Earth continue to rise forever, without end, with Earth incapable of blocking the view and forming a horizon.
What you need for your delusional BS to work:
(https://i.imgur.com/JmvkAag.png)
Where you have pure magic, magically causing a magical horizon and magically blocking the view to distant objects even though there is no obstruction at all.
Again, the round Earth matches reality, your flat fantasy doesn't.
If you want to change this, you need to stop with the pathetic BS and explain what magic causes perspective to stop; and what magic causes Earth to magically block the view to distant objects which are above it.
-
The surface appears to rise up more and more, the very opposite of a more and more curved downward surface, that’s amazing, it’s a magical surface, indeed!
It would stop rising up, or at least not rise up more and more, if there were a curved surface, going down more and more at the same time
Will you step outside of your mother's basement and do some sight seeing??????
Nothing you say aligns with reality. Please get outside and immerse yourself in reality and quit this stupid shit of yours.
Climb some mountains near you and look at the horizon, for fuck sake. The horizon never ever slopes up like it does in your dopey imagination.
-
Horizons show the real surface is flat.
A sphere always curves over its surface, never is flat, nor looks flat, only less of a curve shown on it at best.
You’ve got no curving at all, and can’t say where the curve first appears on Earth, as it’s never been seen at all!
Horizons would not keep on rising up as we rise up, if it were a ball Earth.
When on a ball, no matter how large it is, you are always on top of it, from your position on it.
When going above a ball, it curves downward, with more distance outward from your position on or above it.
The horizon of a sphere wouldn’t be seen out the window of a plane at 30000 feet altitude.
A sphere has lesser and lesser visible surface when higher above it. The horizons go downward when higher above a sphere. They don’t rise upward as a ball curves more and more downward over more distance over it, and higher up above it, only more so.
Horizons have never been seen on a massive sphere, we only know what they look like on a massive flat surface.
We can draw them, and make simulations of them, with perspective included, as it appears to us on Earth.
On a flat surface, we have straight lines that appear to rise upward in the distance, on two sides of it, which appear to be converging as they rise upward in the distance.
But on a sphere, there are no straight lines or a flat surface, so how is distance outward shown in a drawing or simulated?
What proves a horizon doesn’t have a curve, proves it is a flat surface up to and beyond a horizon, is so easy, so obvious to do, we could settle this whole terrible mess, is why your side tries to ignore it all the time, and won’t address it at all.
Do you realize that a horizon isn’t seen from only one viewpoint, outward to it?
There are many other viewpoints of horizons, and they are most important to this issue, because you try and try, to make this issue what is only seen from that one and only viewpoint, that’s just bs, of course.
Horizons aren’t some mysterious line out in the distance, and things vanish beyond it, and that’s it!!
When we see the same horizon from other viewpoints, at every other angle, at that same horizon, the mystery is solved, there’s no more excuses, no curve claims told anymore….
Seeing the horizon from these viewpoints, proves it is not a ball Earth, when there is no curve seen anywhere at all.
-
Horizons show the real surface is flat.
No. They show the exact opposite.
The fact we have a horizon shows it is curved.
If it was flat, there would be no horizon.
This is what you keep on ignoring.
A sphere always curves over its surface, never is flat, nor looks flat, only less of a curve shown on it at best.
And you cannot demonstrate how the surface appears flat rather than round.
Again, the way to tell is the horizon.
A round surface has a horizon. The only horizon for a flat surface is the edge.
You’ve got no curving at all, and can’t say where the curve first appears on Earth, as it’s never been seen at all!
Repeatedly lying wont save you.
There is curving, as clearly shown by the horizon.
There is no point the curve first appears, as it is a curve, which is everywhere. It is a question of ability to measure it.
And it is repeatedly seen, such as by observations of the horizon.
Do you know what hasn't been seen? Any circumstance where you are able to distinguish between flat and round and it appearing flat.
Horizons would not keep on rising up as we rise up, if it were a ball Earth.
It isn't the horizon which is "rising up".
It is the ground.
And that is where the distinction is.
For a flat surface, the ground continues to rise without end, never producing a horizon.
But for a round surface, eventually the curve becomes significant enough to make it stop.
When going above a ball, it curves downward, with more distance outward from your position on or above it.
And perspective makes it appear at a higher angle of elevation.
Again, FE:
a=atan(h/d).
Always rising.
RE:
a=atan(h/d+d/2r) (approximately).
Rising at first, then going back down.
The horizon of a sphere wouldn’t be seen out the window of a plane at 30000 feet altitude.
Why?
Because you are desperate to pretend Earth is flat?
Have you done the math?
I assume not.
Here it is for you:
The horizon for a RE is formed from a line from your eye to a point on the surface where that line is tangent to the surface.
This allows us to create a right angle triangle, as shown below:
(https://i.imgur.com/3RyA4mI.png)
We can also see the angle marked as dip, plus the angle shown as b must add to 90 degrees.
And by basic geometry, a and b must also add to 90 degrees.
That means a is the angle of dip.
And a is given as:
a=acos(r/(r+h))
This allows us to easily plug it in for any height.
30 000 ft is roughly 10 km (it is actually closer to 9, but I'm just going to use 10 so you can't then later complain that planes actually go above that.
That gives an angle of 3.2 degrees.
So the horizon would be easily visible out of a plane window.
Again, lying wont save you.
A sphere has lesser and lesser visible surface when higher above it.
Pure BS.
The further you are from a sphere, the MORE you can see of it, up to the limit of being able to see half.
e.g.:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/near-far-perspective-jpg.20974/)
But this is also shown by basic geometry.
i.e. using the image above for the angle of dip of the horizon, that is the same as the angle of Earth subtended from the point below you to the horizon.
And as h increases, a increases, so you can see more and more of a sphere, the higher you are above it. But it takes up a smaller portion of your FOV.
If you are directly against the surface, you only see that point. If you are infinitely far away, you see half of it.
The horizons go downward when higher above a sphere.
Yes, as shown above, the angle of dip to the horizon does go down.
And guess what? That happens in reality as well.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/bottled-water-768x768.jpg)
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
Horizons have never been seen on a massive sphere, we only know what they look like on a massive flat surface.
I am yet to see a single sphere which has not had a horizon.
I have NEVER seen a flat surface that has a horizon other than the edge.
Again, you are just falsely asserting Earth is flat to pretend a flat surface produces a horizon, even though you can't explain how at all.
We can draw them, and make simulations of them, with perspective included, as it appears to us on Earth.
Yes, showing how a round surface produces a horizon while a flat surface does not.
Showing how a round surface will obstruct the view, while a flat surface does not.
On a flat surface, we have straight lines that appear to rise upward in the distance, on two sides of it, which appear to be converging as they rise upward in the distance.
And taking an infinite distance to do so.
What proves a horizon doesn’t have a curve, proves it is a flat surface up to and beyond a horizon, is so easy, so obvious to do, we could settle this whole terrible mess, is why your side tries to ignore it all the time, and won’t address it at all.
What proves the horizon does have a curve is that it is roughly the same distance in every direction.
As a hint, that is saying the horizon is a line where every point on the line is equidistant from another point.
Do you know what that is a description of? A circle.
Do you realize that a horizon isn’t seen from only one viewpoint, outward to it?
No. That is the COMMON viewpoint of the horizon on Earth.
Horizons aren’t some mysterious line out in the distance, and things vanish beyond it, and that’s it!!
No, they are simply the point where a line from your eye passes tangent to Earth.
You are the one trying to make it magic.
When we see the same horizon from other viewpoints, at every other angle, at that same horizon, the mystery is solved, there’s no more excuses
That's right, and it makes it clear the surface is round.
You can even go get a small ball yourself. Look at it.
See where the horizon is.
Have something mark it.
Then look at it from a bunch of different angles.
See how it matches Earth so well.
As if Earth is just a giant ball.
Seeing the horizon from these viewpoints, proves it is not a ball Earth, when there is no curve seen anywhere at all.
Again, seeing the horizon is seeing the curve.
Until you provide an explanation for what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface the horizon will continue to prove Earth is round.
-
Your flat metal sheet appears to rise upward over it, right?
If the same flat sheet was twice as long, it would rise up even more, and so would longer sheets rise up more and more, right?
So why would you believe they rise up less and less suddenly, and where does it suddenly change like this? You just say it does, so it does!!
-
Your flat metal sheet appears to rise upward over it, right?
If the same flat sheet was twice as long, it would rise up even more, and so would longer sheets rise up more and more, right?
So why would you believe they rise up less and less suddenly, and where does it suddenly change like this? You just say it does, so it does!!
Try to get your head around the fact that your immediate environment at face value looks like a flat earth, but with a tiny bit of observation, it is revealed the larger picture of Earth is as a sphere.
The horizon gets lower, the higher you go, Turbonium. Can you put some effort into this? I mean, I know you're on a sinking ship with flat earth, but still.
-
Your flat metal sheet appears to rise upward over it, right?
All the way until the edge.
If the same flat sheet was twice as long, it would rise up even more, and so would longer sheets rise up more and more, right?
Yes. Without end.
So why would you believe they rise up less and less suddenly, and where does it suddenly change like this? You just say it does, so it does!!
Why do you keep repeating this?
YOU are the one claiming it magically stops.
You are the one claiming it changes.
We are the ones correctly identifying that a flat surface will continue to rise, and it is a round surface that changes.
We also know that the rate of "rise" does reduce.
If you position a measuring device at a height of 1 m above a flat surface, then directly below is at -90 degrees.
1 m ahead is at -45 degrees.
2 m ahead is at -26.6 degrees.
10 m ahead is at -5.7 degrees.
20 m ahead is at -2.9 degrees.
100 m ahead is at -0.57 degrees.
200 m ahead is at -0.29 degrees.
Once you reach a sufficient distance, multiplying the distance by some amount will divide the angle by the same amount.
The surface doesn't magically rise at the same rate for some distance then magically change.
Right from the start, the rate at which the angle gets higher decreases.
And for a flat surface, this will continue forever.
So why would you believe they rise up less and less suddenly, and where does it suddenly change like this? You just say it does, so it does!!
-
The surface is always seen as flat, over it, going outward from us to the rising upward horizons, there is never a curve or arc or downward shape seen on the surface.
Curved surfaces have to be seen curving over them, not be seen as a flat surface is everywhere, at all distances outward, along all lengths of horizons across them, all measurements as a flat surface for them, it’s flat in all ways because it IS flat.
How long does a horizon go across the Earths surface before we see it start to show a curve over it?
Why wouldn’t they have told us that, if it’s already been seen, from those in rockets, flying up into ‘space’, so many times? It’d be filmed many times, and shown to us many times.
What altitude is it first seen, noticeable, apparent to detect it exists at all?
They don’t say or show what horizons look like from ground up to ‘space’ as a progression. They’ve never told us where the horizon starts to show a curve over it, so why not?
To your excuse about how the altitude varies for that, still would have a range of altitudes for it, they’d know the range of altitude of it.
It’s so simple, so basic, yet so unknown and unseen to the world, is what the horizons look like when they’re curving, where it is first seen, as a curve, how it looks after that, until a ball is seen from ‘space’.
This would show the world, for the very first time in all history, something never seen or known what will be seen at all yet, until then.
How does a horizon look when going higher and higher above Earth than in a plane?
Where do we start to see the amazing curve, is a simple question, and should be simple to answer it, but they haven’t answered it, specifically, at all.
You keep saying that horizons are proof that Earth is a ball, so why can’t you show me how a horizon looks from the ground up to a ball in ‘space’, then?
I’ve seen a couple of attempts at it, which both failed miserably. The horizon curved way too low, we’d see it if it was curving by that point.
It is easy for you to say it’s true, but it’s not easy to show how it would really look in a simulation of it.
They knew that it couldn’t be properly simulated, to show a horizon that remains perfectly flat and horizontal when seen in planes flying at 25000 feet, has to already show a slight curve forming by that point, to end up as a ball seen from ‘space’ at the end!
That’s why they skipped right over it all. They went from ground to ‘space’ in one massive leap! No problem then!
-
The surface is always seen as flat, over it, going outward from us to the rising upward horizons, there is never a curve or arc or downward shape seen on the surface.
Again, IN WHAT WAY?
Just HOW are you seeing this as "flat"?
How does this differ from "curved"?
Do you know how you typically notice the curve for a curved surface?
THE HORIZON!!!
The very point you keep ignoring.
Flat surfaces DO NOT HAVE HORIZONS!!
This is a feature of curved surfaces.
Notice how desperate you are to flee from this simple fact?
all measurements as a flat surface for them
Except the measurements you ignore because it is inconvenient.
Like the angle of dip to the horizon.
What you are really saying is that Earth is so large, you can't easily notice the curve because it isn't a tiny ball.
How long does a horizon go across the Earths surface before we see it start to show a curve over it?
Do you mean left to right?
Because that has been explained to you repeatedly.
If you want to see the curve of that horizon, LOOOK DOWN!
And then get far enough back so you can see that horizon inside your FOV, and you will see it as a circle.
It’d be filmed many times, and shown to us many times.
Stop just repeating the same pathetic BS.
If you want it filmed, do it yourself.
What altitude is it first seen, noticeable, apparent to detect it exists at all?
From ground level, where the notice the horizon is a circle that goes around you.
They don’t say or show what horizons look like from ground up to ‘space’ as a progression.
You can simulate this yourself.
But it depends on many factors, like what kind of camera is being used, what type of lens, what is the FOV, are you keeping the camera level, or are you following the horizon.
And you can even test this yourself, with a small ball.
But you will need a really tiny camera to get the to-scale shot of a person standing on the surface.
The fact you keep on ignoring is that a small enough portion of a large enough curve will be indistinguishable from a straight line.
That means if the FOV is small enough to only show a small portion of the horizon, then it can appear as a straight line in the resulting footage.
Depending on the lens, it may distort lines, such that a line at the same angle of dip appears as a straight line.
That would mean a circle would be distorted into a straight line.
Conversely, if you have a fish eye lens, you can see the curve at ground level.
They’ve never told us where the horizon starts to show a curve over it, so why not?
Because then dishonest scum like you would cherry pick an example, probably even cropping a photo, to boldly proclaim you can't see the curve so Earth can't be round.
You keep saying that horizons are proof that Earth is a ball, so why can’t you show me how a horizon looks from the ground up to a ball in ‘space’, then?
Deal with the topic, admit that the horizon is clear proof that Earth is a ball, or conversely explain how it magically forms on a flat surface, with an actual explanation, not just handwavy BS, and then I can provide a simulation.
Again, what magic causes perspective to magically stop to magically produce a magical horizon which then magically blocks light to more distant land and objects?
Can you explain that?
Until you do, the horizon remains clear proof that Earth is round.
-
Horizons show us what the real surface is shaped as. Flat.
They’d have a curve if the surface WAS curved.
The Earth ball you have is about 24000 miles around, which is certainly a large ball, yet it must be curved everywhere on the surface to be a ball.
A horizon that is a thousand miles across the Earth, is a straight horizontal line, seen over a parallel viewpoint along it, not seen as a circular line that’s straight across as you see it as.
Not that it matters, but we’ve got a straight line across, not a line circling you.
To stop your bs excuse of being a circle, as your lame excuse here.
-
Horizons show us what the real surface is shaped as.
i.e. CURVED!!
If it was flat, it wouldn't have a horizon.
They’d have a curve if the surface WAS curved.
And it is a circle.
As a reminder, a circle is a curve.
If the surface was flat, the horizon wouldn't exist.
A horizon that is a thousand miles across the Earth
Is a circle.
But do you have a picture of this thousand mile wide horizon?
For a simple observer with an elevation of roughly 2 m, the horizon is a circle with a radius of roughly 5 km.
That means it is roughly 31.4 km long. No where near the thousand miles you claim.
And again, the distinction between your delusional BS and reality, is your delusional BS has that 5 km radius circle ~2 m below you, while reality has it ~4 m below you.
And importantly, this is the same angle of dip all around.
Not that it matters, but we’ve got a straight line across, not a line circling you.
The fact you can follow it all around you shows it is a line circling you, not a slight line across.
You must really be getting desperate if you are resorting to just blatantly rejecting such a basic and verifiable part of reality.
If it was a straight line, you would be able to follow it across roughly 180 degrees. Not 360.
To stop your bs excuse of being a circle, as your lame excuse here.
Why not say that honestly?
Stop my clear logical reasoning, of pointing out that in reality the horizon is a circle, not a straight line.
Telling me to not bring up reality because it shows your argument is BS, is a new level of desperation from you.
But notice how you still fail to explain your magic?
You still fail to address the fact that the horizon is clear proof that Earth is round?
Again, what magic causes perspective to magically stop to magically produce a magical horizon which then magically blocks light to more distant land and objects?
Can you explain that?
Until you do, the horizon remains clear proof that Earth is round.
-
They’d have a curve if the surface WAS curved.
As in a measurable dip to the horizon.
-
Horizons show us what the real surface is shaped as. Flat.
They’d have a curve if the surface WAS curved.
The Earth ball you have is about 24000 miles around, which is certainly a large ball, yet it must be curved everywhere on the surface to be a ball.
A horizon that is a thousand miles across the Earth, is a straight horizontal line, seen over a parallel viewpoint along it, not seen as a circular line that’s straight across as you see it as.
Not that it matters, but we’ve got a straight line across, not a line circling you.
To stop your bs excuse of being a circle, as your lame excuse here.
Why do you not concede that the ball curves away from you?
And you can see straight, a greater distance tahn your eyes can see perifpherally left-right
Is vision also part of the conspiracy along with circles amd triangles?
If you can see 5km out to the horizon and roughly 60degree left/right peripheral you can see 20km.
If the supposed ball is 40,000km.
What angle would there be between 20km segments?
10km segments?
Can you eye detect that?
If the curve were curcing away from you, would you be able to detect taht?
Are you one ofbthe mircaculous people who can see around a hill as it curves away from you?
-
You’re trying to conflate a ball and a circle, as the same thing, and they certainly are NOT the same thing, same shape, nor even the same in their dimensions.
A spherical Earth is seen in a 3 dimensional shape, it is your big ball of Earth, which has 3 dimensional curved surfaces over it, and everywhere you look on it is curved downward, curved across from you, and most important, a sphere will curve across from you, forming as an ARC, curving down from the middle of it.
That is what you can see from their Earth ball seen from ‘space’, too.
Those arcs would be your ball Earth horizons, curving down from you in all directions.
The entire surface is curving around itself as a ball, everywhere is a curve, and it cannot exist if it’s never seen as curving, cannot measure a curve existing on the surface, and when we have always measured it as a flat surface, with instruments that are made for measuring a flat and level surface, or the air above the surface, and the exact direction 90 degrees as a SQUARE to level, straight up or down to level, we are measuring for a straight across flat and level and horizontal, or vertical to it as a square of two straight lines or directions.
Every one of our instruments are designed specifically to measure for a straight flat horizontal line or surface, and squared to straight horizontal lines and surfaces, based on both being straight lines to one another, which is why we can use levels to measure both of those straight lines in two directions forming as a square.
When you try saying that we cannot measure this curve at all, after saying this same unmeasurable curve would cause a ship to vanish from all sight because of your tiniest of a curve, so very little of a curve to be seen or measured….
Ships are a known height, and we know that they go out of sight just after three miles away, or only the top seen when high enough.
But the measurements of your curvature don’t match the distance of vanishing ships at their heights.
There clearly is nothing of a curve over three miles distance, and perspective doesn’t make curved surfaces appear completely flat, that is only seen if the surface IS flat.
While perspective does create many illusions we see, and will cause all surfaces to appear to be rising up in the distance, causes parallel lines to appear to converge together in the distance, every one of those illusions will look different from the others.
A flat surface seen over it as entirely flat, cannot be any sort of curved surface. Because that is not what perspective can ever do. It cannot cause curved surfaces to appear entirely flat. What would it make a flat surface look like, a curved surface? It makes just as much sense as saying it makes curved surfaces appear entirely flat, which makes no sense either.
Curved surfaces cannot easily be drawn or modeled in what they’d look like to us, over the Earths surface. There is no examples to base them on, no specific example of its curvature over a distance which works.
How would a surface that curves down by 8 inches per one mile, squared by every additional mile.
The one thing that it would not look like, is an entirely flat surface over a 3 mile distance.
The entire surface is flat, nothing else but flat. Curves don’t disappear over surfaces by perspective. It would make them rise up, but we certainly wouldn’t see them over a 3 mile distance as entirely flat, we’d not see the whole surface to 3 miles out, or not as flattened over it all by perspective.
-
We always depict, draw, and model things far away, to show depth seen in reality, with two straight rising or converging lines with one line on each side.
These straight lines indicate they go outward over a flat surface. Lines going across our view side to side are also straight lines, which indicate the vanishing point of a horizon.
Curved lines don’t work, because they don’t depict the reality we see on Earth in any way.
A sphere would look very different than what we actually see on Earth. Spheres don’t show distances outward like we see on Earth. Because if you were on a sphere, no matter how large it is, everything you see outward goes downward in a curve.
If you were on a sphere which had a curve so sharp over it, that a ship curved out of sight only 3 miles away, it would be seen as a curve across the surface too, and we could measure curvature over 3 miles distance to your rate of curvature being 8 inches per first mile over it, and 8 inches per 1 mile squared is 2 times 8 inches for 16 inches of curvature, three miles squared is 9 times 8 inches for 72 inches of curvature. So a ship of only 72 inches high would be the highest ship that would vanish down a curve three miles away, yet ships much higher than that also vanish past the horizon, which proves there is no curvature that could cause it. Ships that are fifty or sixty feet high will vanish past a horizon that would only curve down by 6 feet by that point.
You cannot account for your rate of curvature jumping up to a 60 foot curve over 3 miles, it doesn’t work with your ball Earth dimensions and circumference. It would be a very small Earth if you did.
-
You’re trying to conflate a ball and a circle, as the same thing, and they certainly are NOT the same thing, same shape, nor even the same in their dimensions.
No.
You're trying to conflate a straight line and a circle, as the same thing, and they certainly are NOT the same thing, same shape, nor even the same in their dimensions.
The horizon is a circle, not a straight line.
a sphere will curve across from you, forming as an ARC, curving down from the middle of it.
No, it wont. Not if you are looking roughly 90 degrees away from towards the centre of it.
Then it will appear at the same angle of dip all around.
Again, if you want to see it like that get up high enough to look down at it.
it cannot exist if it’s never seen as curving, cannot measure a curve existing on the surface
It is seen as curving, as the horizon clearly demonstrates.
It can be measured as a curve. You just ignore that.
we have always measured it as a flat surface
Stop lying.
YOU are yet to measure it with a device accurate and precise enough to be able to measure the curve
the air above the surface
You have had your plane BS refuted countless times, and implicitly agreed that you know you are wrong and you will never bring it up again.
When you try saying that we cannot measure this curve at all
We aren't.
You can easily measure it with the angle of dip to the horizon, especially with how that varies with altitude.
What you can't do, is use a poor measuring device to measure it over 1 m.
Ships are a known height, and we know that they go out of sight just after three miles away, or only the top seen when high enough.
Yes, clearly showing a curve.
But the measurements of your curvature don’t match the distance of vanishing ships at their heights.
Care to provide evidence of that?
There clearly is nothing of a curve over three miles distance
Based upon what?
Your repeated lies?
perspective doesn’t make curved surfaces appear completely flat
And Earth's surface does not appear completely flat.
A big difference is the horizon.
A curved surface has a horizon, a flat surface.
Can you provide an example of a demonstrably flat surface which has a horizon?
That is a surface you can demonstrate is flat to the required precision to rule out any possible curve causing a horizon on it?
No.
The only surface you claim is flat that produces this magical horizon is Earth, as if Earth is not flat, and the curve is causing the horizon.
A flat surface seen over it as entirely flat, cannot be any sort of curved surface.
Who cares. That isn't what we see.
Again, the horizon shows it is not entirely flat.
Curved surfaces cannot easily be drawn or modeled in what they’d look like to us, over the Earths surface.
They can with computers, and there are countless examples.
You can also model them with smaller balls, if you understand how to scale things.
But you still need a quite large ball to model what the surface would look like.
For example, if you had a camera 2 mm high, for that to represent an observer height of 2 m, you need a ball that is 6.371 km in radius, or at least the top of one.
How would a surface that curves down by 8 inches per one mile, squared by every additional mile.
That is such an incredibly poor way of wording it.
The drop, as an approximation, is 8 inches per mile squared.
And it would look quite comparable to what is observed in reality.
For example, with an observer height of 6 ft, the horizon would be ~3 miles away.
Notice how that agrees with reality?
The entire surface is flat, nothing else but flat.
Prove it.
You keep asserting it magically looks flat, but you can't explain how.
What observation are you making that indicates it is flat?
Just what observation are you appealing to?
Be explicit.
And clearly indicate the difference expected for a flat surface and a surface with a radius of 6371 km.
These straight lines indicate they go outward over a flat surface. Lines going across our view side to side are also straight lines, which indicate the vanishing point of a horizon.
No, they don't.
For a flat surface, they go out forever, taking an infinite distance to reach the "vanishing point".
This can even be seen quite easily on Earth that this is NOT the case:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/horizon-perspective.jpg)
You are yet again lying to everyone.
Curved lines don’t work, because they don’t depict the reality we see on Earth in any way.
Prove it.
Draw the lines that would be expected for a RE.
A sphere would look very different than what we actually see on Earth.
Yet you cannot point to a single observation in which it differs.
Instead you just blatantly lie to everyone.
everything you see outward goes downward in a curve.
You have already admitted this is a lie, that perspective will still make things appear to rise.
If you were on a sphere which had a curve so sharp over it, that a ship curved out of sight only 3 miles away, it would be seen as a curve across the surface too
No, it wouldn't.
Not unless you are high enough up to look down at it.
So a ship of only 72 inches high would be the highest ship that would vanish down a curve three miles away, yet ships much higher than that also vanish past the horizon, which proves there is no curvature that could cause it. Ships that are fifty or sixty feet high will vanish past a horizon that would only curve down by 6 feet by that point.
And now you are just spouting pure BS.
If your eyes were at sea level, and you entirely ignored refraction, then a ship 72 inches high would be hidden by the curve at a distance of 3 miles.
What is observed in reality, with an observer height of 6 ft, is that at a distance of 3 miles, the ship is ON the horizon.
It then gradually disappears from the bottom up as it continues to move further away.
It does not reach the horizon and then magically vanish without going further.
You cannot account for your rate of curvature jumping up to a 60 foot curve over 3 miles
Can you provide a video showing a ship completely disappearing from view after only 3 miles? NO!
Yet again, you are lying to try to save your dishonest BS.
-
These straight lines indicate they go outward over a flat surface. Lines going across our view side to side are also straight lines, which indicate the vanishing point of a horizon.
Curved lines don’t work, because they don’t depict the reality we see on Earth in any way.
A sphere would look very different than what we actually see on Earth.
Shrugs…
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain.jpg)
Why is there a dip to the horizon. Why in high altitude pictures from amateur balloon enthusiasts is the distance to the horizon consistent with calculations for a spherical earth. Not consistent with a flat earth encircled by a higher ice wall.
-
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface, where no curve would be atop that illusionary higher surface, that’s your version of it?
Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion, it is the illusion that ‘wins’ over the surfaces. And the illusions decide when they end on surfaces, not the surface.
You think you can pick out horizons as real, when there is nothing of the surface which is the height of a horizon anywhere. Because horizons are also illusions, like the rising surface is up to them. If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you. They don’t exist, they are illusions, they can move out or in anywhere you see them from. Illusions will do that, because they aren’t real. They don’t have invisible curves hiding behind them either. If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon. No invisible curves exist. You can’t make them exist by saying they do, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
-
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface, where no curve would be atop that illusionary higher surface, that’s your version of it?
Why is there a dip to the horizon where on a flat earth the vanishing point should intersect the horizon
So curvature only blocks their bottoms, not the rest of them?
Depends how far relatively over the horizon like a sunset.
Or as seen in this example of the amount the curvature hides the Turning Torso Tower bottom up as the person increases distance from the tower.
(https://i.imgur.com/IvFXt5G.gif)
The curved earth can physically block the bottom of the building more and more as distance increases. Where we know the curved earth physically blocks the bottom of the building from view because a pair of binoculars that changes “perspective” can’t unblock it.
Now Turbo, draw out how this is possible on a flat earth.
-
You think you can pick out horizons as real,
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IvFXt5G.gif)
The horizon is literally measurable because it physical blocks things beyond it from view.
-
We always depict, draw, and model things far away, to show depth seen in reality, with two straight rising or converging lines with one line on each side.
These .
You cannot account for your rate of curvature jumping up to a 60 foot curve over 3 miles, it doesn’t work with your ball Earth dimensions and circumference. It would be a very small Earth if you did.
Very
Far
Away
Like you say
So if one was to be on the surface of a cicrle
Say 2m high on a corcle 6,370,000m radius
What is the tangential triangle for the 2m obsrrver to see the "horizon"?
-
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface
No, where in reality, the real horizon is formed from basic geometry, as the point where a line from your eye to the surface is tangent to the surface.
Not your blatant lie where it is a magical illusion instead of basic geometry.
Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion
There is no illusion involved here.
It is basic geometry.
For a flat surface:
a=atan(h/d)
For a round surface (as an approximation)
a=atan(h/d+d/2r)
It is basic geometry dictating it all.
You think you can pick out horizons as real
I can accept horizons are real, as that is what all the evidence shows.
You need to repeatedly lie and try to hide behind claims of an illusion, because you know your delusional BS is fundamentally incompatible with reality, because you cannot explain what magic is blocking the view.
If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you.
The horizon is observed to vary with altitude.
The higher you are, the further it is and the lower it appears.
Just like you would expect from basic geometry and a round Earth; and nothing like you would expect from a flat surface.
If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon.
Repeating the same lie just shows your dishonesty.
If you want that perpendicular view to show that, you need to be very far away. And when you are, that curve is obvious.
When you are close, that curve you are trying to see is hidden by the horizon.
No invisible curves exist.
Just the real ones, like those which cause the horizon.
You can't make them not exist by repeatedly lying to everyone.
And notice how you continue to flee from your claim that it magically looks flat?
And still refuse to explain what is magically blocking the view.
-
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface, where no curve would be atop that illusionary higher surface, that’s your version of it?
Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion, it is the illusion that ‘wins’ over the surfaces. And the illusions decide when they end on surfaces, not the surface.
You think you can pick out horizons as real, when there is nothing of the surface which is the height of a horizon anywhere. Because horizons are also illusions, like the rising surface is up to them. If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you. They don’t exist, they are illusions, they can move out or in anywhere you see them from. Illusions will do that, because they aren’t real. They don’t have invisible curves hiding behind them either. If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon. No invisible curves exist. You can’t make them exist by saying they do, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
Best of luck to you and your flat earth brigade. I've been reminded recently of my own mortality and to value the time I have been given in life and to use it wisely. I have to admit that my time on this site with arguments that go around in circles and go nowhere, posts that are blatantly ignored, is not a good use of my time.
I hope you wake up to yourself one day soon to the realisation flat earth belief is a fools errand, before you have no more time in your life left.
You now have one less flat earth denier to argue with.
-
Bye Smokey :(
-
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.
You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface, why would it choose the surface among everywhere else it goes out from the core of ball Earth, through miles of Earth inside of it, out to miles of air above Earth, out to thousands of miles of ‘space’ to the moon, but make the outer surface of Earth, measure its curvature as level for all our instruments?
Actual forces don’t change measurements of instruments to something else!
Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.
Level cannot have any curving at all, curves and levels are exactly opposites.
Leveling a surface or material is to make it flat and straight across everywhere on it.
Measuring for a curve on surfaces or material is done very differently than measuring for a flat and level surface or material is done.
Measuring for a curved surface or curved material requires measuring for its radius of curvature over the whole surface or material. To find if all of it curves the same way, same radius of curvature.
There cannot be anything level or flat on a curved surface.
We don’t measure curved surfaces or material with levels. Instruments that measure for level don’t and cannot measure for a curve, nor possible to measure for curves.
Your curved surface may be a very slight curve, but still is a curve, nothing is flat or level on it.
Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.
-
Bye Smokey :(
He ll be back
He always comes back
Someone should check the frequdncy of his quits.
-
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.
You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface, why would it choose the surface among everywhere else it goes out from the core of ball Earth, through miles of Earth inside of it, out to miles of air above Earth, out to thousands of miles of ‘space’ to the moon, but make the outer surface of Earth, measure its curvature as level for all our instruments?
Actual forces don’t change measurements of instruments to something else!
Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.
Level cannot have any curving at all, curves and levels are exactly opposites.
Leveling a surface or material is to make it flat and straight across everywhere on it.
Measuring for a curve on surfaces or material is done very differently than measuring for a flat and level surface or material is done.
Measuring for a curved surface or curved material requires measuring for its radius of curvature over the whole surface or material. To find if all of it curves the same way, same radius of curvature.
There cannot be anything level or flat on a curved surface.
We don’t measure curved surfaces or material with levels. Instruments that measure for level don’t and cannot measure for a curve, nor possible to measure for curves.
Your curved surface may be a very slight curve, but still is a curve, nothing is flat or level on it.
Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.
Nice rant
Whats would the angle be between segments of a 300,000sided polygon?
-
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured
Good thing it is there, is seen and is measured.
Unlike your flat fantasy, which is not there, is not seen and is not measured.
Again, if the surface there is no horizon except the very edge.
The horizon is that curvature being seen.
You cannot magically make a flat surface magically form a horizon, no matter how much you lie.
You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface
No, that is just your strawman.
Our instruments (the ones you are appealing to) measure the direction of down. They aren't measuring for any surface.
Altimeters measure air pressure.
Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.
Level is always perpendicular to down.
For a RE, that means it curves.
You not liking that doesn't change that fact.
Leveling a surface or material is to make it
an equipotential surface so water wouldn't flow in any particular direction.
For a small enough surface, the difference between flat and following the curvature of Earth is insignificant.
For a large enough surface, it is significant.
Measuring for a flat surface is done very differently to measuring for a level surface.
Unless you mean level to some reference, in which case they can be done the same.
See how you can measure a surface is level in a lathe, using the same instruments as for a flat surface in a mill.
Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.
And the RE is measurable as a curve.
Just not over a small enough distance.
Any small enough portion of a large enough curve is practically indistinguishable from flat.
Again, what instruments do you have that can measure nm over a m?
-
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.
Actually, it is measured by the dip of the horizon.
-
A lesser curved surface or a more indistinguishable of a curve, is still a curve, and measurable as a curve.
Your curve of about 8 inches over one mile of surface, is not measurable, you believe, over smaller distances?
That we are measuring for a curve of less than a few mm, with our precise instruments of today, would measure for curvature of Earth, if it existed to BE measured for!
-
Cool
What precision would you need to be able to measure the ever so slight curve of a 300,000sided polygon?
-
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.
We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.
No curves anywhere at all are seen.
How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface?
Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.
They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.
How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?
Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.
They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.
-
How can they measure a target over a distance as being true level, without knowing it IS true?
-
How can they measure a target over a distance as being true level, without knowing it IS true level?
-
A lesser curved surface or a more indistinguishable of a curve, is still a curve, and measurable as a curve.
So the curve of Earth is a curve?
Your curve of about 8 inches over one mile of surface, is not measurable, you believe, over smaller distances?
This is simple geometry.
Again, the drop can be approximated as d^2/2R. Noting that for Earth, R is 6371 km, or 6371000m.
So consider a 1 m span. From the centre to the edge it is 0.5 m.
So plugging that in above you get 1.96e-8 m, which is 20 nm.
i.e. if you want to detect this curve over a distance of 1 m, you need to be able to measure accurately to 20 nm.
That we are measuring for a curve of less than a few mm
WHERE?
Over what distance?
with our precise instruments of today, would measure for curvature of Earth
When it is important, we do.
When it is insignificant, we don't.
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.
We have been over this countless times.
The key distinction here is KEEP rising.
A flat surface will KEEP rising, FOREVER!
A curved surface will not. A curved surface eventually reaches a point where perspective wins and you get a horizon.
Again, the RE matches reality, your delusional BS does not.
We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat.
You mean you are desperate for it to be flat, so you continually assert this.
Just how do we see it as flat?
Again, the dead giveaway is the horizon.
No curves anywhere at all are seen.
Except things like the horizon you keep on ignoring.
How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface?
The simplest method is a water level, based upon water adopting an equipotential surface.
But that is level, not flat.
A more accurate technique if you want to know angles is using a theodolite, which measures an angle of dip to the horizon and can measure the curve of Earth.
They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances
No, they don't, because they follow simple physics.
They measure their angular error, and use that.
-
Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.
From this video…
Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.
Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking
https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/
In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.
The laser at three miles out was about six foot above what should be “level”…..
-
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.
We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.
No curves anywhere at all are seen.
How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface?
Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.
They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.
How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?
Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.
They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.
You want to use miles?
24,000sides then.
So whats the angle between segments?
Say the number.
-
Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.
From this video…
Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.
Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking
https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/
In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.
The laser at three miles out was about six foot above what should be “level”…..
They first measured the laser from 500 feet away, and hit their target.
But then they moved 3 miles away, when they should have measured it at 1000 feet away or so.
That would be common sense and a proper test, but they don’t want that obviously.
They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances, that’s not relevant at all to this test of measuring for true level and not true level.
They don’t show how they set up the laser to be perfectly level outward from it. If it’s only a small degree off of level, it would be off much more at three miles away. If they’d moved out 750 or 1000 feet and hit the target at the same point, we’d know it is level to that distance. It it hits the target at a higher point there, they could reset the laser slightly downward and repeat those tests, and see if it now hits at the same point at both distances. They don’t know if it’s slightly off true level until they calibrate it at smaller distances first.
This test is useless, we don’t know the laser accuracy over distances and degree of error over distances.
Curvature is claimed to about 8” over one mile. Everyone knows that.
But of course they don’t go out 1 mile either, to see if the laser hits the target 8” higher, or 2 miles out and see where the laser hits there.
Any idiot would do that, knowing what the rate of curvature is at one mile and two miles out.
Garbage test.
-
Garbage test.
So when the test shows you are wrong, you dismiss it as garbage.
But when you can try to twist it into pretending it supports you, you cling to it.
Again, how does the FE magically have a horizon?
-
They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances,
The it was a laser. It was the test you wanted. The boat was “below” level by any stretch of the imagination.
FE killed.
-
They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances,
The it was a laser. It was the test you wanted. The boat was “below” level by any stretch of the imagination.
FE killed.
Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.
What was the lasers accuracy over those distances? Do you know or have no idea? Why didn’t they tell us that, it’s very important to know it’s accuracy when they are using it in their tests?
There is no accuracy test for lasers three miles out, as I know of anyway. So that’s why they didn’t mention its accuracy for their test, knowing the laser wasn’t going to work accurately over three miles away.
They’re the ones using this laser for their test, I’m sure they knew it would not be tested for such a distance as three miles away.
Unless the lasers accuracy and range of error are known and can work accurately to three miles out, which it wouldn’t be tested for in the first place, or ever work to that distance accurately, their test is complete bs.
Show me I’m wrong about that if you can. Show me its accuracy over three miles away, if you can. If you can’t, you have nothing to talk about here.
-
Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.
And why do you claim it is BS? Because it shows you are wrong?
Strange how you are so happy to cling to lasers when you can pretend it shows you are right, but then when it shows you are spouting pure BS you magically change to saying it is a BS test.
I'm sure if the result of this "BS test" supported your delusional fantasy you would happily accept it as rock solid proof.
Here is a better video of the test:
What was the lasers accuracy over those distances?
The accuracy of a laser is based upon beam divergence and alignment.
Are you trying to suggest the beam magically turns to make Earth appear flat?
-
Not with bs tests like this,
The only BS is you poo poo the experiment because you didn’t like the outcome.
-
Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.
And why do you claim it is BS? Because it shows you are wrong?
Strange how you are so happy to cling to lasers when you can pretend it shows you are right, but then when it shows you are spouting pure BS you magically change to saying it is a BS test.
I'm sure if the result of this "BS test" supported your delusional fantasy you would happily accept it as rock solid proof.
Here is a better video of the test:
What was the lasers accuracy over those distances?
The accuracy of a laser is based upon beam divergence and alignment.
Are you trying to suggest the beam magically turns to make Earth appear flat?
Just fyi…. For some of us?
(https://i.imgur.com/ApcjJ2R.jpeg)
-
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.
We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.
No curves anywhere at all are seen.
How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface?
Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.
They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.
How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?
Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.
They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.
You want to use miles?
24,000sides then.
So whats the angle between segments?
Say the number.
-
Lasers don’t curve, so what are they used for?
A straight horizon fine beam of light is used to measure level
No curve at all
No made up forces curving it.
No bs ball Earth excuses
-
The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?
What is the accuracy and error range of this instrument over a 3 mile distance?
Do you know? Show me a source for it, if so.
-
that's a very good question.
what is the angle created between segments of 24,000segmented pyolgon?
correction, you said 3mi. so 8,000sided polygon?
-
The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?
What is the accuracy and error range of this instrument over a 3 mile distance?
Do you know? Show me a source for it, if so.
What do you mean by accurate, and by what degree.
The boat at three miles out is clearly below the laser by around six foot.
You invoked “lasers” because of something you perceived in them to be accurate.
But now because someone did the experiment you wanted with a laser and got a result that demonstrates the earth is curved, lasers aren’t accurate?
Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.
ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.
Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.
It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!
turbonium2, a laser demonstrated curvature. Now you’re pissy.
-
Lasers don’t curve
So you admit the experiment shown shows Earth curves?
A straight horizon fine beam of light is used to measure level
Only over a small distance where the curvature is negligible.
No curve at all
Then what causes the horizon?
The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?
This is not a laser level.
It is a high powered laser.
Again, are you suggesting the laser magically curves?
Again, laser accuracy comes from beam divergence and alignment.
Now, considering you don't want to accept this laser experiment, care to go back to what you fled from?
What magic causes the horizon in your delusional fantasy?
-
Turbs got the laser experiment they wanted. Now Turbs has to flee because it demonstrates the earth is curved.
😂😂😂😂😂😂