What would change your mind?

Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?

You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.

That's something we share in common.

The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.

I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.

Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.

Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.

If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....

Life then becomes all about function.

I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.

Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.

So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:12:49 PM

The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.

Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.

Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.

Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 03:15:48 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:12:49 PM

The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.

Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.

Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.

Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.

Do you not have better things to do?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 05:00:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 03:15:48 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:12:49 PM

The claim clearly placed directly before, where you falsely claim that the RE (i.e. the globe), can't have a horizon.
Stop playing dumb and address this.
Either justify the claim that the RE can't have a horizon, or admit that it is not a factual claim.

Already been addressed. You don't accept it and fair enough.

Stop with the lies.
You haven't addressed it.
If you had you would easily be able to provide it here again.
The fact you don't, shows you have no way to address it.
You know your claim is not a fact, but don't want to so openly admit that, especially when you have claimed to 100% know the RE doesn't have a horizon.

Now again, ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE!
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Don't bother repeating the same lie that you have already addressed it.

Do you not have better things to do?

Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.

Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.

I've addressed it...you have not.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 12:48:47 PM

Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.

I've addressed it...you have not.

Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 11:17:04 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 12:48:47 PM

Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.

I've addressed it...you have not.

Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

Been explained.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:03:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 11:17:04 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 12:48:47 PM

Stop deflecting and actually address the issue.
Either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.

I've addressed it...you have not.

Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yes again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

Been explained.

Again, if that was the case, you would easily be able to provide it. Instead you just keep claiming to have already addressed it. That strongly shows you haven't done that.
So yet again, this is just a pathetic deflection on your part.
Anything other than directly admitting your claim is not factual, or providing an actual justification for the claim, will be nothing more than a dishonest deflection to pretend you are not wrong.
So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:43:54 AM

So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.

There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.
You keep using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid either explaining or admitting you can't.
If you wish to lie and claim it has been explained, provide a link to the post where you have explained it, or provide the explanation again.

Like I said before, you continually repeating the same pathetic deflection/lie by claiming to have explained it, while never providing the explanation, just shows that you CAN'T explain it.

Now grow, stop with the pathetic deflection, and either explain it, admit you can't, or admit that what you are stating is not a fact.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 30, 2021, 02:01:34 AM

Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?

You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.

That's something we share in common.

The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.

I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.

Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.

Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.

If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....

Life then becomes all about function.

I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.

Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.

So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.

We do massively differ in that mindset, unfortunately. In my mindset, I can include all the sciences, whereas with your mindset, you must exclude all the sciences.

With my mindset, I can have trust in my fellow man and build on discoveries which have come before me, but with your mindset, you must distrust your fellow man, dismiss what has been said to come before you, and reinvent the wheel.

So long as your decision is not fear based, because fear is soul destroying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:57:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:43:54 AM

So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.

There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.

It has.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 03:21:30 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 30, 2021, 02:01:34 AM

Sceptimatic, what makes you think I'm so narrow minded?

You see the world as a hierarchy. I see the world as a hierarchy.

That's something we share in common.

The difference is, I don't see it as necessary for this hierarchy to physically resemble cells of living organisms here on earth.

I see the hierarchy as a hierarchy of invisible energy behind the physical world.

Your body, for instance, while it is made of cells, those cells form 78 organs of your body which work in coordination to form organ systems.

Then, you. You are part of a group of humans on the earth, which is part of larger groups, and so on.

If you choose to continue to look at earth as a living entity which functions as part of a larger system it's a small step for you to see the larger system as our solar system. The sun is the nucleus. Our solar system which is part of a group of solar systems.....

Life then becomes all about function.

I look at Earth as a cell full of cells and at the end of that...outside of that would be another Earth cell and so on and so on, like I said.

Likely connected with no free space, meaning no space like we have been told.

So, basically we massively differ in that mindset but you're very welcome to think what you want and to dish what I think. That's your choice as I have mine.

We do massively differ in that mindset, unfortunately. In my mindset, I can include all the sciences, whereas with your mindset, you must exclude all the sciences.

In your mindset you adhere to the stories told and without proof, in terms of what we're arguing.

With my mindset, I can have trust in my fellow man and build on discoveries which have come before me, but with your mindset, you must distrust your fellow man, dismiss what has been said to come before you, and reinvent the wheel.

Yep, you trust the stories and the people telling them.
Nothing wrong with that. It's easier to just go with the flow if that's the type of person you are.

I'm clearly not. I question stuff and what I question I do because I don't think the stories are entirely factual.
As you say, I do distrust certain people.

There's really good story tellers out there. Some rip people off in all ways and walks of life. You know that.
Why is this any different?

So long as your decision is not fear based, because fear is soul destroying.

Fear of what?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 02:24:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:57:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:43:54 AM

So again, either admit your claim that the RE wouldn't have a horizon is not factual, or explain why the RE shouldn't have a horizon.

It's been explained.
You just like to rinse and repeat.

There you go projecting again.
It has not been explained. That is why I keep asking.

It has.

Repeating the same lie will not magically make it true.
Again, if you had actually explained it, instead of just claiming to have to avoid the fact you can't, then you would be able to either link to the explanation or provide it again.
The fact you do neither shows you haven't already explained it.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and repeatedly blatant lies and actually explain it, or admit you can't, and admit your claim is not factual.

Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation. 

When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.

Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.

Our very posts on this board tell a story.

I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.

Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.

If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.

Jack, stop badgering.

Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation. 

When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.

Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.

Our very posts on this board tell a story.

I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.

Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.

If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.

Yu forgot about reading stories and following a belief system based on them.....and then a narrative and a following of that narrative en masse.

This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.

That doesn't mean the person is telling me lies fro their own story. It means they're conveying what I believe to be a set of lies, but in a very honest way.

How do I read that body language?

You're trying to tell me about your truth's based on your adherence to a storyline, of which you accept as being a truth, without actually knowing it to be a truth.
You are passing it onto me and getting offended when I reject it.

I could call you a liar but I'd prefer to say you're conveying a storyline to me that I believe is based on lies...or at best fantasy hypotheticals.

This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.

You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.

i read a story once, by a guy named sceppy.
Actually more than once, because he loved repeating it over and over.
He liked to repeat a few things but refused to provide a diagram, over and over refused.
Then he laughed at everyone else and said they were fools for believing easily verifiable and repeatable experiments.
He went so far to even say circles and triangles aren't real.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 31, 2021, 02:22:10 PM

Sceptimatic, everything around you tells a story. A story isn't just what comes out of a persons mouth, or what is written in a book, or on a tv presentation. 

When you walk into a crime scene, everything in that scene is telling a story about what happened, to solve a crime.

Your own body is telling a story, as to how active or sedentary you are, or what type of food you put into your mouth, and how much. Your house is telling a story about the people living inside it. Your garbage in your garbage bin is telling a big story, for anyone who wants to find out things about sceptimatic.

Our very posts on this board tell a story.

I spent time with an Aboriginal elder some years ago, and I learnt that even rocks tell stories. Types of rocks and stories of where they originated, and how they came to be where they are. Why they might be cracked a certain way. Pressures involved in their formation.

Yes, there are bullshit stories all around you. But you are also surrounded by truths. If you learn to use your senses - your eyes, ears, sense of touch, taste, smell - you can learn to read all the stories being told around you, and be discerning.

If people bullshitting to you in the past, has been a big problem, do a course on lying and body language. Learn about scammers, and learn to identify the differences between a person answering a question with a lie or with the truth.

Yu forgot about reading stories and following a belief system based on them.....and then a narrative and a following of that narrative en masse.

This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.

That doesn't mean the person is telling me lies fro their own story. It means they're conveying what I believe to be a set of lies, but in a very honest way.

How do I read that body language?

You're trying to tell me about your truth's based on your adherence to a storyline, of which you accept as being a truth, without actually knowing it to be a truth.
You are passing it onto me and getting offended when I reject it.

I could call you a liar but I'd prefer to say you're conveying a storyline to me that I believe is based on lies...or at best fantasy hypotheticals.

I heard this story once, about a guy named jesus who died on a cross......great story!

I'm not offended by you rejecting everything I say. I'm not insecure enough to feel offended, and I see you aren't insecure to easily be offended, either. I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, and you're the same. Jack black infers you're a liar with almost every post he makes.

I was giving you an insight into all the different non-verbal stories being told around you, all the time. In my experience, when someone is conveying something which they earnestly think is the truth, but which is a lie, it's usually because of a mistake of fact on their part. A misinterpretation.

How do you read that body language, you ask? Well, you start with their eyes  then you observe what they di with their hands. When a person is manufacturing a lie, they will look in the opposite direction to the direction you look when you are remembering. When a person tells a bold faced lie, their pupils tend to dilate, and they tend to touch their nose about the same time. It's a physical response. But  there are different types of lies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2021, 08:08:28 AM

This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.

You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.

This is the argument.

i read a story once, by a guy named sceppy.
Actually more than once, because he loved repeating it over and over.
He liked to repeat a few things but refused to provide a diagram, over and over refused.
Then he laughed at everyone else and said they were fools for believing easily verifiable and repeatable experiments.
He went so far to even say circles and triangles aren't real.

Feel free to make up stuff if it makes you feel better.

I heard this story once, about a guy named jesus who died on a cross......great story!

I've heard it all my life and still do from certain people.
I've watched films depicting what happened...etc.
I listen to priests who convey messages from a bible and tell the story in such a way that sells it to a congregation who follow those words and what is behind them.

Is the priest lying? Is the priest absorbed into the story of belief? s the priest just conveying the story as told, like a school teacher under the guide of a curriculum?

This is the issue.

I'm not offended by you rejecting everything I say. I'm not insecure enough to feel offended, and I see you aren't insecure to easily be offended, either.

I stand by my thought process until I can't reason it.
Likewise I stand against the storylines handed out as factual, without proof, told by whoever, for whoever.

I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, and you're the same. Jack black infers you're a liar with almost every post he makes.

I have no need to call you a liar. I simply don't believe what you say where this global stuff is concerned.
You may believe what you're saying or you may question it in your own comfort but convey it when placed n an open situation.
That doesn't make you a liar. It means you follow a set narrative.
We all follow set narratives. It just depends on whether we feel we have to or be ridiculed for refusing.





 

I was giving you an insight into all the different non-verbal stories being told around you, all the time. In my experience, when someone is conveying something which they earnestly think is the truth, but which is a lie, it's usually because of a mistake of fact on their part. A misinterpretation.

Absolutely. And this is the argument on the whole with all of this.
You can stand at your door arguing with a religious group who are massively well versed in their set up and who do not need to reference a book in front of you to convey their message.
You can stand and argue with them from your side.
Who wins?......No one.
Who is correct?....possibly no one.
What evidence?.....massively circumstantial.
Who is lying?....maybe nobody, deliberately.

How do you read that body language, you ask? Well, you start with their eyes  then you observe what they di with their hands. When a person is manufacturing a lie, they will look in the opposite direction to the direction you look when you are remembering. When a person tells a bold faced lie, their pupils tend to dilate, and they tend to touch their nose about the same time. It's a physical response. But  there are different types of lies.

Like I said. If a person conveys a message then you can't really shoot the messenger if it turns out to be a lie or a mistake.


However, it's all about morals with a lot of stuff in terms of who tells and sells a story if that story is told to someone from which they do not morally accept it as truth but go on to preach it as a truth.

It's like a salesperson who are given instructions on how to canvass people out of their money. Some believe its moral and can be in many circumstances...but others can be trained in the art of ripping people off, disguised as salesman/woman/ship.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 01, 2021, 02:40:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2021, 08:08:28 AM

This isn't a case of reading people's body language. It's a case of people believing stories and passing them off as factual, without proof.

You mean with plenty of evidence and logical arguments to justify it, which you just dismiss as fake or ignore; and with this "story" matching what is observed in every day life.

This is the argument.

No, that is you avoiding the argument.
The argument is that as humans have a FOV, this allows them to easily see the ground.
If you look out level, standing 2 m above ground, regardless of if it is perfectly flat, or curved in accordance with the globe model, you will easily be able to see it due to just how large your FOV is.
Perspective will make the ground appear higher as it gets further away, bringing it into view.
This even applies if you have a quite small FOV, such as from looking through a tube.
With a FOV of 10 degrees, the ground will be inside it within 30 m.

It takes quite some distance for the downwards slope due to the curvature to add up enough to start making things appear lower.

Likewise, the argument is that if you look at a ball, there will be a boundary. On one side of that boundary there will be the ball. On the other, the ball wont be there and instead you only see the surroundings, e.g. the sky. This boundary or edge is known as the horizon, and the globe does have a horizon.
And while this horizon is below level, when you are standing close to the surface, the angle at which it is below level is basically 0. e.g. at 2 m it is 2.7 arc minutes.

And the evidence shows that if you go high enough, the angle is large enough that it can be easily shown that the horizon is below "eye-level", such as with the evidence you dismiss as fake.

I stand by my thought process until I can't reason it.

At which point you then do whatever you can to deflect from your inability to reason it.

No, that is you avoiding the argument.
The argument is that as humans have a FOV, this allows them to easily see the ground.

I never said humans don't have a FOV. You decided to make it that I did to suit your argument.

Your tu-tubes experiment claims says otherwise.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:16:19 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 08, 2021, 11:10:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 10:13:21 PM

Quote from: Bored on February 08, 2021, 09:46:14 PM

Way back on page 62 was this :-

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2020, 08:44:16 AM

So are you saying this:


Absolutely.

Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.

Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.

Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?

No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.

Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?

No contradictions here....

Quote from: Stash on February 08, 2021, 11:51:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:16:19 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 08, 2021, 11:10:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 10:13:21 PM

Quote from: Bored on February 08, 2021, 09:46:14 PM

Way back on page 62 was this :-

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2020, 08:44:16 AM

So are you saying this:


Absolutely.

Scepti, do you still stand by this being reality?
Anyone , even you, can easily test this and see that you are wrong. Obviously being wrong is not going to change your mind. So carry on arguing all you like but no sensible person is ever going to agree with you. You seem to think there are silent observers of this thread that may agree with you, there are not.

Yep, I still stand by it, as long as people understand that the tube is just that. A simple dark tube with no lens.

Just to be crystal clear. You're saying that through the regular old tube (no lens) you can only see the tube diameter's worth of the tree - Just the black rectangle area of the trunk (See image) - Nothing else?

No, that's not what I'm saying.
You'll see some or all of the tree and more depending on your distance of view through that tube.....but....it will......be.....compressed into ......that......one.....inch.....diameter......tube....to......your.......vision.

Ok, so why can’t you see the ground right in front of the tree if you can see the whole tree?

No contradictions here....

Not my drawings.

Also try and understand compression over distance.

Not your draqings, but you agreed to them

Not your draqings, but you agreed to them

Agreed to compression over distance. Of course I did.