Lighthouse dipping lights

It doesn't matter what it is.

Then why lie and say the ground is darker when it clearly wasn't?
Why dishonestly accuse others of manipulating the image to try to pretend it is lighter when in reality it is.

It's shade convergence no matter which way you try to place it.
Get your head around it and you won't get yourself worked up.

No, it's not.
Get your head around the fact that a shade would be a blur, not a clear line/division.
You need to explain the clear division, and you simply can't do that on your fantasy Earth.

Likewise, you need to get your head around the fact that scale does matter, and what we see matches a RE.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:34:38 AM

It doesn't matter what it is.

Then why lie and say the ground is darker when it clearly wasn't?

I didn't say that, so get your facts right.

Why dishonestly accuse others of manipulating the image to try to pretend it is lighter when in reality it is.

I didn't do that, so again, get your facts right.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:34:38 AM

It's shade convergence no matter which way you try to place it.
Get your head around it and you won't get yourself worked up.

No, it's not.
Get your head around the fact that a shade would be a blur, not a clear line/division.

And you get your head around a blur of shade over distance becomes a theoretical line of convergence.

You need to explain the clear division, and you simply can't do that on your fantasy Earth.

I already did.

Likewise, you need to get your head around the fact that scale does matter, and what we see matches a RE.

Of course scale matters and this is the exact reason why your Earth would obscure your line of sight to a distant object, which, in this case, is a lighthouse.

Tilt on your magical Earth would render your so called level vision as skyward from a standing start of (for the sake of it) six feet.

Obviously this doesn't happen because the Earth is absolutely not a globe you believe we walk upon, or supposedly sail, in this case.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:42:16 AM

Then why lie and say the ground is darker when it clearly wasn't?

I didn't say that, so get your facts right.

My facts are right, you claimed the sky was lighter. You then lied and said the photo that just had the colours removed was magically altered to make the ground appear lighter.

And you get your head around a blur of shade over distance becomes a theoretical line of convergence.

Except it doesn't.

Quote from: JackBlack

You need to explain the clear division, and you simply can't do that on your fantasy Earth.

I already did.

No you didn't. You appealed to shades and "convergence" without any justification at all for why there is a clear line.
The RE model has a justification for why there is a clear line a finite distance away. That line is where a line from your eye meets Earth and is tangent to Earth.
As we have repeatedly been over, with the FE, the horizon is either the edge of Earth, or a blur.
You have been completely incapable of providing a justification for why it should be anything different.

Quote from: JackBlack

Likewise, you need to get your head around the fact that scale does matter, and what we see matches a RE.

Of course scale matters and this is the exact reason why your Earth would obscure your line of sight to a distant object, which, in this case, is a lighthouse.

Again, scale matters. This means distance matters, as does height.
A "distant" lighthouse can still be visible if it is close enough or you are high enough or it is high enough.

So again, the OPs account matches what is expected for a RE.
Initially they were too far away and thus couldn't see the light. But then they got close enough for Earth to no longer obstruct the view.

Tilt on your magical Earth would render your so called level vision as skyward from a standing start of (for the sake of it) six feet.

Again, no one other than you is trying to bring in a level view, because that seems to be the only way other than pretending Earth is a tiny ball, to pretend there is a problem.
But as repeatedly explain, we have a FOV. This means we can still see the ground, even with a level view and a tilt.

Obviously this doesn't happen because the Earth is absolutely not a globe you believe we walk upon, or supposedly sail, in this case.

No, what is expected for a RE most certainly happens. When you get high enough and have a simple water level as a reference you can even clearly see that this level view is "skyward" with the horizon clearly below level.

Quote from: Stash on March 30, 2021, 11:48:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 11:17:56 PM

Quote from: Stash on March 30, 2021, 09:52:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 03:25:03 AM

Quote from: Stash on March 29, 2021, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:24:46 AM

It means you cannot bring up a theoretical line of convergence with the lighter sky because your vision becomes washed with that lighter sky, meaning you would simply see nothing more than just sky.

What if the sky isn't lighter? Like here:

It is lighter.

You're joking, right?

I think you're missing the point.

What's the point I'm missing?

The point that you're using white snow against the light from the sky.

And the white snow is lighter than the darker sky. Why would you say it isn't? That's just weird. It's almost like you were trying to back up your statement about a lighter sky always converging with a darker earth theory of horizon on the fly. Now you're saying it doesn't matter which is lighter or darker when shown evidence to the contrary. It's like you're squirming around statements you know not to be true. It's a strange and awkward position for you to hold.

Like here, what's lighter?



And how could scale not matter? That seems insane to just dismiss it.

And how does a flat earth present such a crisp, finite horizon? Does our ocular clarity and definition just slam into a wall of perception after 3 miles or so? On a flat earth I would expect it to fuzz out after many, many miles as my long distance vision gradually diminishes. Why the sharp line of a theoretical horizon? It's not just a convergence of light and dark - On a flat earth it should be a gradual gradient blurring into the very, very distant background. What's stopping my vision right at that harsh line? A harsh line that we can measure the distance of. Like lookouts on warships in crow's nests.

Quote from: JJA on March 30, 2021, 10:00:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 09:03:08 AM

Quote from: JJA on March 30, 2021, 08:37:57 AM

So now you at least now agree that the sky is darker? Progress!

How have you made any progress?
You've just altered the picture.
It's about as shady as you are.

Yes, I altered the picture because you were getting confused by all the colors.

But at least you can finally admit that the sky is darker in that photograph, a fact that any 2 year old could point out.

That is the progress... you admitting something blindingly obvious to the rest of the world. Keep working on that.

By altering the picture you altered the light and shade.
A different scenario but the same end product of convergence of shade.

Ah, no that's not even close to being right.

Please read up on how color and light works, especially parts about chroma and luminance.

Until you can figure out how to tell the difference between 'light' and 'dark' you really should stop speaking from ignorance.

My facts are right

Then don't argue any further with an idiot like myself.

WTF is "level vision"?  Why does that supersede my normal vision?  Do you need medical attention for your eyes, or is it just mental help you need?  Why would I be looking skyward if I am trying to look at the horizon?  The drop of the "curve" causes the apparent horizon, and that "curve" is very small because the sphere we are standing on is very large when compared to us.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 03:47:50 AM

My facts are right

Then don't argue any further with an idiot like myself.

The idea is not to change your mind.  It is to present both sides honestly, which you do not do.  Offer evidence and explanations, not just claims.  This is more for the undecided or naive people here looking for answers.  To keep them from being duped into beliefs that may not be true and may hurt them in the long run.  Just lying, saying nuh uhh, or intentiinally misrepresenting the opposing side thinking it's a scoring points game is stupid.  So yeah you are acting like an idiot.

Then don't argue any further with an idiot like myself.

I will continue to object to your blatant lies until you stop making them or find some way to actually defend them.

Again, the observations of the OP are entirely consistent with what is expected for a RE.
For a FE, you have no way to explain why the light house should be magically invisible, with nothing in the way, except the negligible contribution from the air.
But this air, if it was going to be a problem, would not produce a sharp change in visible or a sharp horizon. It would produce a blur.

Likewise, you can't explain just why the lighthouse should magically be invisible on a round regardless of distance. You just need to continually repeat that lie to pretend there is a problem for the RE.

And the white snow is lighter than the darker sky.

If the sky is darker, yes.

Why would you say it isn't? That's just weird.

The lighted sky is lighter than the snow.
The snow is dense which makes it white looking.

It's almost like you were trying to back up your statement about a lighter sky always converging with a darker earth theory of horizon on the fly. Now you're saying it doesn't matter which is lighter or darker when shown evidence to the contrary.

It's pretty plain what I'm saying.
Darker/denser shades against lighter less dense shades, converge to the eye level. As simple as that.

It's like you're squirming around statements you know not to be true. It's a strange and awkward position for you to hold.

There's absolutely no awkward position for me. The struggle seems to be with you understanding my position.

Like here, what's lighter?

Parts of the sea reflected by the reflected hologram, moon.

And how could scale not matter? That seems insane to just dismiss it.

It depends on what we argue in terms of scale.

If you're arguing a ball on a table and you looking at it, to what you believe you walk on, as your ball, then the scale matters.

But that's not what we're dealing with.

And how does a flat earth present such a crisp, finite horizon?

The same way a a paining shows definition from distance.

Does our ocular clarity and definition just slam into a wall of perception after 3 miles or so?

It's all down to how your eyes vision it and how your mind perceives it.
You see a convergence of shade from different shades of light.
ANything in between that stands out as  denser shades among those converging atmospheric shades of light.

On a flat earth I would expect it to fuzz out after many, many miles as my long distance vision gradually diminishes.

It fuzzes out long before your theoretical horizon line.
After your theoretical horizon line, there's nothing. That's your horizontal vanishing points.

Why the sharp line of a theoretical horizon?

A blend of light shades at that theoretical line.

It's not just a convergence of light and dark - On a flat earth it should be a gradual gradient blurring into the very, very distant background.

It is but the gradient comes from above, not from below, in terms of your distant vision.

What's stopping my vision right at that harsh line?

Your eye itself.
It cannot receive any more light from distance due to atmospheric mass build over the horizontal and level sight.
Ths is why you have to go a bit higher to move up in the stack to see a bit farther.

A harsh line that we can measure the distance of. Like lookouts on warships in crow's nests.

The crow's nests are a prime example of attaining more light to the eye by standing further up into the stack and gaining more light reflection back to the eye.


None of that would be possible on a globe that offers downward curving with each cm of view. You cannot bring a downward curve back into view, once lost from level sight and stance.

Merely siting down and thinking for yourself may offer you a different view. I doubt it...but.

Quote from: Stash

And how could scale not matter? That seems insane to just dismiss it.

It depends on what we argue in terms of scale.

It does depend on what you are arguing.
For example, if you are arguing that a ball will produce a clear line separating the ball from not the ball, then no scale doesn't matter.
But if you are claiming that the ball will magically drop down out of your view, scale does matter, as repeatedly shown, and you have repeatedly ignored.
If you are claiming distant objects will be magically hidden by the ball, scale does matter, as repeatedly shown, and you have repeatedly ignored.

To some extent, we are dealing with both, and you want to pretend scale matters when it comes to trying to dismiss the fact that round objects have edges, while also wanting to pretend scale doesn't matter when deciding if it will be in your FOV.
The problem for you is you are arguing the wrong way, both times.

If you want to discuss objects being hidden or not, you need to discuss the scale.
If you want to discuss the horizon being visible with a level FOV, you need to discuss the scale.

If you just want to talk about if there is a clear edge or not, you don't need to discuss the scale, not unless you want to invoke the edge being so far away due to the scale that it will produce a blur, which would also produce a blur for a FE.

Quote from: Stash

And how does a flat earth present such a crisp, finite horizon?

The same way a a paining shows definition from distance.

You mean by just pretending?

It fuzzes out long before your theoretical horizon line.
After your theoretical horizon line, there's nothing. That's your horizontal vanishing points.

Considering that vanishing point, or theoretical horizon, is infinitely far away, it would have to.
But the problem is that it doesn't "fuzz out". Instead we can clearly see beyond the horizon, if an object is high enough.

Quote from: Stash

Why the sharp line of a theoretical horizon?

A blend of light shades at that theoretical line.

Do you not notice the words you are using?
A blend is not a sharp line.
With a sharp line, there is an abrupt change.
With a blend, it is a gradual change, and you can't pinpoint where one starts and the other ends.

The point is, it ISN'T A BLEND.
It is a sharp change.

It cannot receive any more light from distance due to atmospheric mass build over the horizontal and level sight.
Ths is why you have to go a bit higher to move up in the stack to see a bit farther.

Again, this would produce a blur, like on a foggy day.
That isn't what happens.
Also, the change in atmosphere over that height is negligible. It cannot account for why we can see so much further.

None of that would be possible on a globe that offers downward curving with each cm of view. You cannot bring a downward curve back into view, once lost from level sight and stance.

Merely siting down and thinking for yourself may offer you a different view. I doubt it...but.

Well yes, sitting down and thinking for oneself will result in one realising your claims are pure BS.
Again you ignore FOV and pretend we magically only see in a single line, and ignore scale.

In reality, we have a FOV. It is quite large.
This large FOV easily allows us to see the ground, even when looking level.
Again, when you stand 2 m above Earth, the angle of elevation to the horizon is only ~ -2.7 arc minutes. That is basically nothing, and the horizon is roughly 5 km away.
If you increase your height to roughly 10 m, the angle of elevation drops to ~ -6.1 arc minutes. That is still basically nothing, but now the horizon is 11 km away.

So you can easily see this "downwards curve".

So no, this is entirely possible on a globe. Simple logic and simple math shows this.

Ah, no that's not even close to being right.

Please read up on how color and light works, especially parts about chroma and luminance.

Until you can figure out how to tell the difference between 'light' and 'dark' you really should stop speaking from ignorance.

Pay attention.

WTF is "level vision"?

Simply looking out with a level vision.
Basically looking straight ahead in focus and not up nor down.
I'm surprised you need to ask this.

Why does that supersede my normal vision?

It doesn't. Level is level.

  Do you need medical attention for your eyes, or is it just mental help you need?

I'll let you decide that, doctor.

  Why would I be looking skyward if I am trying to look at the horizon?

You wouldn't. This is exactly why you do not live on a globe.

The drop of the "curve" causes the apparent horizon, and that "curve" is very small because the sphere we are standing on is very large when compared to us.

The drop of a curve will offer you no horizon, at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 09:12:46 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 03:47:50 AM

My facts are right

Then don't argue any further with an idiot like myself.

The idea is not to change your mind.  It is to present both sides honestly, which you do not do.  Offer evidence and explanations, not just claims.  This is more for the undecided or naive people here looking for answers.  To keep them from being duped into beliefs that may not be true and may hurt them in the long run.  Just lying, saying nuh uhh, or intentiinally misrepresenting the opposing side thinking it's a scoring points game is stupid.  So yeah you are acting like an idiot.

Being a massive global adherent will obviously give you a mindset of calling me a liar. I can accept that.
I could call you exactly the same but I prefer to call you severely indoctrinated and unconditional in favour of a globe, without evidence to back it up, from yourself.

I will continue to object to your blatant lies until you stop making them or find some way to actually defend them.

Do what you must do.

 if you are claiming that the ball will magically drop down out of your view, scale does matter

If you were stood on top of a ball you will never see that ball. You will see whatever is away from that ball.

Simple as that.

Quote from: Platonius21 on March 30, 2021, 06:51:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:24:46 AM

A well defined horizon is simply down to light shading from what reaches a point back to your eye from top to bottom.

In other words, you have no idea what forms a horizon.

Shades of light due to atmospheric stacked mass. Yes I know. Do you?

Oh boy! That really clears it up. You really do have no idea what forms a horizon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 11:20:10 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on March 30, 2021, 06:51:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:24:46 AM

A well defined horizon is simply down to light shading from what reaches a point back to your eye from top to bottom.

In other words, you have no idea what forms a horizon.

Shades of light due to atmospheric stacked mass. Yes I know. Do you?

Oh boy! That really clears it up. You really do have no idea what forms a horizon.

It's pretty clear you don't.
You actually think you can have one on a globe. That tells me all I need to know.

Quote from: JJA on March 31, 2021, 07:35:50 AM

Ah, no that's not even close to being right.

Please read up on how color and light works, especially parts about chroma and luminance.

Until you can figure out how to tell the difference between 'light' and 'dark' you really should stop speaking from ignorance.

Pay attention.

You first.

Quote from: Mikey T. on March 31, 2021, 11:06:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 09:12:46 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 03:47:50 AM

My facts are right

Then don't argue any further with an idiot like myself.

The idea is not to change your mind.  It is to present both sides honestly, which you do not do.  Offer evidence and explanations, not just claims.  This is more for the undecided or naive people here looking for answers.  To keep them from being duped into beliefs that may not be true and may hurt them in the long run.  Just lying, saying nuh uhh, or intentiinally misrepresenting the opposing side thinking it's a scoring points game is stupid.  So yeah you are acting like an idiot.

Being a massive global adherent will obviously give you a mindset of calling me a liar. I can accept that.
I could call you exactly the same but I prefer to call you severely indoctrinated and unconditional in favour of a globe, without evidence to back it up, from yourself.

Massive global adherent?  Severely indoctrinated.  Yeah that's just stupid.  It is definitely not unconditional, my conditions are that I can test and verify the theory for me to support it.  I can do so easily for the RE side, but can't even find a cohesive theory that explains anything while not contradicting something else claimed by the notion of a FE.  Provide a model that works with reality, a singular model that can explain the entire idea and I will consider it, thus far FE hasn't.  Provide support for claims or they are baseless.  Holding dear to something that doesn't even try to address issues is indoctrination.  Crying about others not thinking for themselves while just believing whatever youtube video that makes you feel like you're some hero fighting the "man" and not bothering even try to support your textual vomit is indoctrination.  I have plenty of evidence to support the globe, tested myself.  When you provide a testable model and stop playing the nuh uhh games then I may start to take you seriously, until then you are the fool that I use for enjoyment purposes.  So thanks for being so dedicated to dancing and clowning for me. 

Quote from: Mikey T. on March 31, 2021, 10:15:38 AM

WTF is "level vision"?

Simply looking out with a level vision.
Basically looking straight ahead in focus and not up nor down.
I'm surprised you need to ask this.

Quote from: Mikey T

Why does that supersede my normal vision?

It doesn't. Level is level.

Quote from: Mikey T

  Do you need medical attention for your eyes, or is it just mental help you need?

I'll let you decide that, doctor.

Quote from: Mikey T

  Why would I be looking skyward if I am trying to look at the horizon?

You wouldn't. This is exactly why you do not live on a globe.

Quote from: Mikey T

The drop of the "curve" causes the apparent horizon, and that "curve" is very small because the sphere we are standing on is very large when compared to us.

The drop of a curve will offer you no horizon, at all.

What is level?
Why will the curve drop mean there will be no horizon?  Why can't I look towards the edge?  Dance fool dance.

Simply looking out with a level vision.

And importantly, with a FOV, something you sure love to ignore.
So when you look out with a "level vision", you aren't just seeing those things which are directly aligned with your "level". Instead you also see things above and below level.

The drop of a curve will offer you no horizon, at all.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie.
That curve is what offers a horizon.
The horizon is the point where a line directly from your eye is tangent to Earth, such that you can see things before it, but after it, Earth blocks the view.

Being a massive global adherent will obviously give you a mindset of calling me a liar. I can accept that.

No, being an honest, rational, decent human being will.
That is because you continually blatant lies, have these lies refuted, ignore the refutation, and then repeat them again.
That makes you a liar.
It has nothing at all to do with adhering to the globe.

I could call you exactly the same but I prefer to call you severely indoctrinated and unconditional in favour of a globe, without evidence to back it up, from yourself.

The distinction is that we have evidence and logical arguments to justify our position. You do not.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 01, 2021, 01:35:06 AM

if you are claiming that the ball will magically drop down out of your view, scale does matter

If you were stood on top of a ball you will never see that ball. You will see whatever is away from that ball.

Simple as that.

No, not simple as that.
It is as simple as SCALE MATTERS!
In this case your ability to see the ball, even assuming you are looking out level, will depend on the size of the ball, your height above it, and your FOV.

Again, this has already been clearly shown to you, with a diagram you are unable to refute.

Remember this picture, the one you are yet to refute:
?
It shows quite clearly the effect of scale.
The high, yellow FOV is unable to see the ball, because their FOV is too small for their elevation.
But bring them closer to the ball, and they can see it, as in the low, yellow FOV.
Alternatively, expand their FOV, and they can also see it, as in the brown FOV.
You can also see how it produces a horizon, with the distance to the horizon depending on elevation.

It's as simple as that.

Stop acting like Earth is a tiny ball and thus couldn't possibly be seen with a "level view".

It's pretty clear you don't.
You actually think you can have one on a globe. That tells me all I need to know.

Again, it is pretty clear you are the one who has no idea. Especially by you claiming that we can't have one on a globe, and being completely incapable of justifying what magic would prevent it, nor refuting the simple, logical arguments which show beyond any doubt, that we do.

The only way to make a rational argument against the current globe model producing a horizon, is by claiming that it is too large and that the atmosphere would cause everything to fade to a blur before the horizon, and thus to produce a horizon Earth must actually be smaller, i.e. have a greater curvature.

Quote from: Platonius21 on April 01, 2021, 07:17:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 11:20:10 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on March 30, 2021, 06:51:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:24:46 AM

A well defined horizon is simply down to light shading from what reaches a point back to your eye from top to bottom.

In other words, you have no idea what forms a horizon.

Shades of light due to atmospheric stacked mass. Yes I know. Do you?

Oh boy! That really clears it up. You really do have no idea what forms a horizon.

It's pretty clear you don't.
You actually think you can have one on a globe. That tells me all I need to know.

I'd be better off debating with a box of rocks.  They couldn't  explain why there would be a horizon on a flat earth either, but at least they would not make up nonsensical BS.

Massive global adherent?  Severely indoctrinated.  Yeah that's just stupid.  It is definitely not unconditional, my conditions are that I can test and verify the theory for me to support it.  I can do so easily for the RE side, but can't even find a cohesive theory that explains anything while not contradicting something else claimed by the notion of a FE.

If you can do so then show me. Don't bring up copy and paste references. Show me from your own efforts. Can you do this?
Are you willing to do this to prove your side?

  Provide a model that works with reality, a singular model that can explain the entire idea and I will consider it, thus far FE hasn't.  Provide support for claims or they are baseless.

The model I provide won't work for you. Your model works for you because it's set out that way.
My model works for me with what I have mused over. This is what counts....for me.

  Holding dear to something that doesn't even try to address issues is indoctrination.

No...it's not.

  Crying about others not thinking for themselves while just believing whatever youtube video that makes you feel like you're some hero fighting the "man" and not bothering even try to support your textual vomit is indoctrination.

I don't need to use youtube videos. However, you people do use youtube as your proof so I have to use the very same to counteract.
You seem to be getting frustrated and mad that you can't beat me down.
Calm down a bit.

I have plenty of evidence to support the globe, tested myself.

Then you should have no issue in showing it from your side....right?
Make sure it's your evidence and not any appeal to authority.

When you provide a testable model and stop playing the nuh uhh games then I may start to take you seriously, until then you are the fool that I use for enjoyment purposes.

You can take me however you feel you need to, in your mind, because that's all you have. You are free to type out your thoughts, if you feel the need, which you obviously do. Crack on.

  So thanks for being so dedicated to dancing and clowning for me.

No problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2021, 05:09:53 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on March 31, 2021, 10:15:38 AM

WTF is "level vision"?

Simply looking out with a level vision.
Basically looking straight ahead in focus and not up nor down.
I'm surprised you need to ask this.

Quote from: Mikey T

Why does that supersede my normal vision?

It doesn't. Level is level.

Quote from: Mikey T

  Do you need medical attention for your eyes, or is it just mental help you need?

I'll let you decide that, doctor.

Quote from: Mikey T

  Why would I be looking skyward if I am trying to look at the horizon?

You wouldn't. This is exactly why you do not live on a globe.

Quote from: Mikey T

The drop of the "curve" causes the apparent horizon, and that "curve" is very small because the sphere we are standing on is very large when compared to us.

The drop of a curve will offer you no horizon, at all.

What is level?
Why will the curve drop mean there will be no horizon?  Why can't I look towards the edge?  Dance fool dance.

I can't seem to dance to the tune you play but I'll dance anyway.
The curve is always away from your vision on a ball. If you want to put that to your imaginary globe, the same applies.
I don't need to tell you this or show you this. This is easily proven by your own senses.
Go and take a look........................but...............remember...........................don't come back and say you can see your horizon by looking out to see, because you won't be arguing that point from a global perspective, due to you not being stood on a globe.


You need to find a small mound that you can walk up to and stand a top of.
Look out level from it, all around and see if you can see that mound.
Unless you look down, you won't.


Why?
Because it curves down from your view.
Using a fictional globe to argue an edge. A line....is pointless for you.


The horizon is not offered to you on a global set up but it is offered to you on a flat sea set up with a concave sky...in my honest opinion.


Let me know how my dancing is going.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2021, 05:09:53 AM

Simply looking out with a level vision.

And importantly, with a FOV, something you sure love to ignore.
So when you look out with a "level vision", you aren't just seeing those things which are directly aligned with your "level". Instead you also see things above and below level.

Yep, you do.

You see everything your vision takes in, as light shades reflecting back.
The key is in POINT FOCUS.

To get back to it. Your cross hair.

The model I provide won't work for you.

It doesn't seem to work at all, as it cannot explain reality.

Then you should have no issue in showing it from your side....right?

To any honest person, yes.
But to you, you just dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong as being fake.
You have made it quite clear you are completely unwilling to accept anything that shows you are wrong.

The curve is always away from your vision on a ball. If you want to put that to your imaginary globe, the same applies.

No, that depends on where you are looking.
For example, if you look straight down, the curve is towards your vision.
You can even look at angles to have it change which way it curves, at some points curving towards your vision and at others curving away.

But even when looking level, you can't simply ignore the effect of perspective.
This will make the ground appear higher, and that means it is a question of which effect dominates.

You need to find a small mound that you can walk up to and stand a top of.

There you go ignoring scale yet again.
You don't need to find a small mound. You need to find a MASSIVE one.
Like the globe, you are standing on.

If you want to use a smaller one, you need to adjust your height so the scale matches.
If you want to match standing 2 m above the surface of a ball with a radius of 6371 km, but stand on a hill with a radius of 6.371 km, then you need to have your eyes 2 mm above the surface for the scale to match.

Again, simple diagrams show you are wrong.

Here is an example you are still yet to refute:

This shows a FOV from a person looking out level.
Because their FOV is large enough, they can see Earth. Specifically the line shown in green. The region close to their foot is not visible as their FOV is not large enough.
The region past the horizon is not visible as Earth obstructs the view.

Why shouldn't the person in this diagram see that curve?

Again, simple logic and math shows that your ability to see such a downwards curve depends on the radius of that curve, your height above it, and your FOV.

But again, why do we have to look level? Why can't we look towards the mound?
Just how far down do you think you need to look to see the globe Earth?

Let me know how my dancing is going.

Miserably.
You completely ignored the part about not needing to look level, and like always, ignore the fact we have a FOV/the effect of perspective to pretend that merely because Earth curves downwards, it shouldn't be visible.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 01, 2021, 02:31:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2021, 05:09:53 AM

Simply looking out with a level vision.

And importantly, with a FOV, something you sure love to ignore.
So when you look out with a "level vision", you aren't just seeing those things which are directly aligned with your "level". Instead you also see things above and below level.

Yep, you do.
You see everything your vision takes in

And that includes Earth which is BELOW "level".

So a level view won't magically hide the RE.

The key is the FOV, that you keep ignoring.

So a level view won't magically hide the RE.

The key is the FOV, that you keep ignoring.

You are ignoring the downward curve of your so called globe.
Your FOV becomes irrelevant over distance.
The only reason you believe it doesn't is because you believe in the global model and you use your own vision to look out to sea and assume it's looking out to sea on a globe.

That's your prerogative and you're welcome to it.

I absolutely 100% disagree with it for reasons stated, whether you accept a reason has been given, or not.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 02, 2021, 01:41:30 AM

So a level view won't magically hide the RE.
The key is the FOV, that you keep ignoring.

You are ignoring the downward curve of your so called globe.

No, I'm not.
That downwards curve is the very reason we have a horizon in the first place.
It is also the very reason that your ability to see Earth depends upon your FOV.
For a FE, ignoring the atmosphere and assuming your FOV is non-zero, then you will be able to see Earth because eventually the downwards part of your FOV will intersect that flat Earth.
But for a RE, as Earth is curving, then your ability to see it depend on if your FOV gets low enough, before the curve of Earth gets too "steep".

So no, the downwards curve is the very reason SCALE MATTERS, and FOV MATTERS!
So I'm not ignoring it at all.

Your FOV becomes irrelevant over distance.

That depends on the distance.
Over a very short distance, your FOV is not large enough to see the ground, such as few cm from your feet.
Over an intermediate distance, your FOV determines if you can see Earth or not.
Only over much larger distance, once you reach the horizon, does FOV become irrelevant as Earth now starts blocking the view.

But the key part is that region between your feet and the horizon, where the FOV determined if you can see Earth.

The only reason you pretend FOV doesn't matter is because it kills your arguments against the globe and thus by pretending it doesn't matter you can pretend the globe doesn't match reality.

The reason I accept the fact that FOV does matter, is because that is what simple logic and math shows.

Simple math allows you to determine the angle between "level" and the horizon, or the line tangent to the globe.
This is quite simple math based upon simple triangles.
The angle subtended at the centre is a.
This forms a right angle triangle with one side length R (the radius of Earth), which goes from the centre to the tangent point. As it is a tangent it is a right angle at that point going back to your eye. With the hypotenuse being of length R+h, where h is the observer elevation.

Simple math tells us the angle at the centre is acos(R/(R+h)).
Simple math also tells us that the angle at the person, from straight down is thus 90 degrees - acos(R/(R+h)); and from there the angle from level to the tangent is 90 degrees - (90 degrees - acos(R/(R+h))) = acos(R/(R+h)).

If you are looking dead level, and your FOV is larger than twice that angle, YOU WILL SEE THE GLOBE!
It is really quite simple.

And if all that math and numbers are too hard, it is also demonstrated trivially with diagrams you are still unable to refute, like this one, already provided in this thread and other threads:


This shows us 2 different elevations and 2 different FOVs (i.e. 2 different angles).
From the high elevation, the yellow FOV is not large enough to see Earth, but the brown one is.
But from a lower vantage point the yellow FOV is large enough to see Earth.

So it is quite clear that FOV does matter.

If you wish to claim it doesn't, and expect anyone who has read this to take you seriously, you need to explain why it doesn't matter, and the downwards curve of Earth is not enough.

But a key take away for you is that me accepting the fact that Earth is ~ a globe has nothing to do with me accepting the fact that FOV does matter.
Even if I was a flat Earther, I would still accept the fact that on a globe, your ability to see Earth from a level view will depend on your FOV, and your elevation above Earth.

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 01, 2021, 01:37:38 PM

Massive global adherent?  Severely indoctrinated.  Yeah that's just stupid.  It is definitely not unconditional, my conditions are that I can test and verify the theory for me to support it.  I can do so easily for the RE side, but can't even find a cohesive theory that explains anything while not contradicting something else claimed by the notion of a FE.

If you can do so then show me. Don't bring up copy and paste references. Show me from your own efforts. Can you do this?
Are you willing to do this to prove your side?

Absolutely, plus I don't do copy paste stuff, and you know it.  Do you want the data that was collected and then calculated by me about satellite TV signals and using them to determine the location of said broadcast location which shows it is impossible from a flat plane?  I posted that before, you left the conversation if I remember correctly, after screaming nuh uhh and claiming I didn't gather the data myself.  But you lie a lot so no-one pays attention to you.  Do you want the calculation of the offset of the gravitational acceleration from the ... OMG 1000mph spin^TM centrifugal "force" that showed it to be almost nothing and therefore rendering that idiotic FE talking point ridiculous?  I don't remember you being in that one, but when you are more quiet I forget about you.  I much prefer your idiotic dancing.  Do you want me to rehash the Mt. Climbing trip I took when you claimed no-one could go above something like 12000 ft or some nonsense like that, which culminated with me flying from South America to New Zealand and meeting up with my wife who flew out from LAX and our flights took the same amount of time?  Oh yeah you could only claim I wasn't telling the truth because you have no honor.  Hell I could talk about simple sunrises and sunsets that I actually have gone out and watched to see the sun rise appearing to come up from behind the horizon or the sunset sinking behind the horizon, something simply impossible on a flat plane no matter how much hand wavy you can't see far enough stupid nonsense you parrot.  You guys sound like a big bunch of mocking bird just repeating the same nonsense back and forth.  Those are just a few of the things I have already brought up on this forum board.  Oh yeah you claimed nuh uhh my CONSPIRACYYYYYY says otherwise bullshit. 

Quote from: Mikey T.

  Provide a model that works with reality, a singular model that can explain the entire idea and I will consider it, thus far FE hasn't.  Provide support for claims or they are baseless.

The model I provide won't work for you. Your model works for you because it's set out that way.
My model works for me with what I have mused over. This is what counts....for me.

What model, you have never produced a model, oh wait that's right, you have no clue what a scientific model is.  Plus I never figured you for a my truth person.  News flash there is ... wait for it... the truth and not the truth, there is no personal emotional based truth.  Either you can support your claims or they are bullshit.

Quote from: Mikey T.

  Holding dear to something that doesn't even try to address issues is indoctrination.

No...it's not.

Oh it absolutely is, if everything shows it to be batshit crazy and you hold on tightly too it, enough to resort to constantly lying, you are indoctrinated.  And no, the FE doesn't ever honestly try to address in an honest way, just make 1 model, just 1 that doesn't fall apart to explain multiple observations made, no you have one that you try to peddle for the sky's apparent movement but then a separate one when it comes to explaining why the sun doesn't speed up and slow down during the seasonal changes like that model would demand, and yet another when someone brings up star movement from the Northern and Southern hemisphere.

Quote from: Mikey T.

  Crying about others not thinking for themselves while just believing whatever youtube video that makes you feel like you're some hero fighting the "man" and not bothering even try to support your textual vomit is indoctrination.

I don't need to use youtube videos. However, you people do use youtube as your proof so I have to use the very same to counteract.
You seem to be getting frustrated and mad that you can't beat me down.
Calm down a bit.

 
I'm not frustrated in the least, like I said you are my entertainment, I was getting a bit bored, so I poke you a bit and make you dance around more when I want.

Quote from: Mikey T.

I have plenty of evidence to support the globe, tested myself.

Then you should have no issue in showing it from your side....right?
Make sure it's your evidence and not any appeal to authority.

Quote from: Mikey T.

When you provide a testable model and stop playing the nuh uhh games then I may start to take you seriously, until then you are the fool that I use for enjoyment purposes.

You can take me however you feel you need to, in your mind, because that's all you have. You are free to type out your thoughts, if you feel the need, which you obviously do. Crack on.

All I have... funny.  I don't need to, like I said before you are my entertainment.  You only get the pleasure of me talking to you when I am bored.

Quote from: Mikey T.

  So thanks for being so dedicated to dancing and clowning for me.

No problem.

Great you know your role.