The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sparks0314 on September 14, 2020, 10:28:21 AM

Title: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 14, 2020, 10:28:21 AM
Hi, I'm new and definitely not smart enough to follow some of the mathematical and physical arguments that have been put forward here. I consider myself open minded, though. I have only one question:

What would it take for you to change your mind, whichever side you're on?

For me, if I went up in an airplane and saw the world flat below me, I think that would be a pretty big sign. Also if I went to Antarctica and saw the cliffs to keep me from falling off, that would certainly make me think.

I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat. I have not been to Antarctica, so I can't say for sure.

I'm just curious what others might think.

Thanks.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 14, 2020, 10:51:56 AM
Yes, it only needs enough evidence of a flat Earth for me to believe it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 14, 2020, 11:12:19 AM
I've asked and answered this question before.  I've never heard a Flat Earther answer, but maybe someone will respond this time.  I'm not a Flat Earther, but to change my mind it could be any number of things. 

Touching the dome.

Looking over the edge.

Flying out into the endless ice plain.

Reporters discovering an ISS set in Hollywood, complete with the actors and all the real ISS feeds showing reporters walking around in space on the set.

An explanation or theory that actually made any kind of sense at all. :)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 14, 2020, 12:20:11 PM
Quote
I have been in a plane, though, and the world doesn't look flat.

Have you not answered your own question to some extent then?  You have seen evidence for yourself that suggests the Earth is not flat. 

If you are open minded then you will see the potential of both sides and then make a decision about what is the most likely answer having evaluated all the evidence for and against each possible outcome. Whereas dedicated FEers will ignore all the evidence that suggests the view that the Earth is round and then make up new and unproven laws of physics to try and make the rest work for their flat Earth belief. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 14, 2020, 02:02:06 PM
Actual evidence of a flat Earth would be rather useful, such as going up high enough to see all of Earth at once, or the vast majority of the known Earth; or seeing the edge.

Other things that would go a long way to making FE more credible, but not be able to replace a RE is a single unified model which can actually explain the multitude of problems the FE currently has.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 15, 2020, 06:29:46 AM
I agree, and the silence is an answer in itself.

I've seen a video that "proves" a flat earth by showing a container ship NOT going over the horizon. I've also been to the beach and on a ship and seen, with my own eyes, ships going over the horizon, multiple times on multiple oceans.

I'm fascinated by all of this, though.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 15, 2020, 07:48:09 AM
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.

The fact that you see an horizon should absolutely verify that, at the very least we do not live on top of a globe and especially one that's supposedly rotating.

Any vision from a level scope would increase in elevation due to a downward curvature of a globe, because everywhere you looked with unobstructed view, would take you over a downward curve. We do not witness this in any way shape or form.
What we do witness is a meeting point of sea and sky or land and sky...always.

We can conclude that the oceans do not curve down.

So what would create a meeting of floor to ceiling?

The only thing I can think of is a level ocean and a concave sky.
Essentially, water wise....ocean wise, the Earth is flat.

Land wise, it is uneven terrain but essentially it is due to mountainous areas and elevations.
There is absolutely nothing Rational about the existence of a rotating globe. Nothing.....other than story telling and magical mysterious equations/composites and CGI that nobody has a clue about in reality, other than to parrot them.

Now here's the thing......nobody has to be convinced if they don't want to be....of a flat/alternate Earth....but you need to ask yourself some serious questions about the one you bought into and of which peer pressure and potential ridicule keep you on that path.

I know in my mind we do not live on a rotating globe. I'm 100% sure of that.
That's my opinion, though...but simple logic should tell most that it requires deep questioning.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 15, 2020, 08:33:16 AM
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?

But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 15, 2020, 08:42:29 AM
But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Yes, the edge should be visible.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 15, 2020, 08:57:27 AM
Okay, and if you had a less-powerful telescope, it would still be seen but blurry, because, in the same plane, it would still be in your line of sight, is that correct?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 15, 2020, 09:08:07 AM
Taking that to it's natural conclusion, there would be no time, even with your naked eyes, that there should be a clearly delineated horizon because there is always something in your plane of vision behind it. Since we both agree that there is a clear line at the horizon, then there would have to be nothing behind it. Which would be a point in favor of a curvature to the Earth, would you not agree, sceptimatic?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 15, 2020, 10:44:36 AM
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.

Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.

Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
 wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.

I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 15, 2020, 12:14:43 PM
FE is a belief system. Nothing scientific about it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 15, 2020, 12:28:13 PM
Quote
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.

Haven't you got that the wrong way round?  By my reckoning the sharply defined horizon that we see when looking out to see on a clear day is directly observable evidence that the Earth is a globe.  The horizon is created by the surface of the Earth curving away out of direct view. If the Earth was flat there would be no horizon because there would be no 'cut off' point to what we can see directly.

If you were out at sea with a clear horizon in all directions then the horizon would be the same distance from you in all directions.  That is because the rate of curvature on a sphere is the same over the whole surface area.  It also explains why the horizon is flat. Not because the Earth is flat (although that is what flat Earthers would have you believe) but because you are seeing the same distance in all directions. Flat Earthers will naturally grab hold of with both hands any apparent evidence that suggests the Earth might be flat and yell 'there you go - told you so!' but then will also fail to consider any other possible explanations for what that evidence might mean.  I believe that is what the psychologists call conformation biasing.

The evidence that would change my mind about the Earth being flat has not been produced yet.  Mainly because it is impossible to produce it.

It would probably help if flat Earthers stopped coming out with their ridiculous claims such as those about the distance and size of the Sun and Moon. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 15, 2020, 01:28:20 PM
Yeah, I don't get the "...your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe," bit. That doesn't make any sense.

In any case, what would change my mind? I'd happily change my mind if on a clear day you NEVER saw such an obstruction from a distance such as this:

(https://i.imgur.com/4Ogse6s.jpg?1)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 15, 2020, 01:58:09 PM
Here's something very simple. Very very simple.
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.
You mean if Earth was flat.
Because a flat Earth should only have a horizon as the very edge of Earth which would likely be far too far away given the limited visibility through the atmosphere which would result in a blur rather than a clear horizon.

If Earth was round (as it is), then the ability to see it would depend on the FOV.

For example, assuming the telescope is at an elevation of 2 m above sea level (and a calm sea), then the horizon would be at an angle of roughly 2.7 arc minutes.
If the FOV was smaller than twice that, the horizon would not be visible, if the FOV was larger, it would be visible.

Also note that accurate measuring devices do measure this, confirming that Earth is a globe.

That's my opinion, though...but simple logic should tell most that it requires deep questioning.
Simple logic shows that your claim is pure nonsense.
And the actual evidence available further supports that by demonstrating that Earth is a globe.

But none of that addresses the topic. That is just you trying to support a FE. What would make you accept that Earth is round?
Is it only these strawmen that you wouldn't actually expect on a RE?

But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
The limited visibility through the atmosphere would result in your view fading to a blur. On a FE, there should not be a clear horizon unless it is made of something like mountains.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 15, 2020, 10:57:50 PM
Thank you, sceptimatic, but you didn't answer my question. What would change YOUR mind, if anything?
I did answer it, sort of.
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead

But, to reply to your post: it seems to me that if I were standing anywhere with water between myself and the edge of the world, I should be able, with a sufficiently strong telescope, to see the edge, since we're on the same plane, would you not agree?
Forget about standing near any edge of the world. Let's deal with what you observe in actual reality.

I'll repeat what I said.
If you ere standing with a perfectly horizontally level scope, looking out to sea and you know the Earth should be curving downwards from your point, then over a short distance your water disappears from your scope to be replaced by sky....only (taking into account unobstructed view).

You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.

It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 15, 2020, 11:00:13 PM
Taking that to it's natural conclusion, there would be no time, even with your naked eyes, that there should be a clearly delineated horizon because there is always something in your plane of vision behind it. Since we both agree that there is a clear line at the horizon, then there would have to be nothing behind it. Which would be a point in favor of a curvature to the Earth, would you not agree, sceptimatic?
No...not at all.
You see nothing behind your horizon because your vision does not carry light farther than that. It really is a s simple as that.
The fact you see an horizon tells you you are not stood on a globe.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 15, 2020, 11:03:38 PM
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.

Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.

Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
 wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.

I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 15, 2020, 11:08:08 PM
FE is a belief system. Nothing scientific about it.
That depends on what you regard as, scientific.
Scientific research has to appeal to realism or the pursuance of realism.
Anything other than that is pseudo-science or merely story telling.
The problem is, the global model is saturated in this stuff......so.....what to believe?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 16, 2020, 12:39:40 AM
Quote
If you take a telescope and set it absolutely horizontally level and looking out to sea or a lake or any unobstructed land, then your telescopic sights should absolutely not see any horizon.....at all......if...the Earth was a globe.

Haven't you got that the wrong way round?  By my reckoning the sharply defined horizon that we see when looking out to see on a clear day is directly observable evidence that the Earth is a globe.  The horizon is created by the surface of the Earth curving away out of direct view. If the Earth was flat there would be no horizon because there would be no 'cut off' point to what we can see directly.

If you were out at sea with a clear horizon in all directions then the horizon would be the same distance from you in all directions.  That is because the rate of curvature on a sphere is the same over the whole surface area.  It also explains why the horizon is flat. Not because the Earth is flat (although that is what flat Earthers would have you believe) but because you are seeing the same distance in all directions. Flat Earthers will naturally grab hold of with both hands any apparent evidence that suggests the Earth might be flat and yell 'there you go - told you so!' but then will also fail to consider any other possible explanations for what that evidence might mean.  I believe that is what the psychologists call conformation biasing.

The evidence that would change my mind about the Earth being flat has not been produced yet.  Mainly because it is impossible to produce it.

It would probably help if flat Earthers stopped coming out with their ridiculous claims such as those about the distance and size of the Sun and Moon.
Maybe don't wait for people to produce evidence....look yourself...and if you don't want to, then stick with the indoctrinated model we were all handed on a plate.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 16, 2020, 03:17:38 AM
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
The problem is that that does not represent the globe model at all.
It is a straw-man.

It would be no better (and in fact is worse) than saying:
If I saw that Earth was made of cheese then I'd go with a flat model.
I do not see that, so by reality the flat model we are conned into, is basically, dead.

You are saying that you would only accept the reality of the round Earth if something that you would not expect for a RE is observed.

You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
No, it isn't as simple as that as you don't just see out at an infinitesimally small region. Instead you see a FOV which includes both above and below level.
And that region below includes the horizon.

But by actually comparing where level is to here the horizon is, you can see that the horizon does go below level and thus the region right at level is only sky.

e.g:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 16, 2020, 07:13:38 AM
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.

Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.

Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
 wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.

I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.

You did a good job of validating everything I've said.  You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.

It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sparks0314 on September 16, 2020, 09:48:06 AM
Thank you for your responses, scepticmatic, it is unfortunate that you're the only FEer who has responded.

I'm curious about your answer to my question, though. Do you mean to say that seeing the curvature of the Earth from a sufficient height with your own eyes would not change your mind? I don't call myself a scientist, but take me with you and show me a flat Earth and I'm yours for life.  No gadgets, no interpretations, no trusting in "faith" or "agreeing to disagree", nothing but our own eyes and what's out there. Above all, no condescension. We all have opinions. What scientists should do, if doing their jobs properly, is separate fact from opinion, no matter how unpopular that fact may be. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Earth doesn't care if we believe in it, it is.

Can you do that? Can you take me with you? Or are you just catfishing Jack (and reeling the rest of us in)?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2020, 10:48:38 AM
Quote
What would change your mind?
Nothing. Facts are facts and people should learn to deal with it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 16, 2020, 11:57:42 AM
What would change the mind of a flat Earther?  The answer is not a lot really because flat Earth is a conspiracy theory and those who support or believe in conspiracy theories rarely if ever change their minds about what they believe.

That's because the belief comes first and then they rise to the challenge of making all the evidence fit in with their belief. Some of that is easy some less so. But conspiracy theorists need one thing above anything else. They need another, larger group of people who disagree with them. That simply reinforces their belief. Because a common feature among all conspiracy theorists is the feeling of being special that comes with being part of a minority group that knows or thinks it knows something the rest of us don't.

As you will know the concept or the belief that the Earth is flat has been around for a long time at a low level.  The Internet has served to strengthen the links between believers just like it has with many other conspiracy theory followers. It provides an easily accessible, world wide and best of all completely anonymous communication channel. If you find you can connect with others who share your belief without so much as leaving your home then that helps to convince you that whatever it is you believe in is really true.  Safety in numbers you might call it.

So that takes me back to what I said at the start. What would change the mind of a flat Earth believer?  Very little I would suspect because they have already made up their minds. We can come up with whatever science based evidence we like, whatever internet links we like which provides evidence that the Earth is not flat.  The 'flat' (sorry for the punn) response to all that is that everything is faked, hoaxed or otherwise deliberately misrepresented and we are all being lied to.

In short being part of a conspiracy theory is a good way of generating a feeling of importance or power in a life which is otherwise probably rather unremarkable.  That's why you will often find comments posted which are deliberately provocative because they feed off the responses they get from them.



Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 12:46:32 PM
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard

Parallel Transport  8)


Draw out a triangle over an area

Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth

Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally

When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one

I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere  ::)

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2020, 01:01:55 PM
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard

Parallel Transport  8)


Draw out a triangle over an area

Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth

Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally

When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one

I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere  ::)
Did wise take over your account?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 16, 2020, 01:09:24 PM
Quote
Draw out a triangle over an area

How big an 'area'?  My back yard isn't huge.  So shall I take a walk down to my local park or does it need to be bigger than that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 01:18:16 PM
Quote
Draw out a triangle over an area

How big an 'area'?  My back yard isn't huge.  So shall I take a walk down to my local park or does it need to be bigger than that?

Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 16, 2020, 01:22:56 PM
You can tell the Earth is flat or curved in your own backyard

Parallel Transport  8)


Draw out a triangle over an area

Take an arrow and put tangent to the Earth

Take another arrow with you and walk the triangle. Do not rotate the arrow locally

When you reach back to your starting point if the Earth is a sphere the arrow should be rotated differently than your starting one

I tried this in my backyard and guess what. Not a sphere  ::)

Totally agree, your backyard is not a sphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 16, 2020, 01:33:43 PM
Quote
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'

My back yard is mostly a large patio area which I know is flat because when we (a friend and I) built it we made sure it was flat so it would provide a decent firm base for my home observatory among other things.  I could walk over it a million times and it would still be flat.

If it was as easy to prove the Earth is flat as you suggest then why do these forums still exist?  Surely you have provided the answer for all of us in a few lines of text.  Job done!

Please excuse me while I go an chuck all my textbooks away and report the error to the millions of websites which are all quoting the Earths shape as a sphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 01:37:03 PM
Quote
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'

My back yard is mostly a large patio area which I know is flat because when we (a friend and I) built it we made sure it was flat so it would provide a decent firm base for my home observatory among other things.  I could walk over it a million times and it would still be flat.

If it was as easy to prove the Earth is flat as you suggest then why do these forums still exist?  Surely you have provided the answer for all of us in a few lines of text.  Job done!

If you believe the Earth to be curved then even the small area of your patio must take into account the curvature of the Earth to ensure it is level and flat. My guess is that you didn't and your patio is flat. Therefore based on your patio we can conclude the Earth has no curvature  8) Job done!

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 16, 2020, 02:22:53 PM
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
The problem is that each time you turn to follow another leg of the triangle you introduce a small error, which can add up or cancel as you repeat the loop.
But I agree with Stash. Your backyard is not a sphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 02:32:54 PM
Well if your concerned it's not big enough you can walk over the area 100,000 times. I did a lap and thought 'Screw this! Looks the same to me!'
The problem is that each time you turn to follow another leg of the triangle you introduce a small error, which can add up or cancel as you repeat the loop.
But I agree with Stash. Your backyard is not a sphere.

Well the point of the test was to determine if the earth was a sphere (or spherical). The conclusion drawn from the result of the test I found was that it was not a sphere. The backyard was just the place I used for the test.

But sure, we can all agree that my backyard is not a sphere. That's something we can all agree on
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 16, 2020, 03:34:43 PM
Well the point of the test was to determine if the earth was a sphere (or spherical). The conclusion drawn from the result of the test I found was that it was not a sphere. The backyard was just the place I used for the test.

But sure, we can all agree that my backyard is not a sphere. That's something we can all agree on
But all it shows is that your backyard has insignificant curvature and thus is not a sphere.
It says nothing about the overall shape of Earth.
Someone could do the same on a hill and conclude that Earth isn't flat.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 16, 2020, 03:49:12 PM
So you mean to say that Shifter might be wrong..!  Darn it I'd better go fetch all my books out of the bin that I threw away earlier...
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 03:57:17 PM
So you mean to say that Shifter might be wrong..!  Darn it I'd better go fetch all my books out of the bin that I threw away earlier...

You already proved the earth was flat when you observed your patio being flat while not taking into account any alleged curvature of the earth in its construction
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2020, 04:06:24 PM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 04:25:09 PM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 16, 2020, 04:31:59 PM
I wondered why the floor in my living room is slightly raised in the middle. Obviously the builders didn't take the Earths curvature into account either!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 04:33:15 PM
I wondered why the floor in my living room is slightly raised in the middle. Obviously the builders didn't take the Earths curvature into account either!

That would do it! 8)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2020, 04:51:19 PM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
Question asked was “
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?”
Answer given was not pertaining to said question. Try again.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 16, 2020, 05:40:33 PM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 16, 2020, 06:12:32 PM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?


You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 16, 2020, 10:27:49 PM
If I had a level scope and looked out to sea and only saw sky with no horizon, I'd go with a global model.
I do not see that, so by reality the global model we are indoctrinated into, is basically, dead
The problem is that that does not represent the globe model at all.
It is a straw-man.

It would be no better (and in fact is worse) than saying:
If I saw that Earth was made of cheese then I'd go with a flat model.
I do not see that, so by reality the flat model we are conned into, is basically, dead.

You are saying that you would only accept the reality of the round Earth if something that you would not expect for a RE is observed.

You know in your own mind that you see water and sky. Basically your horizon that appears to suit your scope and eyesight for distance.
You clearly know you do not ever just see sky....so you should clearly understand that your Earth does not curve downwards away from you.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe too simple for the scientific one's who wish to rely on magical mysteries.
No, it isn't as simple as that as you don't just see out at an infinitesimally small region. Instead you see a FOV which includes both above and below level.
And that region below includes the horizon.

But by actually comparing where level is to here the horizon is, you can see that the horizon does go below level and thus the region right at level is only sky.

e.g:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon.jpg)
Show me a level scope looking at the level tubes. Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
However, it still does not address the issue.

The issue is simple. Very very simple.
The issue is.....there should absolutely, 100% certain, not be any horizon line....at all if we supposedly live on top of a globe.

It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, the Earth should curve downwards from your level scope sight. Earth should disappear from your level sight almost right away...and this is only standing on a beach.

If you are looking from a tower or a mountain or a plane and looking absolutely level, your Earth is gone, to be replaced by sky...only.
There would be no horizon lines.


The Earth is 100% not a globe we walk upon.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 16, 2020, 10:35:10 PM
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.

Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.

Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
 wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.

I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.

You did a good job of validating everything I've said.  You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.

It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
Pay attention and you would see what would change my mind.
As for attacking. Take a look at this post of yours.
Feel free to use any which way you feel you need to go but just remember your digs will not deflect what I'm saying. It will only strengthen it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 16, 2020, 10:44:22 PM
Thank you for your responses, scepticmatic, it is unfortunate that you're the only FEer who has responded.

I'm curious about your answer to my question, though. Do you mean to say that seeing the curvature of the Earth from a sufficient height with your own eyes would not change your mind? I don't call myself a scientist, but take me with you and show me a flat Earth and I'm yours for life.  No gadgets, no interpretations, no trusting in "faith" or "agreeing to disagree", nothing but our own eyes and what's out there. Above all, no condescension. We all have opinions. What scientists should do, if doing their jobs properly, is separate fact from opinion, no matter how unpopular that fact may be. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Earth doesn't care if we believe in it, it is.

Can you do that? Can you take me with you? Or are you just catfishing Jack (and reeling the rest of us in)?
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.

That's my proof. As for you, It's up to you to delve in and question it for yourself. You do not need me or anyone else to make you believe anything. Look at it all and if you want to delve in, you may see something that peaks your interest. If not then you stay as you are.

Either way, what you believe has no bearing on me.


Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 17, 2020, 12:18:33 AM
Quote
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.

hmmm... I must have missed all that stuff that you mention.

As for showing you...  well as soon as you write 'for me..'  that turns your statement into an opinion and an opinion is a personal view and not proof of anything.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 17, 2020, 02:22:10 AM
It might not be much, but the number would not be zero.
But it would be within the error of levelling it.

And seriously? kilokilometers?
Why not just use Mm?

Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
Otherwise, you cannot magically turn a straight line (such as a line connecting the water levels to the "horizon" for a FE), into not being straight.

So no, with that setup there is no need to have them perfectly aligned, and those photo show the horizon below eye level.
but imperceptibly so near sea level.

However, it still does not address the issue.
That, along with my previous post addressed the issue in 2 ways, first by pointing out that seeing the horizon or not is dependent upon the FOV, and showing the horizon is not at level.

The issue is.....there should absolutely, 100% certain, not be any horizon line....at all if we supposedly live on top of a globe.
WHY?
There should certainly be a horizon due to the edge of Earth. It is a Flat Earth that should never have a horizon, unless it is due to mountains or teh very edge as otherwise the limited visibility through the atmosphere would result in nothing more than a blur, similar to a very foggy day.
As for seeing it, unless you are up very high, or have a FOV of basically 0, you would expect to see it.

How about instead of just repeating the same refuted, false assertion, you actually try to justify it?
Such as by doing the math to show just how far below eye level the horizon should be, like I did for an eye at 2 m, where the horizon should be 2.7 arc minutes below level. So unless your FOV is tiny, less than 5.4 arc minutes, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE HORIZON!

It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, the Earth should curve downwards from your level scope sight. Earth should disappear from your level sight almost right away...and this is only standing on a beach.
You mean it should drop to 2.7 arc minutes below level. i.e. a tiny amount.

If you are looking from a tower or a mountain or a plane and looking absolutely level, your Earth is gone, to be replaced by sky...only.
There would be no horizon lines.
By that insanity, if you were looking at a round object, like a basketball, you shouldn't be able to see any of it unless your eye was right up against it; balls, or any round object should be invisible.
A tower 1 km tall on Earth would be equivalent to roughly 1 hair width on a basketball. So by your lack of reasoning unless your eye was within a hair's width of a basketball, it should be invisible.

That is clearly pure nonsense.

Back in reality, the angle that Earth should subtend, at a given height h is determined by:
2*arcsin(r/(r+h))

Also note that this is the same formula as for any spherical object. You could even replace r+h with the distance to the centre.

Even at an altitude of 100 km, Earth should still take up 160 degrees of your FOV.
At an altitude of 1000 km, it takes up 120 degrees.

Again, you are literally saying that the only thing you would accept to show Earth is round, is something you wouldn't expect if Earth was round, i.e. something which would show Earth is not round.
i.e. you would not accept Earth is round based upon things which show it is.

There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
Like what?
Your strawman which in no way represents what you would actually expect a round Earth to look like or produce and thus in no way proves that Earth is not a globe?
Is everything that you have seen based upon either completely misunderstanding what you would expect for a RE or knowingly pretending you would expect something you shouldn't?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 03:35:40 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 04:20:11 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!

What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?

Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?

If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then

Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 05:17:11 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!

What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?

Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?

If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then

Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.

And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.


Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 05:25:40 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!

What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?

Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?

If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then

Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.

And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.


Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.

You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 05:26:34 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!

What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?

Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?

If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then

Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.

And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.


Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.

You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 05:35:14 AM
@jackblack

Shifter/shittler is nothing but a bad troll. His only goal is to make you mad so you get banned again.

Funny enough, the mods dont mind the trolls but if you react to them in the appropriate way...enjoy your perma!

What has your opinion of me got to do with the topic at hand?

Do you have anything to add or are you yourself a low content poster troll in a bad mood?

If you feel my replies here are trolling, report the posts then

Parallel transport is an effective way to determine if your seemingly flat area has a curve. That is a fact. Facts are probably not something they teach in Sweden though so I'll try not to hold it against you
You know very well that the triangle thing does only work on a globe if you walk a certain distance which is way loger than the lenght of your tiny backyard.

And you asking me to report the posts is literally only you wanting me to break the rules so I get banned.


Tgus I conclude you are only interested in getting other people banned.

You can also walk a smaller area multiple times.
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.

Every time you get back to your starting point, your vector should be changed slightly. The more times you go around, the greater the difference should be if the Earth is curved

Obviously you're not here to contribute to the topic at hand, so I'm done schooling you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?


You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?

The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 05:52:06 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?


You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?

The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.

Well no it doesn't need to in order to build one. You can build it however sloppy you like
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 06:12:37 AM
Shifter can you please calculate me the amount of curve in your backyard on a globe scenario? How straight can you walk? How accurate are your angles when walking? Please calculate that aswell.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 06:12:50 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?

Because you said so, silly.

You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio.  You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.

You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.

So which is it?  Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply?  :)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 06:15:49 AM
Most people WANT to see some amazing evidence that reveals a whole new world that blows away current science and opens up entirely new possibilities and discoveries.

Flat Earth? That would be incredible. Hollow Earth with dinosaurs living in it? Give. FTL like Star Trek is possible? Hell yeah! If any of these were shown to be true, most people would be thrilled. How cool would that be.

Flat Earthers don't seem to feel the same, they show no interest at all in anything that doesn't support their view of a Flat Earth. No
 wonder or curiosity at what living on a massive ball flying through space would be like.

I suppose that's why these questions never get answers from them. Most Flat Earthers I've met don't WANT to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs, so can't imagine any evidence they would accept.
That's more like an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy.

You did a good job of validating everything I've said.  You haven't answered the OPs question, just launched an attack on science with your post.

It's almost as if you are unable to comprehend the actual question that was asked, which proves my point.
Pay attention and you would see what would change my mind.
As for attacking. Take a look at this post of yours.
Feel free to use any which way you feel you need to go but just remember your digs will not deflect what I'm saying. It will only strengthen it.

You're the one deflecting, when asked a simple question you ignored it and went on an anti-science rant about how the Earth is flat.

If you claim you answered the question, please quote that part, or answer it again.  Just in case you forgot, this is the question.

What evidence would convince you the Earth was round?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2020, 06:28:52 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?


You have your answer sok. Acting smug and saying 'try again' only makes you look like a male genetalia. A small petty one at that. If you can't debate with dignity and class I am done with you here
Do I need to ask easier questions?

The earth’s curve does not need to be taken into account to build a back yard concrete patio.

Well no it doesn't need to in order to build one. You can build it however sloppy you like

To parrot myself, you need to stop talking about science.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 06:29:31 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?

Because you said so, silly.

You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio.  You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.

You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.

So which is it?  Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply?  :)

Neither.


If the Earth is curved, a 10m distance of a patio that does not take into account said curve of the earth will contour the minute curve over that distance. SolarWind said his patio is flat. He never said anything about taking the alleged Earths curve in consideration when building it

Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things

His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)

Now, if the Earth is ~40K km in circumference, the actual curve across 10m will be indiscernible to the naked eye and most home owner tools. But the math wouldn't lie

Is SolarWind insists his patio is indeed flat while its construction did not take into account any alleged curve, than that is proof the Earth is flat
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 08:05:04 AM
What curvature would he have to take into account on a round earth?

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

Going by that logic, if the Earth was flat, it would be impossible to build anything that curved.  ::)

That's silly. Of course you still could. Why not?

Because you said so, silly.

You stated above that if the Earth is round and you build a patio there will be a curve on the patio.  You are saying that you can't build anything flat on a curved surface, and if that's true, you can't build curved objects on flat surfaces either.

You can't have it both ways, you can either build shapes however you see fit, or everything has to conform to the surface it's built on.

So which is it?  Were you wrong in your first post or wrong in your reply?  :)

Neither.


If the Earth is curved, a 10m distance of a patio that does not take into account said curve of the earth will contour the minute curve over that distance. SolarWind said his patio is flat. He never said anything about taking the alleged Earths curve in consideration when building it

Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things

His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)

Now, if the Earth is ~40K km in circumference, the actual curve across 10m will be indiscernible to the naked eye and most home owner tools. But the math wouldn't lie

Is SolarWind insists his patio is indeed flat while its construction did not take into account any alleged curve, than that is proof the Earth is flat

You need to learn how to build things. You don't need to take into account the curve of the Earth to build a flat 10 meter patio. We have these marvelous things called measuring devices that can use to easily make you a flat surface. Doesn't matter is the Earth is round, flat or a squiggly line, a laser level is going to make it flat regardless of what the shape under it is.

Perhaps you should take some woodworking courses. :)

And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 08:10:47 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 17, 2020, 08:11:49 AM
Quote
There's plenty of stuff out there that verifies the Earth is not a globe we walk upon.
As for showing you....hmmm.....I've explained some basic stuff that, for me, is simple in proving what I said.

hmmm... I must have missed all that stuff that you mention.

As for showing you...  well as soon as you write 'for me..'  that turns your statement into an opinion and an opinion is a personal view and not proof of anything.
It depends on what you regard as proof.
What I've mentioned , is an opinion of mine, you are correct on that but it's also a proof to myself that I would never change my mind to go back to following a global indoctrinated model.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 08:14:24 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 08:23:17 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?


Sigh

Lets scale it up to 1000km then

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space

Comprehend?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 08:25:04 AM
What evidence would convince you the Earth was round?
Nothing, because shifter already knows and believes the earth is round. He is just one of the pretend-to-be flatearthers.


He knows exactely why his 'experiments' are wrong (I mean it's quite obvious).
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 08:25:49 AM
Shifter can you please calculate me the amount of curve in your backyard on a globe scenario? How straight can you walk? How accurate are your angles when walking? Please calculate that aswell.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 17, 2020, 08:32:40 AM
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.

However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining  in downward curve.
Basically you can never see any horizon line. It would be impossible on your globe.

We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
Without arguing for whatever alternate Earth there  may be, I can conclude with 100% confidence, we do not live on a globe and especially a spinning one.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 08:38:27 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?


Sigh

Lets scale it up to 1000km then

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space

Comprehend?

So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.

I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh.  ::)

If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio.  You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.

It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 08:41:57 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?


Sigh

Lets scale it up to 1000km then

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space

Comprehend?

So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.

I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh.  ::)

If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio.  You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.

It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)

Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat

Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 17, 2020, 08:58:42 AM
I am no longer that interested in the original topic, but as long as Sweden gets bashed, I am a happy camper!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 09:15:45 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?


Sigh

Lets scale it up to 1000km then

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space

Comprehend?

So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.

I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh.  ::)

If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio.  You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.

It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)

Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat

Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh

Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)

The red line is curved.

The blue lines are flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)

I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 09:23:21 AM
And I did the math for you.  A 10 meter patio is going to drop by 0.000002 meters at the edge. That's 50 to 100 times thinner than a human hair.

Indeed. So if the Earth is curved, SolarWinds patio is not so flat then.

Maybe you need to take basic English classes for reading comprehension too. :)

Did you miss the part where I said you don't NEED to take the Earths curve into account to build a flat 10 meter patio? It doesn't matter in the slightest. A laser level is going to work fine no matter what the shape of the ground under it is.

What part of basic construction methods confuses you?


Sigh

Lets scale it up to 1000km then

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space

Comprehend?

So now were changing the goalposts and talking about a 1000km patio? Fine.

I'm not sure why you seem so surprised that if you point a laser off into space instead of at the target, it won't hit the target. Duh.  ::)

If you actually aim the laser at the target, you can now build a flat patio.  You might have to do a lot of digging to get line of sight, but the laser will still go straight and you can build your nice 1000km flat patio.

It doesn't matter what shape the Earth is, it's not THAT hard to understand how to make something flat. :)

Not shifting the goalposts at all. I only 'scaled it up' as an example to show you what I meant by flat. Maybe you and I had differing views on what, how or why is flat

Why are you so grumpy? Sheesh

Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)

The red line is curved.

The blue lines are flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)

I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)

Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: fmax on September 17, 2020, 10:44:13 AM
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth. 

Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of.  "There's the hurricane."  "There was the Beirut explosion."   "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory."  "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."   

China has rovers on the dark side of the moon.  Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night". 

Those examples would be hard to refute. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 17, 2020, 11:04:48 AM
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.

However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth. 

Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of.  "There's the hurricane."  "There was the Beirut explosion."   "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory."  "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."   

China has rovers on the dark side of the moon.  Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night". 

Those examples would be hard to refute.

You can get very close to this right now.

The DSCOVR sits a million miles away from the Earth and takes high resolution pictures every hour.  You can view these images on the NASA website.

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Or from a closer perspective, actual live video from the ISS.  Even better, you can wait until the ISS is passing overhead and look up and see it while you watch the live feed.

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 11:16:38 AM
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)

The red line is curved.

The blue lines are flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)

I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)

Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?

If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.

So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.

The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 11:23:46 AM
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)

The red line is curved.

The blue lines are flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)

I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)

Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?

If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.

So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.

The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.

Indeed and is not what I was talking about at all

The 1000km patio is on the surface. Obviously. So from one end to the other, it will obviously not be 'flat'.  It will curve around the surface of the Earth if the Earth is curved. Geez, it's not that hard to follow ::)

To
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 17, 2020, 11:33:54 AM
I see my patio example is causing a bit of debate here.  So I take a 4 ft decking post and then dig a hole so that it rises above the ground level 2 ft.  I then take a 2nd post, dig a hole and place it in the ground a couple of metres away.  I then place a beam on top of the two posts and place a spirit level in the centre of the beam.  I then lightly knock each of the posts until the spirit level shows the bridging beam is completely level. With the posts secure and the tops of the posts all level with each other I secure them with concrete.

I then continue this pattern until I have a series of posts secured in the ground, the tops of which are all dead level with each other.  Finally I connect all the posts with a framework of beams so that they are all flush with the tops of the beams.

How does any of this provide any clues about the shape of the surface of the entire planet?  Simple answer.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 11:39:59 AM
Well, if you have your own personal definition of words like 'flat' then that might be your problem. :)

The red line is curved.

The blue lines are flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/QiLV2Gq.png)

I'm curious what you mean when you say flat. :)

Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?

If you cover the surface of a curve, you get a curved surface.

So no, a 'patio' that went all the way around the Earth would not be flat, it would be curved.

The 1000km 'patio' you described would look like one of the blue lines, slicing straight through the earth if you connected the two points.

Indeed and is not what I was talking about at all

The 1000km patio is on the surface. Obviously. So from one end to the other, it will obviously not be 'flat'.  It will curve around the surface of the Earth if the Earth is curved. Geez, it's not that hard to follow ::)

To

You are very confused.

If your patio follows the red line, it's curved and not flat.

If your patio follows a blue line, it's flat.

It's not that hard to understand.  I even gave you a picture.  ;)

Do you understand yet how you can build a flat patio on a curved surface?  It doesn't matter what the shape is under it.  Just use a laser, build along that line and it's flat.  Simple.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 11:55:46 AM
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS

If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too

Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.

PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.

The OP 'What would change your mind?'

My answer was simply if parallel tracking would show a different vector to what you start with if you walk an area such as drawing out a triangle

(https://i1.wp.com/www.thephysicsmill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/measuring_angles.png)

Anyway, PM me if you want to continue this boring nonsense
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 12:25:53 PM
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS

If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too

Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.

PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.

You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not.  Remember, this is where we started.

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.

If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.

Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.

Do you see the difference between flat and curved now?  The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.

You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that.  You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier.  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 17, 2020, 01:05:38 PM
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS

If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too

Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.

PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.

You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not.  Remember, this is where we started.

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.

If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.

Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.

Do you see the difference between flat and curved now?  The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.

You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that.  You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier.  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)

You're still misrepresenting what I said. Clearly you only do it for the audience because there is no PM from you.  I'm done with your trolling. POQ
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 01:15:33 PM
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS

If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too

Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.

PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.

The OP 'What would change your mind?'

My answer was simply if parallel tracking would show a different vector to what you start with if you walk an area such as drawing out a triangle

(https://i1.wp.com/www.thephysicsmill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/measuring_angles.png)

Anyway, PM me if you want to continue this boring nonsense
Is your garden as big as the triangle in your picture?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 17, 2020, 01:25:54 PM
Stop misrepresenting what I say with your own BS

If the surface of the Earth is curved, then a patio will follow the curve of the earth making it not exactly flat if you observe it from afar. Sure it may look flat from a human perspective. I suppose a bacteria would think the surface of an orange is pretty flat too

Your picture is a 2D circle. Not a 3D sphere.

PM me if you want to continue talking about it. I'm done with you boring the crap out of this thread. You obviously dont care to participate in good faith. Stop with this side tracking nonsense.

You said a patio will follow the curve of the Earth, and all of this is just to show you that no it does not.  Remember, this is where we started.

Well if the earth was round spheroid close to 40K km across and you had a patio that was 10m2, there will be a curve across that 10m.

If you build a patio all the way around the Earth following the curve, you get a curved patio.

If you build a flat patio, you get a flat patio.

Here is an example of a very large, flat patio built on the Earth.

Do you see the difference between flat and curved now?  The red line above is curved, the blue lines are flat.

You can also build a 10m flat patio just like that.  You can just ignore the 0.000002 meter drop a lot easier.  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/i7A4R5h.png)

You're still misrepresenting what I said. Clearly you only do it for the audience because there is no PM from you.  I'm done with your trolling. POQ

Funny, didn't you start this whole patio debate as a troll in the first place? :P

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I directly quoted what you said.  You claimed that his patio had to match the curvature (or lack of) of the Earth, which is total nonsense.  A patio being flat or not doesn't prove anything about the shape of the surface it's sitting on. You can make it any shape you want.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept.

If I make a car, does it have to conform to the shape of the factory? Square factories make square cars? Round factories make round cars?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2020, 01:39:49 PM
If I make a car, does it have to conform to the shape of the factory? Square factories make square cars? Round factories make round cars?
Well said, mate!
Maybe now even shittler will understand it, but tbh I doubt it. Even simple drawings seem to confuse him.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 17, 2020, 02:24:00 PM
Please make a drawing of that. You know exactely it doesnt work like that.
Assuming you do it perfectly, and the surface is perfectly spherical, it does work like that.
The angle sum of the triangle is given by:
A=pi + A*K, where K is the curvature, for a sphere equal to 1/r^2.
So for Earth's ~6371000 m radius, the curvature is ~2.4*10-14 m-2.

So if you covered an area of 100 m2, the spherical excess would be ~2.5*10-12 radians, or ~5.1*10-7 arcseconds.

That means if you took a bar along that path, it would have appeared to rotate by ~5.1*10-7 arc seconds, compared to how it started.
If you did it 1 billion times, it would have appeared to rotate by ~0.14 degrees.
If you did it 1 trillion times, it would have appeared to rotate by ~140 degrees.

In practice, it doesn't work like that.
Each time you turn the corner you likely introduce a small error in the angle, and the surface is likely not a perfect shear. If it is irregular then instead of just using the Gaussian curvature of a sphere, you need to integrate over the area, including the Gaussian curvature of all of it.

For example, with the simple extreme case of an almost perfect cube (which is topologically equivalent to a sphere) with an extremely large Gaussian curvature at the corners (due to the edges and corners being rounded ever so slightly to avoid having sharp edges with infinite curvature) and a Gaussian curvature of 0 elsewhere, then for most of the surface it has an excess of 0 degrees, but each corner you include in the shape gives an excess of 90 degrees.


Therefore we can conclude one of 2 things

His patio is not as flat as he says (Earth is curved)
His patio is flat like he says (Earth is flat)
And by that lack of reasoning we can conclude that any round surface shows Earth is round.

In order to claim otherwise you need to explain a flat patio could not be constructed on a round Eath.

If the Earth is curved then the end of one end of the patio would not line up with the end of the other end. Take your laser and hold it 1cm off the ground and put a target on the other end of the patio 1cm off the ground. If the Earth is curved, the laser will not hit the target but shoot off into space
Comprehend?
That is if it is level, not flat.
If you construct it flat, then it does.
Flat and level are different.
You can construct a flat object which is not level.
Comprehend?

If you would like an example, consider LIGO.
An object which was constructed to be "flat", in the sense that the light paths are straight, rather than following the curvature of Earth's surface.
This could have been constructed in one of 2 ways and achieve the same result.
The simplest and fastest (due to the large size) is to account for the curvature and terrain of Earth so construction can begin everywhere. Each location can know how far down to dig and go much faster than the latter method. Then precision alignment only occurs at the final stage.
The more time consuming is to start building in one location, and then align everything to it. This works regardless of the shape of Earth, it just means if you didn't dig down far enough at the first spot, you need to dig further down and scrap most of the effort put in.

Imagine paving the surface of that entire red line (outer shell of the Earth) so the whole thing is a patio. Is the patio 'flat'?
But that isn't what anyone suggested.
Instead it is just a small patio. Why can't that small patio be flat?

I see my patio example is causing a bit of debate here.  So I take a 4 ft decking post and then dig a hole so that it rises above the ground level 2 ft.  I then take a 2nd post, dig a hole and place it in the ground a couple of metres away.  I then place a beam on top of the two posts and place a spirit level in the centre of the beam.  I then lightly knock each of the posts until the spirit level shows the bridging beam is completely level. With the posts secure and the tops of the posts all level with each other I secure them with concrete.

I then continue this pattern until I have a series of posts secured in the ground, the tops of which are all dead level with each other.  Finally I connect all the posts with a framework of beams so that they are all flush with the tops of the beams.
In that case, assuming it is done perfectly, it is level, not flat.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 17, 2020, 02:39:10 PM
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
In order to have a straight line, such as a line connecting the water level, along with a horizon at the same level, you need to have a camera with significant distortion, distortion which bends straight lines into curves.
So distortion is exactly what you need to escape that proving Earth is round.

Without distortion, if the horizon was at level, rather than below level, you would be able to draw a straight line connecting the 2 visible water levels and continue it to the horizon.
The fact you cannot combined with the lack of any significant distortion, means the horizon is clearly below eye level in the high altitude pictures.

However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.
What you said is worthless, as you are providing nothing to justify it and ignoring the math which refutes you.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
Again, that is equivalent to saying that if you are even a short distance away from a spherical object, like a ball, you would only see anything other than objects around it.
It is pure nonsense.
The math clearly shows you are wrong.

Even at a distance of 100 km, Earth will still take up 160 degrees and thus only will be 10 degrees below level (with the 10 degrees in front and the 10 degrees behind you adding to the 160 degrees Earth takes up to give you 180 degrees), so if your FOV is greater than 10 degrees, YOU WOULD SEE THE HORIZON even when looking straight out (i.e. level).

I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining  in downward curve.
Again, this assumes a FOV of 0, which is never observed in reality.
If instead your vertical FOV is 90 degrees, and we ignore the curve for a minute, and your eye level was 2 m (above the ground/sea), that means you see the ground/sea 2 m in front of you.

Perhaps a picture will make it easier for you to understand (or just further ignore):
(https://i.imgur.com/WPmwK6u.png)
That is an example of a person, who unlike your mythical example, actually has a vertical FOV.
Notice how the horizon is within their FOV?

So no, it is very much possible to see the horizon on a globe.

We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
No, we don't.
We clearly see the horizon is below eye level, with the amount below getting larger as you get higher and higher, clearly refuting a flat Earth, and matching quite well with a globe.
So, you cannot honestly and rationally conclude with any confidence that we do not live on a globe based upon that.
You could only conclude that we don't based upon a dishonest and irrational misrepresentation of what you would expect on a globe, combined with ignoring the available evidence.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 17, 2020, 03:22:51 PM
A (live) webcast from the moon showing Earth. 

Something any of us can tune into real time of see replay of.  "There's the hurricane."  "There was the Beirut explosion."   "There was the fireball crashing into Russian territory."  "New Year's Eve fireworks over Sydney look so small from the Moon..."
There is EPIC on DSCOVR which takes a picture of Earth multiple times throughout the day, which you can either collect directly when the satellite transmits that image back to Earth, or access on a few different websites.
I also highly doubt you would see things like fireworks from the Moon, probably not even the Beirut explosion.
With such distance, everything is tiny.

Assuming you want to capture the entire globe some ~12750 km accross, and stream in back in 1080p, each pixel would be roughly 6 km wide.
The fireball from the Beirut explosion wouldn't even cover a single pixel. And that is assuming the camera is large enough to not be diffraction limited, and also that you have the equipment to stream back 1080p footage.
That is expensive to launch. 10s of thousands of dollars per kg.

China has rovers on the dark side of the moon.  Outfit the next rover with an LED spotlight, drive from the dark side to the visible side and flash Morse Code to Earth during a "moonless night".
I assume by "dark side" you mean far side?
Then the question is how bright do you want it?
There are a few ways to do the calculation.

As a simple calculation, assume you want 1 uW / m2 (As a comparison, a fairly low power LED would operate at a few 10s of mW.
When viewed at 10 m, and assuming the light actually goes in all directions, instead of a small cone, that corresponds to a power of roughly 8 uW/m^2
So if you just want 1 uW/m^2, to cover all of Earth, you need a total of roughly 127 MW.
Because you want it done when the moon is in darkness, you can't use solar panels.

Also, the solar panels of the ISS provide roughly 100 kW, so you would need 1000 times that.

Using such power would also require extensive cooling.

Another option is to just consider how far away you can see such an LED from at night. So assuming you can see a simple 1 mW LED from 100 m away, then to see it from roughly 400 000 km away, noting that intensity follows an inverse square law, that distance is 4000000 times the 10 m, and thus requires a power of 16 GW.
This is much larger now as a large portion of that light would be going away from Earth. So you need a quite well focused spotlight, which projects a beam only 1.8 degrees wide, to keep the power low.

While the idea sounds simple, just strapping an LED light on a rover; it is actually a lot more complex to pull off, requiring multiple high power LED lights, and a system of lenses to focus them into a tight beam, and a large power generation unit (or large power storage unit along with large power generation from solar), and a cooling system. It is quite impractical.
And what gains would it get us?
How would you know it was from the Moon and not from a balloon or satellite?

Personally, if I saw such a thing, I would be inclined to think it is fake from the impracticality of it and that would cast doubt on everything to do with missions to the moon, at least if done by an official agency like NASA or ESA.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 17, 2020, 10:39:37 PM
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.

However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.

Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 17, 2020, 10:59:22 PM
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.
In order to have a straight line, such as a line connecting the water level, along with a horizon at the same level, you need to have a camera with significant distortion, distortion which bends straight lines into curves.
So distortion is exactly what you need to escape that proving Earth is round.

Without distortion, if the horizon was at level, rather than below level, you would be able to draw a straight line connecting the 2 visible water levels and continue it to the horizon.
The fact you cannot combined with the lack of any significant distortion, means the horizon is clearly below eye level in the high altitude pictures.

You cannot have your horizon below eye level. Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
The horizon is a convergence as far as your eye/scope can see. Its where the light from both floor and ceiling returns last light to your eyes.

For this to happen you must have that meeting point and you cannot have it on top of a globe that always curves downwards from your vision. It is impossible and is why the Earth is bot a globe, just by this simple view.




Quote from: JackBlack
No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.
Again, that is equivalent to saying that if you are even a short distance away from a spherical object, like a ball, you would only see anything other than objects around it.
It is pure nonsense.
We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
Let's deal with feet on the ball, not floating in your space looking at a supposed ball or looking at a ball on  a table...because you know fine well this is not placing any reality on what I've just explained.



Quote from: JackBlack
I'll make this easier.
If you stand up and have the scope at eye level and the scope horizontally level on a beach (for instance)... then immediately you are above the beach, meaning you will not see that beach because that beach is below you.
From that point your Earth should curve downwards, meaning, your immediate 5/6 feet worth of eye level sight is already moving horizontally into the distance while the sea should be gaining  in downward curve.
Again, this assumes a FOV of 0, which is never observed in reality.
If instead your vertical FOV is 90 degrees, and we ignore the curve for a minute, and your eye level was 2 m (above the ground/sea), that means you see the ground/sea 2 m in front of you.

Perhaps a picture will make it easier for you to understand (or just further ignore):
(https://i.imgur.com/WPmwK6u.png)
That is an example of a person, who unlike your mythical example, actually has a vertical FOV.
Notice how the horizon is within their FOV?

So no, it is very much possible to see the horizon on a globe.
I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
Are those lines spanning out horizontally and angled left and right of the person's view or is one looking through the solid Earth and one looking directly into the sky?



Quote from: JackBlack
We clearly do see a convergence which is our very own horizon line to our very own sight.
No, we don't.
We clearly see the horizon is below eye level, with the amount below getting larger as you get higher and higher, clearly refuting a flat Earth, and matching quite well with a globe.
So, you cannot honestly and rationally conclude with any confidence that we do not live on a globe based upon that.
You could only conclude that we don't based upon a dishonest and irrational misrepresentation of what you would expect on a globe, combined with ignoring the available evidence.
You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Your eyes are convex and they bring in floor to ceiling convergence of light. It cannot be anything other than eye level.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 17, 2020, 11:20:28 PM
Those tubes can be looked upon to take them out of horizon line. You know this.
Not unless there is significant distortion from the camera.
No, it doesn't need any distortion of any camera.
What it does need is a camera that is set level to the level of the tube water levels and then you would see a level horizon to those marks.

However, like I said.....it doesn't prove a globe, it proves the opposite.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

How much of a short distance? And what are the dimensions of your earth?
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.

Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:

(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)

Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)

 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 12:17:31 AM
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.

Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:

(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)

We are not talking about naked eye. I've highlighted what I said.
However, even with the naked eye you would see very little of the ground and horizontal spread before it was lost, in short order.
However, we are dealing with a level scope in how I explained it.

Now here's the key with your pictures.
The reality would be number 3 picture if Earth was a globe we walk upon.


Quote from: Stash
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.


If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.

Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 18, 2020, 12:50:28 AM
Like, immediately underfoot if you are stood up.
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.

Every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on a globe.
We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this exact argument. It's an odd one, but let's go with it. I like odd. Using just your natural optics (eyeballs), standing at a shoreline, about 1.7 m height, looking straight out, based upon your knowledge of conventional globe earth geometry, what would you see if the earth were a globe. A, B, or C:

(https://i.imgur.com/o86re6o.jpg)

We are not talking about naked eye. I've highlighted what I said.
However, even with the naked eye you would see very little of the ground and horizontal spread before it was lost, in short order.
However, we are dealing with a level scope in how I explained it.

Now here's the key with your pictures.
The reality would be number 3 picture if Earth was a globe we walk upon.

Scope, no scope - Doesn't matter. Eyes are level. Either way one can see just as much horizontally as vertically.

Why would the ground be lost in short order? How quickly do you calculate that the conventional round earth model dips from where you are standing on the shoreline? Are you familiar with the conventional model? Because it sounds like you are not. Which is fine. But you perpetually go on and on about how no one gets your model and we're all indoctrinated sheep. Whereas it seems by your "logic" here, you're just as indoctrinated into your own model so much so that you have no clue how the globe model you so loathe even works. That's why I said your argument is so odd. Because it literally doesn't even account for what the conventional model is.

Quote from: Stash
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.

I'll say, another odd explanation. There are many examples that are not over water, but over land. Like the bottom parts of mountains one should be able to see, but are obscured when they shouldn't be. Mountain ranges where much higher peaks are actually lower in view than the shorter ones in the foreground. (I'll dig some up) So no, it's not a "light back" phenomenon or whatever it is you call it.

If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.

According to conventional globe earth theory, how much lean and at what distance?

Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.

Got it. But so far, that's really all you have said and presented, "Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon." Good for you. But that's not evidence. With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 18, 2020, 01:59:09 AM
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Once more, only with a FOV of 0.
Also, considering you insist on going down this path of insanity, the same applies to a FE, unless it stretches on for an infinite distance (at which point the horizon would be obscured by the atmosphere). So on a FE, you likewise you shouldn't see it.
After all, the ground is below you. How does it magically fly up to get to eye level?
Surely with this path of insanity, Earth must be curved with us on the inside of a bowl.
Note that this bowl must go to exactly eye level, regardless of where you are, as otherwise, you would just see land, and no sky at all.

We do not see this because the Earth is not a globe.
It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
Except we do see it, with the angle of dip to the horizon increasing (so the horizon appears lower) the higher you go.
We also see it with distant objects being obscured from the bottom up.

It's so simple but is brushed aside because it immediately kills the globe pseudo-science, dead in the water. (pardon the pun).
You mean it is repeatedly refuted as it in no way actually describes what you would actually expect to see on a RE, with these refutations repeatedly brushed aside as they so simply show your strawmen in no way refutes the globe and when you do it properly, what we observe actually matches the globe.


You cannot have your horizon below eye level.
Then how is it repeatedly observed to be and measured to be below eye level?

Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
How?
How do your eyes magically a horizon, and why is it eye level? Why not just whatever direction you look?
The horizon sure seems to behave more as a physical edge of Earth.

It has nothing to do with convergence, as that requires it to be infinitely far away, not the few km away that is typically observed at.
The fact that it appears below eye level, also shows that.

If you look at a long corridor, the hall and ceiling doesn't magically converge. Instead they end at a hall.
The only 2 ways to have them converge, is if they curve or if they are infinitely long.

If you would like a picture of what happens when you visibility is limited such that you can't see forever, here are some from wikimedia commons of dense fog:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dense_fog_at_hill_station.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Light_vessel_Sula_in_dense_fog_at_Gloucester.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Costa_Pacifica_departing_Tallinn_in_dense_fog_18_May_2013.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halong_Bay_in_dense_fog.jpg

Notice how you don't see a clear horizon and instead it just fades to a blur?

The sole reason you see a horizon on Earth, is due to the curvature of Earth.

And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.

We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
But it is equivalent.
You are saying you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent if you look at a ball, you see no ball, because you are too far away so it curves away and you don't see it.

Because the only 2 ways you can try to claim that we can only see sky and be remotely honest and rational is to claim that the FOV of 0 (and thus you don't really see anything) or if you claim that literally all you see is sky with no Earth at all. After all, if it moves down and away so fast so that all you can see is sky, why would looking down help?

The only way out (to claim hat you can see the ball) is to admit that the ball actually takes up a region of your FOV, and then see just how much it takes up and thus where it would be compared to looking out "level", which as already done for Earth at 2 m, means Earth would appear 2.7 arc minutes below level, clearly visible, and basically indistinguishable from eye level.

So how about we deal with what I have explained, rather than continuing with your deflection?

Do you accept that Earth will take up a portion of your FOV? For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
If so:
What portion, i.e what angle out of the 360 degrees that make up that FOV?
Where are the edges of Earth, i.e. at what angle, measured from directly in front of you, do the edges of Earth appear at, i.e. how far down do you have to look to see the horizon?

See if you can actually answer these simple questions, because that is what an honest, rational attack on the RE would require; actually showing what angles you would expect the horizon for a RE to appear at

I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
I thought that was fairly clear, but I will spell it out more.
This is a side on view, of Earth, with a person (or object) on it looking out level.
The blue circle represents Earth.
The purple line represents the person.
The 2 orange lines represent the vertical FOV of the person/camera/whatever.
The region between the 2 orange lines is what the person is able to see (until it is obstructed by something in that FOV).

And before you say that is a large FOV, not just a small one near level, that corresponds to someone with an eye 225 km above Earth.

If you really want, I can make you a diagram for someone 2 m above Earth, and 1 km above Earth, showing just how small the FOV needs to be to see the horizon.

You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Rather than just repeating the same assertion, can you justify that at all, and actually deal with the logical implications.
Your eyes do not magically converge light. They just see outwards at angles.
The horizon can be anywhere, just like the edge of a ball can be anywhere.

Likewise, you repeatedly asserting Earth is not a globe, while you reject the evidence that shows it is, and cling to a strawman which in no way matches the globe, doesn't help your case at all and just shows how much you reject reality.

If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
You mean they would lean back by an imperceptible amount, with the curvature of Earth hiding them from the bottom up, just like we observe, as if Earth actually is a globe?

If Earth was flat, we would see them standing upright, from their base to their tip, without any hidden by the water below them.

If it was just us not seeing the light, it would be a region of darkness. It wouldn't magically join the sea to the land removing part of it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 03:18:26 AM
Scope, no scope - Doesn't matter. Eyes are level. Either way one can see just as much horizontally as vertically.
Nope, not at all.
The atmospheric stacking system puts paid to that but you haven't got to grips with that,
However, you do understand that atmosphere becomes less dense the higher you go, which also includes the higher you see, as opposed to eye level denser atmosphere.

Quote from: Stash

Why would the ground be lost in short order? How quickly do you calculate that the conventional round earth model dips from where you are standing on the shoreline?
Not obscured......straight away.


Quote from: Stash

 Are you familiar with the conventional model? Because it sounds like you are not. Which is fine. But you perpetually go on and on about how no one gets your model and we're all indoctrinated sheep. Whereas it seems by your "logic" here, you're just as indoctrinated into your own model so much so that you have no clue how the globe model you so loathe even works. That's why I said your argument is so odd. Because it literally doesn't even account for what the conventional model is.

I'm familiar with the nonsense handed out for it, yes. It's the very reason why it makes no sense when looked at without indoctrinated glasses on.
Quote from: Stash
Quote from: Stash
Bonus round question, on a flat earth, why are all of the bottoms of the buildings obscured by the water on a flat earth:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmixjTa.png)

Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon and so, with it having a flat/level floor (sea) and (in my opinion) a concave sky (dome) and that The light back to our vision creates our very own horizon and vanishing point.
The reason for this is the light back to our vision, as I said and soooo, we lose the least brightest of that returned light which happens to be the densest area, which is the sea and retain more of the light from the sky, leaving buildings looking like they sink into the sea.


I'll say, another odd explanation. There are many examples that are not over water, but over land. Like the bottom parts of mountains one should be able to see, but are obscured when they shouldn't be. Mountain ranges where much higher peaks are actually lower in view than the shorter ones in the foreground. (I'll dig some up) So no, it's not a "light back" phenomenon or whatever it is you call it.
We are talking impossible horizon line on your global Earth....but, if you want to go into the mountain stuff, then let's look at it and show me what you mean.

Quote from: Stash

If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
According to conventional globe earth theory, how much lean and at what distance?
We can argue 8 inches per mile squared...but, it doesn't matter. The reality would be a lean back of anything that is curving downwards and away from your vision.
What you would not see at distance is buildings standing vertically true on your global Earth. Surely you must understand that.

Quote from: Stash

Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon.

Got it. But so far, that's really all you have said and presented, "Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon." Good for you. But that's not evidence.
Actually that dig is worthless, so deal with what I put forward.

Quote from: Stash

 With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
All I need to know is what should be logical. Global Earth shows nothing logical....especially the very basic observations of which I've just explained.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 18, 2020, 03:57:44 AM
Crap, forgot the ”atmospheric stacking system”.

Well, there are new users, sceptimatic can show them the path.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 18, 2020, 04:06:05 AM
I'm familiar with the nonsense handed out for it, yes. It's the very reason why it makes no sense when looked at without indoctrinated glasses on.
Do you mean the nonsense handed out by indoctrinated FEers like you, which in no way actually respresents the RE model you claim to be attacking?
Or do you mean the non-nonsense, the stuff which actually makes sense, which is provided by honest, rational people that actually indicates what the RE model should have happen?

We are talking impossible horizon line on your global Earth....but, if you want to go into the mountain stuff, then let's look at it and show me what you mean.
Stop just repeating the same baseless garbage.
Again, there is nothing impossible about the horizon on the very real round Earth. The horizon is an edge of Earth.
You are yet to provide a valid reason for why it can't be seen on a RE.
Again, do you think you can't see the edge of a ball?
If not, why shouldn't you be able to see the horizon on a RE?

If your only objection is its location, then how about actually answering the extremely simple question you need to avoid to pretend there is a problem for the RE?
Tell us exactly where the horizon, the edge of Earth, should appear, for a RE, if you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Again, saying you can't see it is equivalent to saying you cannot see the edge of a ball.


We can argue 8 inches per mile squared...but, it doesn't matter.
Oh no, it does matter, very much.
That is because over roughly 5 km, the distance to the horizon when you stand 2 m above Earth, Earth would drop a mere 6.4 ft. Putting the horizon at ~ 4 m below your eye level, which at 5 km, amounts to 2.75 arc minutes. i.e. the horzion would be only a tiny bit below eye level.

This dip causes the bottom of buildings to disappear.
Unlike the FE, RE actually has an explanation for why objects disappear from the bottom up.

The reality would be a lean back of anything that is curving downwards and away from your vision.
A completely imperceptible lean.

For example, even at an extreme 400 km distance, that is only roughly 1% of the way around Earth and would only amount to 3.6 degrees.
And remember, this angle is measured in the one direction you cannot easily see just by your eyes alone.

Actually that dig is worthless, so deal with what I put forward.
Your nonsense has been dealt with, repeatedly; with you just repeating the same false, refuted assertions.
How about you start dealing with what we have put forwards?
Such as why the horizon is observed to be below eye level in the photos I provided?
Such as how at 2 m above Earth, for a RE, the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, and thus well within your FOV when looking out level?
Such as how your nonsense would require balls to be invisible, with no edge and with you only see stuff around them?

All I need to know is what should be logical.
And what you are spouting is not. There is nothing logical about what you have said.
You repeatedly ignoring refutations, including those involving math, and avoiding extremely simple questions shows that.
You are clinging to a completely illogical strawman to dismiss the RE.
Your nonsense is no more logical than saying Earth can't be flat because it isn't made of cheese, or that merry go rounds at a carnival can't be spinning, because if they were the kids would fly straight off the horses and be killed.

Logic dictates that Earth, being a visible object, MUST take up a portion of your FOV, unless all the lines of sight to it are obstructed.
Thus logic dictates that if you are looking out level, and your FOV is large enough, you WILL see the horizon, that is the edge of the round Earth, the line separating Earth from sky.
Saying it can't be seen because the ground is below you and bends away is not logical at all.

If you wish to claim you are using logic, then start addressing the extremely simple questions. If you were using logic, it would be easy to address.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 18, 2020, 04:07:26 AM
Septimatic, you are smaller than you think, compared to the surface of the earth.

You say every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on the globe, yes?

The earth curves an average of 1 inch per 200 meters. That's half an inch per 100 meters. That means the earth curves an average of 0.0001270003 of an inch every inch.

Unless you are a germ living on the earth' surface, Septic, (and I'm not saying you're not) chances are you are not going to notice the curvature.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM
Once you are stood up with your scope at eye level and scope horizontally level, then that scope is already above the curve and you would immediately be looking at sky....nothing else, if looking out towards sea with unobstructed view of structures.
Once more, only with a FOV of 0.
Also, considering you insist on going down this path of insanity, the same applies to a FE, unless it stretches on for an infinite distance (at which point the horizon would be obscured by the atmosphere). So on a FE, you likewise you shouldn't see it.
After all, the ground is below you. How does it magically fly up to get to eye level?
Surely with this path of insanity, Earth must be curved with us on the inside of a bowl.
Note that this bowl must go to exactly eye level, regardless of where you are, as otherwise, you would just see land, and no sky at all.
The ground doesn't magically fly up to eye level. It is everything to do with reflected light back to your eyes and the above (sky) converges towards the water as far as your eyes can differentiate the light from both at that meeting point for your vision.
This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back  to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.



Quote from: JackBlack
You cannot have your horizon below eye level.
Then how is it repeatedly observed to be and measured to be below eye level?
It isn't. It never is and never will be.
Quote from: JackBlack
Your eye level view is the very reason you have an horizon in the first place.
How?
How do your eyes magically a horizon, and why is it eye level? Why not just whatever direction you look?
The horizon sure seems to behave more as a physical edge of Earth.
The ground is denser than the air. the sea is denser than the air.
You can see farther into the air than you can looking directly level and because of this your eyes lose the light from the denser ground quite early and this is where the light from the sky converges to form your exact eye level horizon line. It cannot ever be anything else.


Quote from: JackBlack
It has nothing to do with convergence, as that requires it to be infinitely far away, not the few km away that is typically observed at.
We cannot see infinitely. We have a limit of what our eyes can reflect back. Once that limit is reached, your horizon line is set for that particular view.

Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that it appears below eye level, also shows that.
It doesn't and never will.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you look at a long corridor, the hall and ceiling doesn't magically converge. Instead they end at a hall.
The only 2 ways to have them converge, is if they curve or if they are infinitely long.
This is pointless. It's a hall and you see a wall at the end...or a door.
You will never see any horizon, so this is pointless to argue.


Quote from: JackBlack
If you would like a picture of what happens when you visibility is limited such that you can't see forever, here are some from wikimedia commons of dense fog:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dense_fog_at_hill_station.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Light_vessel_Sula_in_dense_fog_at_Gloucester.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Costa_Pacifica_departing_Tallinn_in_dense_fog_18_May_2013.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halong_Bay_in_dense_fog.jpg

Notice how you don't see a clear horizon and instead it just fades to a blur?

The sole reason you see a horizon on Earth, is due to the curvature of Earth.
Using this is pointless as well.
This is obscuring your sight.
If I wanted to nit pick I'd argue you can see light differential to create your horizon line in close proximity but it seems you're struggling a little by trying to use this stuff.

Quote from: JackBlack
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.


Quote from: JackBlack
We aren't talking about looking at any ball from a position away from the ball. You know this.
But it is equivalent.
It's absolutely not.
Quote from: JackBlack
You are saying you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent if you look at a ball, you see no ball, because you are too far away so it curves away and you don't see it.

Because the only 2 ways you can try to claim that we can only see sky and be remotely honest and rational is to claim that the FOV of 0 (and thus you don't really see anything) or if you claim that literally all you see is sky with no Earth at all. After all, if it moves down and away so fast so that all you can see is sky, why would looking down help?
If you were on a ball and looking horizontally level,your vision rises on that ball...not because you look up but because the curvature of the ball curves downwards from your vision at all times in an unobstructed view.
Basically you would be viewing sky...not unobstructed ground and not  unobstructed water.


Quote from: JackBlack
The only way out (to claim hat you can see the ball) is to admit that the ball actually takes up a region of your FOV, and then see just how much it takes up and thus where it would be compared to looking out "level", which as already done for Earth at 2 m, means Earth would appear 2.7 arc minutes below level, clearly visible, and basically indistinguishable from eye level.
You would see sky.

Quote from: JackBlack
Do you accept that Earth will take up a portion of your FOV?
No.

Quote from: JackBlack
For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack
If so:
What portion, i.e what angle out of the 360 degrees that make up that FOV?
Where are the edges of Earth, i.e. at what angle, measured from directly in front of you, do the edges of Earth appear at, i.e. how far down do you have to look to see the horizon?
There are no edges of Earth.

Quote from: JackBlack
See if you can actually answer these simple questions, because that is what an honest, rational attack on the RE would require; actually showing what angles you would expect the horizon for a RE to appear at.
I'm trying to be honest and I'm giving my honest views on your global Earth.
Whether you accept any of it, is not my issue. I'm giving my answers just as you are giving yours.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 04:36:47 AM

Quote from: JackBlack
I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to represent.
I thought that was fairly clear, but I will spell it out more.
This is a side on view, of Earth, with a person (or object) on it looking out level.
The blue circle represents Earth.
The purple line represents the person.
The 2 orange lines represent the vertical FOV of the person/camera/whatever.
The region between the 2 orange lines is what the person is able to see (until it is obstructed by something in that FOV).

And before you say that is a large FOV, not just a small one near level, that corresponds to someone with an eye 225 km above Earth.

If you really want, I can make you a diagram for someone 2 m above Earth, and 1 km above Earth, showing just how small the FOV needs to be to see the horizon.
Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.

I'll help you out.
Do your circle and draw a level line right along the very top of the circle to line up with the top of the circle down the left and right.
Place as many horizontally level thinner lines inside the thicker line and we will accept this as someone looking through a scope.
At what point does any of those lines hit any horizon?
At what point does any of those lines follow the contour of that circle?

Or.
Do those lines gain in elevation as they move forward, horizontally? You know, the 8 inches per mile squared equation, which we don't need to use. You could use anything but remember that, what you use, it will always be a declining curvature downwards from that level line of sight.

It's one hell of a simple basic proof of Earth NOT being a globe we walk upon.

Quote from: JackBlack
You cannot have any horizon below eye level.
Rather than just repeating the same assertion, can you justify that at all, and actually deal with the logical implications.
Your eyes do not magically converge light. They just see outwards at angles.
The horizon can be anywhere, just like the edge of a ball can be anywhere.
No. The horizon is specific to the viewer. The horizon is not a physical thing. It's your own imaginary line created to match your visioned distance of reflected light convergence.

Quote from: JackBlack
Likewise, you repeatedly asserting Earth is not a globe, while you reject the evidence that shows it is, and cling to a strawman which in no way matches the globe, doesn't help your case at all and just shows how much you reject reality.
I don't see any evidence that shows Earth is a globe we walk upon. I seriously do not.

Quote from: JackBlack
If the Earth was a globe we walked upon those buildings would not sink into any sea, they would lean back and be lost due to a downward curve away from our vision.
You mean they would lean back by an imperceptible amount, with the curvature of Earth hiding them from the bottom up, just like we observe, as if Earth actually is a globe?
No...they do not lean back. If they did they would be totally gone at a short distance if Earth was a globe we walk upon.

Quote from: JackBlack
If Earth was flat, we would see them standing upright, from their base to their tip, without any hidden by the water below them.
It's not the water that hides them (assuming calm)...it's the lessened reflective light back to the eye from the denser ground/water, leaving the better reflective light higher up, which determines what amount of building/object you see.


Quote from: JackBlack
If it was just us not seeing the light, it would be a region of darkness. It wouldn't magically join the sea to the land removing part of it.
Here's something so simple it almost sounds so silly...but is absolutely pertinent.

Use your finger to block the reflective light from the bottom of your eye. Slowly lift up your finger from below to mid point of your eye lens and you'll notice you have your very own horizon line.

Why?
Because you shut down a lot of reflected light to the bottom half but not the top.


This is what happens from distance with light as it fades below against the bigger reflection above. This is why you lose a lot of the bottom of anything you view.

Silly and simple?

Yep...but that's all that is needed to destroy the global myth.       
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 04:46:08 AM
Septimatic, you are smaller than you think, compared to the surface of the earth.
Makes no difference as long as your view is not obscured, which I've already mentioned.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You say every inch away from you is a curve downwards if you are supposedly on the globe, yes?
Yep.....as long as it's not obstructed.
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The earth curves an average of 1 inch per 200 meters. That's half an inch per 100 meters. That means the earth curves an average of 0.0001270003 of an inch every inch.
It doesn't matter. It  would have to curve down and away from your vision. The issue is not by how much....the issue is, it would curve down and this is an issue for what we observe.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Unless you are a germ living on the earth' surface, Septic, (and I'm not saying you're not) chances are you are not going to notice the curvature.
If you do not notice a curvature it's because there isn't one. To understand a curvature would be to notice no horizon.
We do notice eye level horizon, which means convergence...and anyone should understand that, you cannot converge a sky with the ground/water if the Earth is curving away and down.

If the Earth was flat with a downward curve of the sky, then we have a match. We can have that convergence to horizon line because we have reflective light differences of land/sea to sky.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Once more an interesting question gets derailed by completely unrelated misconceptions.

It's such a simple question but it's now just a big argument about triangles and what the definition of a flat patio is, and whatever sceptimatic is talking about with his misunderstanding of how perspective works.

Why can't any flat earthers answer this? The rest of us seem to have no problem with the question.

I guess it's just one of the third rails of flat earth believers.

I keep imagining some lawyer standing behind them yelling, "Don't answer that question!"   ;D
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on September 18, 2020, 06:11:37 AM
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 07:08:34 AM
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
No need to. You can use a toilet roll tube as your scope if you want.
You still get your horizon all the same, only you see less up to it.
What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only, when the scope/toilet roll tube is horizontally level.

Earth is not a globe that we're told we supposedly walk upon.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2020, 08:26:22 AM
So Scepti, can you explain and include a diagram of how a telescope works?
No need to. You can use a toilet roll tube as your scope if you want.
You still get your horizon all the same, only you see less up to it.
What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only, when the scope/toilet roll tube is horizontally level.

Earth is not a globe that we're told we supposedly walk upon.
Incorrect.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 18, 2020, 08:30:04 AM
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.

Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.

The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.

So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.

Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.

On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.

If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.

The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.

Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 09:18:54 AM
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.

Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.

The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.

So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.

Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.
Yep, altitude certainly does change the viewing distance, but to view anything in that sea you have to alter your level and actually angle your view to the object. Your horizon has altered way past that identity of the object, because your reflected light back to your eyes is now more distant to that vanishing point....but.... you will only ever see it by reverting to a level sight.
Guess what?
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.


Quote from: Smoke
On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.
No you couldn't. The atmospheric stack puts paid to that.


Quote from: Smoke
If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..



Quote from: Smoke
The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.
The sky is curved/concave..but the sea is level and flat when calm. We do not live on any giant ball.

Quote from: Smoke
Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
You should be asking yourself that because it's you that is indoctrinated into that global belief. Does it make you feel special?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 18, 2020, 10:38:51 AM
Quote
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..

How does it?  Since you would observe exactly the same thing if the Earth was (is) a globe.

Quote
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.

I agree with this point because if there's one other thing you flat Earthers also seem to believe it is that you are never wrong.  REers on the other hand (including myself) are willing to accept we are only human and sometimes are wrong.  Difference is we are also willing to be corrected if we are wrong about something.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 10:54:25 AM
Quote
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..

How does it?  Since you would observe exactly the same thing if the Earth was (is) a globe.

No, you wouldn't observe exactly the same thing if Earth was a globe. You believe so because you actually believe that's what you're witnessing right now, because (argue it if you want) you've been heavily indoctrinated into that belief system like most were at one stage.......including myself. I changed due to varying reasons...some of which I've just explained and these are the things that changed my mind.


Quote
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.
Quote from: Solarwind

I agree with this point because if there's one other thing you flat Earthers also seem to believe it is that you are never wrong.
That's just a fallacy you want to hang onto. Feel free to do so.

Quote from: Solarwind

 REers on the other hand (including myself) are willing to accept we are only human and sometimes are wrong.
Really? What is it that you ended up wrong about?
Quote from: Solarwind


  Difference is we are also willing to be corrected if we are wrong about something.
What have you been corrected about?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 18, 2020, 12:14:00 PM
I've noticed how FEers love using that word 'indoctorinated'. Another word for that is brainwashing and such like.  Well unlike members of cults or whatever who are brainwashed into a particular belief system by some supreme leader or whatever, those with a scientific mind are a bit more independent than that.  Over the years I have learned to observe things around me and then investigate the most logical reasons for it.

For example I see the Sun rise and set every day.  FE account for that my using various manipulations of perspective (since obviously the Sun cannot set if the Earth was flat).  On the other hand you could explain that by supposing that the Earth is rotating and for so many hours out of 24 the part of the world I am standing on turns towards the Sun and then away from it again.

Believing to me is evaluating the possible causes of a particular event and then forming a judgement about what you think is the best solution.  Clearly you and me have come to different conclusions.  On my side I have reached the conclusion I have because so far I haven't see one iota of evidence that shows me conclusively that the Earth is anything but a sphere.  Maybe you could offer me some?

If we didn't have all the sources of data that are available to us today then I could understand the dilemma.  But in the 21st century... still believing the Earth is flat?  We've moved on a bit since then.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round.

Let me just ask you one thing if you are so sure your beliefs are true.  How far away is the Sun in your opinion and why?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 18, 2020, 12:59:43 PM
Quote from: Stash

 With your claims you need to also say by what margin. E.g., At what distance would the globe earth dip away where one would only be able to see sky and why. If you don't have a firm grasp on the theory you rail against I can help you. But your arguments thus far here make it seem you never even got a chance to be indoctrinated like the rest of us because you're talking like you don't understand them at all.
All I need to know is what should be logical. Global Earth shows nothing logical....especially the very basic observations of which I've just explained.

With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).

In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.). Now we can still only see the top sail, only magnified. The bottom hull is still missing somewhere behind the horizon. Why? Curiouser still.

(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)

On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.

Why do we observe the RE explanation, hull slipping below the horizon and obscured, and not the FE explanation of the entirety of the sailboat, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon getting smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 18, 2020, 03:37:15 PM
The ground doesn't magically fly up to eye level.
But it has to with your claims, as otherwise, the RE could also raise up, and do the same.
If you accept that there is some effect which causes the ground to appear higher, to cause something physically below you to appear at eye level (or just higher than below you), that means for a RE there are 2 competing effects and you need to determine the magnitude of both and cannot simply rely upon while ignoring the other to make false claims about what you would expect.

This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back  to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.
Except, you can't.
When an object is obscured by the horizon, no telescope can magically bring it into view.

It isn't. It never is and never will be.
The photos I provided clearly show it is.
You rejecting reality will not help your case.

The ground is denser than the air. the sea is denser than the air.
You can see farther into the air than you can looking directly level and because of this your eyes lose the light from the denser ground quite early and this is where the light from the sky converges to form your exact eye level horizon line. It cannot ever be anything else.
All that in no way addresses the question.
It it was due to magical convergence, then the horizon should appear regardless of where you are looking. As it does not, it is clearly not due to that and instead there must be another cause, such as the physical edge of a RE.

We cannot see infinitely. We have a limit of what our eyes can reflect back. Once that limit is reached, your horizon line is set for that particular view.
Our eyes don't need to reflect back. They collect light reflected or emitted from other objects. That light is absorbed by your eyes. The limits on your vision are based upon how bright that light is relative to the surrounding regions (including for the different colours), and physical phenomenon such as refraction and diffraction and light scattering off the air.
When the middle of your vision contains an object that is obscured by one of those phenomenon, you don't see it magically join together.

The photos of fog I provided clearly shows that. Instead of a clear horizon you have a blur, where the ground blurs into the sky because the fog limits your visibility so much that you cannot see the edge of Earth (i.e. the horizon).

Another simple example is the night sky with stars. Notice how your eyes don't magically join together the stars, and instead you have large regions of darkness?
If it was a case of your eyes magically joining together regions when you can't see anything between them, the sky would be bright all over.

See, back in reality, our eyes collect light from a particular direction. They don't magically change what direction the light is coming from. If something prevents you seeing from a particular direction, you don't see that direction, your eyes do not magically join the surrounding regions together.

This is pointless. It's a hall and you see a wall at the end...or a door.
You will never see any horizon, so this is pointless to argue.
So your comparison appealing to a floor and ceiling is pointless?

Using this is pointless as well.
No, it isn't.
It clearly shows what you actually get when your visibility is limited. You don't magically get a closer horizon. Instead you have it fade to a blur.

Quote from: JackBlack
And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
Except you have already admitted you see the horizon, which is the edge of that ball, no matter how much you wish to deny it.
But that is still dodging the question.
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?

The only way for you to maintain your false position that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.

It's absolutely not.
It is equivalent.
Again, you are claiming that on Earth you would see nothing but sky.
That is equivalent to saying you will not see the ball.
The only way to see the ball is if you admit it takes up a portion of your FOV, in which case Earth should do the same.
Then it is a question of where the edge of Earth will appear.
Again, if you do the math for someone standing 2 m above the surface, that works out to be ~2.7 arc minutes below level.
Thus if you are standing on Earth, with your eyes 2 m above sea level, looking out to sea, the horizon, the edge of Earth, will appear 2.7 arc minutes below level.
Thus, unless your FOV is smaller than 2.7 arc minutes, YOU WILL SEE THE HORIZON ON A ROUND EARTH!

That is why it is equivalent.

Quote from: JackBlack
For simplicity we will start with your FOV being 360 degrees in a plane that is perpendicular to the surface, this includes, straight up, straight down, straight out in front and straight behind you. Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, and you are standing 2 m above the surface.
Do you accept that it takes up a portion of your FOV?
Nope.
So you are literally saying that Earth is invisible, that if you were to look at a ball, it would not take up any of your FOV at all?
That is the level of insanity you wish take?
That all spherical objects, like balls, are invisible?

In which case, what is this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Basketball_%28Ball%29.jpg)
How is such a photo possible if balls do not take up any portion of your FOV?

If you wish to claim that balls do take up a portion of that 360 degree FOV, why should Earth not?


I'm trying to be honest and I'm giving my honest views on your global Earth.
No you are not. If you are genuinely trying to be honest, you are also trying to be insane.
You are saying the equivalent of balls are invisible.
Unless your position is actually that balls are invisible, you are not being honest at all.
If your position is that all balls are invisible, in spite of the available evidence to the contrary, you are being insane.

So do you claim that balls are invisible?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 18, 2020, 03:37:49 PM
Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
With what FOV?

Just to point out why you can't just use a FOV of 0, here is a diagram for a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/WRA6G2K.png)
Notice how that level sight never touches the horizon?

But here is a too scale diagram of someone standing 2 m above the surface of Earth, all the way past the horizon up to 6 km.
(https://i.imgur.com/E2LXOaR.png)
Here is a much closer view:
(https://i.imgur.com/WHpVQ6c.png)
Notice how at this scale, Earth is basically the same as flat.
So if you wish to claim magical convergence will magically make the horizon rise to eye level for a FE, why shouldn't it for a RE, considering the height of the horizon is quite comparable?

Again, if there are 2 competing effects, you need to know the magnitude of each to determine which wins.
Why should the insignificant (at this scale) downwards curvature of Earth trump the magical convergence? Why shouldn't the magical convergence be able to overcome that downwards curvature and still make the RE have a horizon?

It's one hell of a simple basic proof of Earth NOT being a globe we walk upon.
You mean it is yet more deflection from simple math that shows you are wrong, and simple questions which show you are wrong?

No. The horizon is specific to the viewer. The horizon is not a physical thing. It's your own imaginary line created to match your visioned distance of reflected light convergence.
All the evidence shows that the horizon is a physical thing, on Earth, a certain distance away.
Again, if it was a magical line due to convergence, it would appear regardless of where you look.
The fact that it only appears in a specific orientation relative to Earth shows that it is certainly something to do with the physical Earth.

I don't see any evidence that shows Earth is a globe we walk upon. I seriously do not.
You do, you just dismiss it. For example, the picture I provided earlier with the water level, showing the horizon below eye level, completely destroying all your claims, which you just dismissed.

No...they do not lean back. If they did they would be totally gone at a short distance if Earth was a globe we walk upon.
And another baseless, insane assertion.
Why would they be totally gone at a short distance?
I already provided the math showing just how insignificant that lean is.
But like everything that shows you are wrong, you just ignore it.

It's not the water that hides them
No, it quite clearly is.
If you were to superimpose an image of the building without the base obstructed, scaled such that it matches what is observed, you will notice the base is where the water is, showing that the water is getting in the way of the line of sight to the base.
That means the water is obstructing the view.
No need for any other BS to deflect from this fact.

Here's something so simple it almost sounds so silly...but is absolutely pertinent.
Use your finger to block the reflective light from the bottom of your eye. Slowly lift up your finger from below to mid point of your eye lens and you'll notice you have your very own horizon line.
You mean I will see my finger obstructing the view to objects, just like the real round Earth obstructs the view?
Where if you were to take a photo like that, and superimpose a photo without that, they appear the same except where your finger is? Instead of magically having above your finger join with below it?

Silly and simple?
Yes, extremely silly, so silly that it doesn't describe reality at all and in no way destroys the reality of the RE.

Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.
It has been repeatedly explained how the globe provides that horizon, and also explained why it isn't always at eye level.
Stop repeating the same lie.
Again, saying the RE would only result in seeing sky and saying the RE cannot produce a horizon is equivalent to saying balls are invisible.
If not, why should a RE be invisible?
Note: Not taking up any portion of your FOV is the same as invisible.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 11:36:02 PM
I've noticed how FEers love using that word 'indoctorinated'. Another word for that is brainwashing and such like.  Well unlike members of cults or whatever who are brainwashed into a particular belief system by some supreme leader or whatever, those with a scientific mind are a bit more independent than that.  Over the years I have learned to observe things around me and then investigate the most logical reasons for it.

For example I see the Sun rise and set every day.  FE account for that my using various manipulations of perspective (since obviously the Sun cannot set if the Earth was flat).  On the other hand you could explain that by supposing that the Earth is rotating and for so many hours out of 24 the part of the world I am standing on turns towards the Sun and then away from it again.
Just like buildings lose light from below before above, in distance, so does the suns reflective light back to our eyes as it moves away.
This creates the supposed setting effect that you see....in my opinion.

The way your sun works creates a massive problem when observed after setting by using a high tower to bring it back. This cannot work on a globe we supposedly walk upon but certainly can looking through less dense atmosphere at height to bring back more reflective light.

The tower on a globe would be tilted away with the so called rotation and destroying any chance of bringing any sun back into view, in that so called scenario.




Quote from: Solarwind

Believing to me is evaluating the possible causes of a particular event and then forming a judgement about what you think is the best solution.  Clearly you and me have come to different conclusions.  On my side I have reached the conclusion I have because so far I haven't see one iota of evidence that shows me conclusively that the Earth is anything but a sphere.  Maybe you could offer me some?
You can evaluate possible causes and that's all you can do, other than to follow what has been handed to you, on a plate.....and the mass adherence to those views, for no other reason (for many...in my opinion) than peer pressure policing of each other to merely follow what is deemed, acceptable without the fear of ridicule.
Evidence has been offered against your globe and obviously you don't want to bother with it. Fair enough.Stick with what you feel is right for you.


Quote from: Solarwind

If we didn't have all the sources of data that are available to us today then I could understand the dilemma.  But in the 21st century... still believing the Earth is flat?  We've moved on a bit since then.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round.
Using this to supposedly prove something, is pointless....it really is.
It all comes down to the very same thing. Reliance on what's indoctrinated.

If we had all the data to prove this so called globe then why do people keep harking back to so called ancient people who supposedly knew the script of Earth?

There's no point other than to try and say " if they knew then, then you should know it's got to be true."

Not so.


Quote from: Solarwind

Let me just ask you one thing if you are so sure your beliefs are true.  How far away is the Sun in your opinion and why?
I don't know how far away the reflection is. I'd say, not far at all.
I have to know the  size of the Earth and what not to have a true estimate of the size of reflection.

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:04:47 AM
With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).

(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)
In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed.
I explained this.
The farther your eye can see, the less light it can reflect back to it.
Your eye lens is convex. It sees a small wider view around you, but the prime focus if centralised on that convex lens, which is the very reason you see your horizon at eye level...always.

Why?
Because the rest of the eye takes in light from left to right and up and down.
The up and down vision is key to the observation of objects within that focused light reflection back to the lens, because it's this part where the sky meets the denser ground/sea...meaning the sky gives back more reflective light than the ground/sea can.

Basically, if an object  (boat in this instance) moves away from your eye it also loses reflective light from the bottom as opposed to the top for reasons I've just given, above.

Quote from: Stash
We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.). Now we can still only see the top sail, only magnified. The bottom hull is still missing somewhere behind the horizon. Why? Curiouser still.
A telescope can only magnify your sight. It does not see into distance...it magnifies the distance you see with your naked eye.
It can bring up whatever object is in that eye distance which is too small for your eye to see and it magnifies it. That's it.
A telescope is a large microscope.
If you look at a tiny speck on a microscope plate with your naked eye,you'd likely say you cannot see it or what it is. If you look through the scope,you see the object.

But the plate has never moved any distance with that object on it...you've simply magnified it.
Same thing with your telescope.



Quote from: Stash
On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.

No you wouldn't.
On a flat Earth you'd expect the horizontal atmospheric stack to create a bigger and bigger barrier to your vision as you look through it horizontally level.
This will ensure your lens of your eye loses light back to it, more from below than above due to different densities of matter....meaning land/water against less dense sky.

I've explained all this in this post. Take some time to get what I'm saying.

Quote from: Stash
Why do we observe the RE explanation, hull slipping below the horizon and obscured, and not the FE explanation of the entirety of the sailboat, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon getting smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon?
You don't observe the RE explanation. You follow the RE explanation as if you were observing it.
You are observing the flat Earth explanation (from my side, at least) and rejecting it (obviously) because you're told and believe you are stood atop a globe. So going by that, it's no shock to me why you or anyone would be of the belief that a globe can produce what you observe.

However, like I said earlier. If the globe was a reality, you would have no horizon...at all from a level view. I'm 100%on this.

I'm happy to go further with you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:14:22 AM
This is why you can bring things into view with a telescope that can magnify that light back  to your eyes and you can see what is within that horizon line convergence.
Except, you can't.
When an object is obscured by the horizon, no telescope can magically bring it into view.
Nothing is obscured by your horizon. Your horizon is the end of your ability to see. There is nothing behind it, obviously.
But what is before that horizon line, you can magnify and bring into view what your naked eye cannot make out properly.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:20:28 AM

Another simple example is the night sky with stars. Notice how your eyes don't magically join together the stars, and instead you have large regions of darkness?
If it was a case of your eyes magically joining together regions when you can't see anything between them, the sky would be bright all over.
Why would your eyes join dots of light together?
You are looking up into the sky with a bunch of lights and absolutely no reference point for any horizon line...only darkness or little to zero light back to your eyes.
What stands out among that are dots of reflected light. It's a strange thing to use in this argument.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:27:18 AM
Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: JackBlack

And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.
I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.
Except you have already admitted you see the horizon, which is the edge of that ball, no matter how much you wish to deny it.
I admit to seeing my horizon because I see it on  a flat Earth....not your global Earth.
Nice try though.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:49:16 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 12:50:58 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 12:57:29 AM
Quote
Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?

Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself.  So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true? 

If that were the case it is a complete waste of time on 'your' flat Earth going to school, college or university because you will be 'indoctorinated' with information which according to you is not true.   Good luck with that.

Just out of interest what causes aurora displays and the Earths magnetic field in 'your' flat Earth and how do you know your version is correct and the RE version wrong?  Have you personally carried out the tests and the measurements and the experiments?  I have just read through the section of the FE wiki about auroras and to a large extent what is said there could have been simply copied and pasted from any other website which describes how auroras are produced.  It mentions about magnetic field interaction but not how the magnetic field is created in the first place.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 01:22:43 AM

Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
Let's assume it is a kitchen roll holder you are looking through, just to make this much simpler.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 19, 2020, 02:01:06 AM
Just like buildings lose light from below before above, in distance, so does the suns reflective light back to our eyes as it moves away.
So just like something else you can't explain.
That doesn't explain why it appears to go below the horizon.
If it was a case of the light not getting to us due to distance (rather than Earth obstructing the view) it would disappear still high in the sky, with a large band of darkness between Earth and the sky.

The way your sun works creates a massive problem when observed after setting by using a high tower to bring it back. This cannot work on a globe we supposedly walk upon but certainly can looking through less dense atmosphere at height to bring back more reflective light.
And yet another insane assertion from you.
It is trivially explained on a globe.
As repeatedly explained, there is a dip angle to the horizon.
At 2 m it is 2.7 arc minutes.
At 500 m it is ~43 arc minutes.
That means the sun would need to move an extra ~40 arc minutes down to vanish.

The tower on a globe would be tilted away with the so called rotation
Only if you climb it slowly.
Earth rotates at roughly 15 degrees an hour, or 15 arc minutes a minute.
That means in order to obscure the top of that tower you would need to wait 2.6 minutes.

FE has a similar issue with the sun magically moving away and magic causing it to not be seen, even at that altitude.
Both models have the question of if you can get up fast enough.
Evidence has been offered against your globe
No, it hasn't.
Pathetic stawmen which in no way actually represent what is expected for a RE have been offered and destroyed.
That is not evidence against the globe.
The existence of the horizon is evidence for the globe, not against it.

If you actually have evidence, then provide it, otherwise stop claiming it has been provided.
It all comes down to the very same thing.
Yes, which side actually has evidence vs which sides needs to strawman the other and repeatedly accuse them of just blindly following what they have been told.
It is the RE side with evidence.

If we had all the data to prove this so called globe then why do people keep harking back to so called ancient people who supposedly knew the script of Earth?
So they can claim to be better than the "indoctrinated fools", so they can so seeds of distrust in the government, so they can sell books and the like.

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Determining the distance to such a distant sun is quite challenging. It also depends on what level of accuracy you need.
It's near constant angular size requires it to be very distant.
It appearing to rise due east on the equinox, for basically everyone, requires it to be very distant. (Many many times the size of Earth)
This allows you to use the difference in angle to the sun to determine the radius of Earth, (as well as other techniques such as the angle of dip to the horizon from a known altitude).
Using that, along with measurements from distant positions on Earth you can measure the parallax of the moon and thus determine its distance.
You can then use the angular separation between the moon and the sun, when 50% of the moon is illuminated to calculate the distance to the sun using trig (a right angle triangle from You, to the moon to the sun, with the right angle at the moon).
Then, if you want a more accurate method, you can make an approximation of circular orbits, measure the maximum angular distance of Venus to the sun, to determine the relative sizes of the orbits, and then use a transit of Venus to calculate the distance with more complex trig.

Alternatively, accurately measure the speed of light, then measure stellar aberration over a year. Use that to calculate the velocity of Earth in its orbit around the sun, then use that velocity along with the period of the orbit to determine the size of the orbit and thus the distance to the sun (again, with a circular approximation).

I explained this.
And that explanation was refuted.
It has nothing to do with how far your eyes can see. If it was, you would have a band of darkness, like that separating the stars in the sky. It doesn't explain why the boat has magically lowered or why the sea has magically raised.

However, like I said earlier. If the globe was a reality, you would have no horizon
And you repeating the same lie again and again doesn't magically make it true.

Why would your eyes join dots of light together?
That's the point. They wouldn't!
So if you couldn't see the bottom of the distant object, why would your eyes magically glue the top section you can see to the water?
Likewise, it wouldn't. Instead you would have a band of darkness.

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.
No, the exact same situation.
You are looking towards a ball, and you claim that in one case you can see it but in another case you can't.
That makes no sense at all.

Why should a ball be visible, but not Earth?

How about this, stop avoiding the questions, and tell us what is the relationship between how large (in terms of degrees) a ball of radius r should be, if you are a distance h away from the surface?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 19, 2020, 02:28:28 AM
With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).

(https://i.imgur.com/HChJFrS.jpg)
In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed.
I explained this.
The farther your eye can see, the less light it can reflect back to it.
Your eye lens is convex. It sees a small wider view around you, but the prime focus if centralised on that convex lens, which is the very reason you see your horizon at eye level...always.

Why?
Because the rest of the eye takes in light from left to right and up and down.
The up and down vision is key to the observation of objects within that focused light reflection back to the lens, because it's this part where the sky meets the denser ground/sea...meaning the sky gives back more reflective light than the ground/sea can.

Basically, if an object  (boat in this instance) moves away from your eye it also loses reflective light from the bottom as opposed to the top for reasons I've just given, above.

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

Quote from: Stash
On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.

No you wouldn't.
On a flat Earth you'd expect the horizontal atmospheric stack to create a bigger and bigger barrier to your vision as you look through it horizontally level.
This will ensure your lens of your eye loses light back to it, more from below than above due to different densities of matter....meaning land/water against less dense sky.

I've explained all this in this post. Take some time to get what I'm saying.

Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 03:42:30 AM
Quote from: Solarwind

Quote from: Sceptimatic

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?
Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself.  So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true? 
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.
Let's go through this to see if you can verify it through the, on the plate method.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 19, 2020, 03:58:25 AM
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.



Quote from: Stash
Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
 Seriously?

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..


It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.

Pretty simple really.

 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:18:34 AM
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 04:32:01 AM
Quote
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.

First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away.  What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:42:57 AM
Quote
Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.

First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away.  What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false.
Considering I have my own alternate Earth theory it's not hard to figure out why I think what I think.
However, how about you show me how you came to accept the sun as you are told.

Very basically, tell me how the distance and size was arrived at......based on whatever.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 05:28:27 AM
Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.

Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.

We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves.  That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand.  For that reason I don't need to repeat it.  The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.

So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 19, 2020, 05:43:40 AM
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 05:50:41 AM
I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example.  It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 06:13:27 AM
Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.

Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.

We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves.  That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand.  For that reason I don't need to repeat it.  The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.

So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.
The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.

You seem to have accepted everything based on peer pressure and indoctrination.
You won't tell me how you know the sun is the size it supposedly is and the distance it supposedly is, because it makes no sense to you but you have accepted it.

If you think it makes sense then simply tell me how and why.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 06:16:15 AM
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.
Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 06:17:36 AM
I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example.  It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.
The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 19, 2020, 08:21:03 AM
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.
Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 19, 2020, 08:31:28 AM
I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.
I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.

Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead? If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 08:33:44 AM
Quote
The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.

Well you would say that wouldn't you.  In your mind the world is flat (about the only place where it is).  Tell me... why is the Earth flat in your view?

According to FE Wiki the Earth is not a planet.  OK so what is it then?

Quote
I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?

Yes that edge that we see is called the horizon.  It's just that from ground level the amount of surface we can see is far too small a fraction of the Earths surface as whole that we cannot directly see any curvature at all.  This seems to be evidence enough that the Earth is flat.

As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases.  Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.

Quote
The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.

You talk about 'global nonsense' yet you don't seem to be able to provide any evidence that shows how it is nonsense.  I know you do but that is just your opinion at the end of the day.  If the Earth really is flat then perhaps you could explain to me how equatorial mounts work perfectly well in the southern hemisphere.  I will assume you know what an equatorial mount is and how it works.

So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge.  But I doubt very much you will.  And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.

After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it.  Providing evidence that will change our minds.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 19, 2020, 02:24:26 PM
I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.

Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.

The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.

So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.

Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.
Yep, altitude certainly does change the viewing distance, but to view anything in that sea you have to alter your level and actually angle your view to the object. Your horizon has altered way past that identity of the object, because your reflected light back to your eyes is now more distant to that vanishing point....but.... you will only ever see it by reverting to a level sight.
Guess what?
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.


Quote from: Smoke
On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.
No you couldn't. The atmospheric stack puts paid to that.


Quote from: Smoke
If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.
Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..



Quote from: Smoke
The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.
The sky is curved/concave..but the sea is level and flat when calm. We do not live on any giant ball.

Quote from: Smoke
Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?
You should be asking yourself that because it's you that is indoctrinated into that global belief. Does it make you feel special?

You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.

It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack."  :-[

The beach experiment at sunrise, verifies a flat earth and destroys the globe??? Oh, do tell! I'm looking forward to hearing your pseudo scientific explanation for this one!

When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave  what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave? Are you alluding to the mysterious dome you crazy cats worship? If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?

Being on a globe Earth does make me feel special. Being on a flat earth, does make you look special.

Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.

I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side. ;D
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 19, 2020, 02:38:55 PM
Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.

Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere.  We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 19, 2020, 03:13:10 PM
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.

As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.

But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.

Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.

So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.

Can't you see this?
No, we can't see your strawman because your strawman in no way reflects what you would expect for a RE.

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely
You mean imperceptibly, not severely.
For 39 miles, i.e. ~63 km, the angle it is tilted away if ~0.6 degrees.
Nothing sever about that.
You are yet to explain just how you expect to notice this imperceptible tilt.
(Note: it is imperceptible as it is tilting away from you, not to the side).

It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
It makes perfect sense, and you are unable to show any actual problem and instead just repeatedly make loads of pathetic strawmen.

What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.

So yes, it is pretty simple, and the FE idea you are putting forward doesn't match reality.
What does match reality is the RE, something you are yet to refute nor provide any evidence against and instead just repeatedly attack with strawmen and insane claims like claiming such an Earth would be invisible (i.e. not take up any portion of a 360 degree FOV including up, down, front and back).

The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.
You mean you dismiss it as nonsense and repeatedly ridicule it as you have no rational argument against it, while we actually understand it and know that it matches what we observe and thus accept it.

That isn't peer pressure and indoctrination. It is actual genuine understanding rather than an attempt to dismiss it using whatever dishonest BS you can come up with.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.
Again, that is equivalent to saying you can never see the edge of a ball.
It is pure nonsense.
Stop just asserting the same lie and actually answer the questions raised because of that lie.
The questions you have been avoiding as the show you are wrong; as they show that a RE does have a horizon and for the most part it will be visible even when you are looking out level due to just how small the difference is between level and the angle to the horizon.
The questions that are so damaging you had to take the path of claiming balls are invisible.

So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 19, 2020, 03:23:44 PM
Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

(https://i.imgur.com/fEFfQTw.jpg)

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

Center of the lens makes no difference. In fact a lens itself makes no difference. Eye level is eye level.

As pointed out, the converging perspective lines meet at the vanishing point at eye level. Notice how the horizon line is below eye level. It is observably below yet you claim it is not. How can that be? This is all literally taught in art class right after you've graduated from finger painting.

Quote from: Stash
Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

(https://i.imgur.com/HXbVKwG.gif)
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
 Seriously?

Nope. This is what I referred to before as you not being familiar with conventional science you rail against.

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..

How severely? My calculation says an infinitesimal 0.564454° given the distance and earth size and dip. What does your calculation say that adds up to severely?

It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.

Pretty simple really.

Talk about making no sense. What's this light business you're on about? What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?

And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 19, 2020, 10:59:49 PM
It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.

Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.

Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?

(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 12:24:11 AM
The problem is that there is literally so much data and so much evidence available now about the precise shape of the planet. Such data and information is gathered by all sorts of organisation both publicly and privately owned. 

Of course conspiracy theorists will never go away no matter what but we now live in an age when serious flat Earth believers are just burying their heads in the sand by choosing to dismiss all the mountains of evidence that shows that they are wrong. But then that's what they thrive on isn't it - denying the evidence presented by the majority view.

That is not to say of course that science has never been wrong.  Of course it has and science will never (I hope) reach a position where all the questions we have about the Universe have been answered.  It is the challenge to discover the unknown that makes it exciting. But certain things like the shape of the Earth and all the other planets we have conquered.

So the incentive for continuing the belief in flat Earth quest is certainly not science based.  Which is why it is a bit of a fallacy for some flat Earthers here to describe themselves and flat Earth 'scientists'.  Their belief has got nothing to do with science.

I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 20, 2020, 12:39:10 AM
The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.

This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 01:17:16 AM


Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 01:24:06 AM
Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead?
What you would see instead would be the sky, if you were living on top of a globe. No horizon would be possible.
You claim you would see an edge because you see your horizon and it goes with your belief that you are actually standing on a globe, so naturally you're going to massively reject anything else.
What you'd be better doing is putting your own mind to work and having a real serious think about it, without any sidetracking peer pressure involved.

Quote from: robinofloxley
If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?
You  must have read up on this topic and seen my many many posts. You will surely understand that I'm talking about being on a ball, not looking at a ball that you are not standing on.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 01:40:22 AM

As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases.  Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.
The higher you go on your ball and looking out horizontally level, you see sky, no different than you standing on that ball.
You will never see any edge because your ball is always running downwards from your level view. The curve simply gets farther and farther away.You can not, ever see an edge to a bally you are part of.
Of course you can see a curved line of a ball against background if you had one on a table or a floor away from you....but that's not what we are dealing with on this Earth, physically.

Quote from: Solarwind
So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge.  But I doubt very much you will.  And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.

After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it.  Providing evidence that will change our minds.
I've given you some easy one's. If you decide it's hogwash then feel free to do so. I have no wish to change your mind.That wish has to be yours.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 02:11:11 AM

You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.
I seriously don't see anything falling apart. I do see people trying to tell me it is without knowing why.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack."  :-[

You're looking at eye level, horizontally through the part of the stack your eyes are focused through.You have dense atmosphere that kills off light to the underside of your eye lens, due to the upper reflected light hitting your upper part of your lens, meaning you see what can be seen in that upper part as light against the lower part of fading light, creating your horizon line or anything in that upper light, which could be a building, depending on distance.

As for the so called stars. They're points of reflected light.You're bound to see them because not only does your upper lens catch that reflected light(s),you are also looking off level ,meaning you start to see through a less densely packed atmospheric stacking system that lessens in amount as your angled elevation increases in view.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave  what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave?
Let's go with concavely curved if you're having issues with it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?
Yep, sea level is possible because the water sits inside a sort of concave/curved Earth scoop out where it fills a lot of it and is held.

This would never happen if that water was sitting on a convex curve. Your logic should absolutely tell you this but you decide to go with gravity somehow pulling it level. It makes no sense....at all.
If gravity was supposedly pulling it all level all the way around your supposed global Earth, then it stands to reason your global Earth would cease to be, global.It would be flattened out.

Senseless in the extreme.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.
I think that applies to the so called mainstream pseudo-science books that are placed on the fact shelf instead of the fiction.
I do understand your thought process about me, though. I'm the same with the global nonsense, reading like fictional story books and comic like descriptions.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side. ;D
What side? There is no side.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 02:12:38 AM
Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.

Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere.  We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.
It's all about opinions.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 02:17:36 AM
The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.
It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.

As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.

But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.

Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.
The centre of any lens points in the direction it is focused on...pinpoint.
It is the convergence of the entirety of that lens to the focal point (centre)
It's the very reason you hit a vanishing point of anything you see in the distance where the lions share of light reaches to that point from all angles of the entire lens.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 02:23:31 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.
If the buildings are supposedly 603 feet below the supposed curved horizon then the person on the other side has to be 603 feet below the other side of that horizon if looked at from the foundation of the buildings on the other side.
It makes no sense.
Not to mention the curve downwards to that 603 fee would see those buildings lean back......and a massive key to this would be the person would equally be leaning back down that convex curve, meaning his scope would be looking into the sky....off level.

Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 20, 2020, 02:48:42 AM
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Ah, this I like! Concrete evidence. Yet, I dread, dismissed as fake as photographic evidence only works in favour of FE. (Like, no stars visible from the Moon and such.)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 20, 2020, 03:11:40 AM
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.

And there should be no difference between standing on it or standing away from it, meaning you are effectively claiming all balls are visible.
The fact that they aren't shows you are wrong.

If you want to claim it is different you need to explain why. Just what magically causes a RE to be invisible but not balls?

Or again, ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU KEEP AVOIDING!
How about this, I'll just focus on this question and keep bringing it up until you either answer or admit your strawman in no way represents the RE?

You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at?

Can you just answer it? Or do you know that doing so will destroy your argument?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 03:38:29 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/76Tta0l.gif)
Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.
It doesn't need to magically glue both regions together. I explained your eye lens and this is the key.
Your eye loses light reflection to it depending on the light source managing to get back to it.
Your centre of your lens is your pin point for light reaching above and below as well as left to right.
It now comes down to what light can reflect and off of what. The denser matter...water, for instance against less dense matter of atmosphere will change the reflective properties back to your eye lens....hence why you do not see whole objects in that distance because reflection gains from ground up and diminishes from sky down due to change in atmospheric stack.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 03:45:33 AM
Quote from: JackBlack

So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.
Deal with what we are dealing with, which is your global Earth sphere.
It's pointless using a ball that you just sit back and look at in the distance.

Deal with what I mentioned.
On your globe, looking horizontally level all around your vantage point.
You have to accept that it curves downwards from your level view......always, at every point in your 360 degree turn and focus.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 03:59:56 AM
Quote
Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.

Again this is just your opinion.  And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim.  Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:05:38 AM
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)

You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.

Quote from: Stash
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.

The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:11:50 AM
It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.

Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.
Reference this and it'll save you repeating yourself.

There is no edge, so I can't be looking over any edge of Earth.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?
In my Earth cell the lot is inside.
Anything we see, is inside.
That's my theory. It's well documented so look it all up if you want to. I won't be answering anything about it on this topic.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)
You Are not giving me any hard time.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:14:16 AM
I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.
There is no southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:16:08 AM
The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.

This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.
Nothing stopping you from sticking to those best threads and leaving those you dislike or don;t suit your mindset.
I stay out of lots of topics.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:19:08 AM
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:21:16 AM
Quote
Of course, none of this is seen because we do not live on a global Earth.

Again this is just your opinion.  And currently there is very little evidence to back up your claim.  Once again, how are equatorial mounts supposed to work in the southern hemisphere if the Earth is (as you continue to insist) flat?
What exactly is your equatorial mount supposed to be doing?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 04:35:59 AM
You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does?  Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. 

My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 04:49:00 AM
You don't know what an equatorial mount for a telescope does?  Obviously not because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. 

My question is more to do with how would you set one up (polar alignment) in the southern hemisphere.
How about you explain to me what happens. If you can't do it then don't use this stuff to argue with with.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 05:07:26 AM
Happy to..

An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA).  As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation. 

That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.

However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes. 

Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole.  This is also true for RE as well.  Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.

However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies.  According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south.  In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.

Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP.  That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.

But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?

Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/

If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.

I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 20, 2020, 05:30:49 AM


Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works.   And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?

So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.

According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.

So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?

How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 20, 2020, 06:28:39 AM
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
Hey, why don’t you take the picture, and explain it to us? You have camera on your phone, surely? Do a bit of work instead of shouting nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 20, 2020, 06:53:25 AM
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.

I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.

So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome? Or are you an infinite flat earther? Flat earth incorporates such a myriad of deviations on the theme!

Good to hear I haven't been giving you a hard time.  This topic has entered my mindset so, I'll stick with it for a few days, if you dont mind?

You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 07:33:30 AM
Quote
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.

He still hasn't explained how equatorial mounts can work in the southern hemisphere either.  Having been asked to explain how they work I have done so in detail but without a south celestial pole according to FE models, I can't see how they would work south of the equator.  At least not without some serious bending of light etc which would put any Olympic standard contortionist to shame.

Quote
So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right? If you were to stand on that line, wouldn't your head be butted up against this dome?

Please tell me that modern flat Earthers don't still believe that!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 20, 2020, 08:59:25 AM
If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

(http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction.png)

You should be aware enough to understand that, if you were living on a globe like you think then that globe would always curve downwards from your vision.
You would never ever be looking up a bulge.
You have a massive problem. And that diagram is complete and utter nonsense.
Your eye level is right. The rest is your reasoning that you have to dip your eyes. You would have to look down from level and you think that would create your horizon when it would create a ground view....nothing else.
As for the bulge...it's the same thing as your pretentious horizon. You would be looking at the ground,not a bulge.

Quote from: Stash
And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/d6eqJit-5b1fde5019055__700.jpg)

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-basketball-logic-uselesspickles-5-5b1fe10d9f676__700.jpg)
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that your view of Earth with you on it looking horizontally level.

The second diagram I have zero clue what that is or what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you can explain it.

Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:

(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)

Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)

Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.

And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 20, 2020, 09:18:38 AM
Big numbers are the bane of FE. Ditto for distances. They just do not comprehend those.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 10:10:38 AM
Or indeed very small numbers.  Not sure why they have a problem as it they are all quite easy to manage once you get used to them. For instance if you take the Sun to Earth distance of 92,960,000 and being equal to 1 then using ratios we can reduce the distances of Mercury and Venus to 0.3 and 0.7 respectively and using this same scale the distance to Pluto becomes 40 in round figures.  What is so hard about that.

Then of course we have lightyears.  Now of course the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and there are 31,536,000 second in a year so 1 lightyear is equal to 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres.  Lets call that 9.454 x 10^15 m which is a bit easier to manage.  The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 lots of that 9.454x10^15 metres so lets just use lightyears instead.  100,000 lightyears. 

I don't really think in terms of actual distance.  Just numbers.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 10:41:58 AM
Happy to..

An equatorial mount is designed to allow tracking of the stars, Moon or Sun by using rotation in just one axis (RA).  As it rises, transits the meridian and then sets, a stars altitude and azimuth varies constantly due to the Earths rotation. 

That means if we use an ordinary alt-az mount which (such as a standard photographic tripod) which is aligned with the observers horizon and zenith we will need to continually move the mount in two directions to keep a star centred in the telescope FOV.

However if we tilt the mount so it is aligned with the Earths polar axis instead then the telescope is now aligned with the stars direction of movement. This means the polar axis of the mount has to be aimed directly and exactly with the celestial pole. I use a special camera to to this (QHY PoleMaster) which allows polar alignment to an accuracy of 30" in just a few minutes. 

Now for the northern hemisphere that is easy because the star Polaris (currently) lies just 40' (2/3 of a degree) away from the NCP. According to flat Earthers the north pole lies directly in the middle of the flat Earth and the north celestial pole would therefore be directly overhead if you were standing at the north pole.  This is also true for RE as well.  Effectively then an equatorial mount becomes an alt-az mount if used at the north pole.

However lines (or rather circles) of latitude on a flat Earth would simply become wider and wider as you move away from the north pole until you eventually get to the Antarctica where the south pole lies.  According to FE models that I have seen thus far, Antarctica is the circumference of the flat Earth 'disc'. However on the RE the south pole lies at a point where all lines of longitude converge and which also corresponds to 90deg south.  In other words the south pole on RE is a point just like the north pole is.

Astronomers in the southern hemisphere see a point in the sky where all the stars appear to rotate (clockwise) around. So they aim their equatorial mounts at the SCP so it is also aligned with the Earths polar axis but pointing to the SCP rather than the NCP.  That way the telescope tracks the stars just as would in the northern hemisphere.

But if there is no single point on a flat Earth to represent the south pole then there cannot be a point in the sky which corresponds with the south celestial pole can there. If that were true then how would you know where to point your equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere so it can track the stars?

Yet equatorial mounts work perfectly fine in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

https://rogergroom.com/polar-alignment-information-southern-hemisphere/

If you can draw a similar diagram to the one shown in the above link that would work just as well for a flat Earth then you are better than me.

I have been using equatorial mounts of all shapes and sizes for over 30 years now so if there are any other questions you have about then ask away.
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them and you believe this is on a globe and not tracking moving lights over and around a concave dome?

It proves nothing from either side, to be fair.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 10:57:29 AM


Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works.   And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?
Draw a cross hair on an replica eye lens and you will see you have a convex cross hair and your focal point is the dead centre of that lens.
If you were behind that, it would be your level focal point.
If you placed a cross hair over the opposite end of your kitchen roll holder and looked through the other end, with that roll being on a level set up, looking out to sea. You will see your horizon.
If you saw just sky, you would have a great argument for your globe.
But you don't see that.

Quote from: JJA

So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.
When you argue Earth being a basketball and I see that basket ball and edges, I'll change my stance.
Do we see this?

Quote from: JJA

According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.
We are shrunk down and we are a dot against Earth and we do not see any edge.
What we do see is our own horizon line of conflicting light reflection back to our eyes.

Quote from: JJA

So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?
There is never any edge if you live on a globe. All your level sight would  see, would be sky.
This does not happen.

Quote from: JJA

How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
Try it and see. Considering we are not talking about the convex edge of a small basket ball.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 10:59:01 AM
Put the camera on the first image........the ball and get back to me.
Hey, why don’t you take the picture, and explain it to us? You have camera on your phone, surely? Do a bit of work instead of shouting nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Sit your camera level on your ball and tell me where your horizon is.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 20, 2020, 11:04:20 AM
No, you do it. Get off your ass.

It ain't us trying to write the rules anew, here.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:06:02 AM
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.

I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.

So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right?
The sky always physically meets the ground or water all over the Earth.
If you mean where is my physical horizon. There is no physical horizon that we can touch. Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
That's because they have not be found to form a sphere.
If you really believe this then show me the reality.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:45:57 AM


Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:

(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)

Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)

Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.

And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zxnWLns/s4l9nY3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:47:28 AM
Big numbers are the bane of FE. Ditto for distances. They just do not comprehend those.
No need to. You don't need numbers to see through the global nonsense.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:49:32 AM
Or indeed very small numbers.  Not sure why they have a problem as it they are all quite easy to manage once you get used to them. For instance if you take the Sun to Earth distance of 92,960,000 and being equal to 1 then using ratios we can reduce the distances of Mercury and Venus to 0.3 and 0.7 respectively and using this same scale the distance to Pluto becomes 40 in round figures.  What is so hard about that.

Then of course we have lightyears.  Now of course the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and there are 31,536,000 second in a year so 1 lightyear is equal to 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres.  Lets call that 9.454 x 10^15 m which is a bit easier to manage.  The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 lots of that 9.454x10^15 metres so lets just use lightyears instead.  100,000 lightyears. 

I don't really think in terms of actual distance.  Just numbers.
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:51:03 AM
No, you do it. Get off your ass.

It ain't us trying to write the rules anew, here.
I'm doing a very good job of proving the Earth is not a globe.
If you believe I am not then you're welcome to that thought.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 12:02:51 PM
Quote
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them

Lets take that part of what you say and forget about the rest.  Yes you are right. We observe points of light in the sky (we call them stars) and we align our telescopes with the north and south celestial poles which also happen to be 180 degrees apart. 180 degrees as you probably know represents a straight line.

In the northern hemisphere we see the stars surrounding the NCP moving anticlockwise around it.  In the southern hemisphere we see the stars around the SCP rotating clockwise around it. 

The stars themselves are so far away that we can only see them as points of light in the sky. We know they are very distant through analysis of the light from them.  I will happily go into all that if you are interested but I suspect you won't be because you already have your own preconceived beliefs about the nature of the stars.

So given that we only ever see them as points of light we have have no direct means of knowing what their distances are.  We can therefore (for astrometric purposes) assume that they are all the same distance from us. This means we can 'visualise' the stars as being attached to the inside surface of an indefinitely large sphere.  The shape of the Earth and the size of the celestial 'sphere' are irrelevant when it comes to describing, measuring and defining the positions of the stars on the 'sphere'.

The celestial sphere is tilted at the same angle as the Earths polar axis (for obvious reasons) and so regardless of where we are located on the Earth we can always see at least one of the celestial poles.  But once again given the way FE models work I haven't a clue how you could have a south celestial pole which is a point of rotation.  Perhaps you could enlighten on that.

I would underline the point that astronomers know there is no physical celestial sphere.  We do know that because we can now use various methods to measure the distances of a lot of stars and we know they vary significantly. 

I could go on and on about this but I'm sure you have already fallen asleep because you don't accept or believe a word of it so I won't waste any more time. You have your alternative Earth theory and it follows from that that you no doubt have your alternative celestial theory as well.  How much evidence you have to support that is another matter.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
Quote
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?

Ok let me first ask you a question.  Have you ever seen Venus in the sky?  A straight yes or no will do.

What do you suggest the distance and diameter of the Sun is then? I will use your answers and my figures to compare our methods and then decide which is most likely to be correct.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 20, 2020, 12:06:20 PM
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
If you believe I am not then you're welcome to that thought.
No, you really aren’t. Trust me on this.

But still, I thank you for allowing me the freedom.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 20, 2020, 12:07:28 PM
It's fun arguing the points made though don't you think?!?

Quote
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.

Not really.  You can't prove something is true that isn't.  Even if you think it is.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 20, 2020, 12:44:48 PM


Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

And I'm saying the lens of your eye has nothing to do with how perspective works.   And we are looking at a picture taken with a camera, what has your eyeball lens have to do with that and the lines drawn on it?
Draw a cross hair on an replica eye lens and you will see you have a convex cross hair and your focal point is the dead centre of that lens.
If you were behind that, it would be your level focal point.
If you placed a cross hair over the opposite end of your kitchen roll holder and looked through the other end, with that roll being on a level set up, looking out to sea. You will see your horizon.
If you saw just sky, you would have a great argument for your globe.
But you don't see that.

You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.

I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.

This is basic geometry, you have been shown many pictures and diagrams but can't explain why they are wrong.

Quote from: JJA

So you can see the edge of the basketball when standing away from it.
When you argue Earth being a basketball and I see that basket ball and edges, I'll change my stance.
Do we see this?

Yes we do, we see a horizon, which is the edge of the sphere we live on.  What do you think that line is?  We se it with out eyes, and with cameras with or without a lens.

Quote from: JJA

According to you, if you shrink down and stand on it you can't see the edge.
We are shrunk down and we are a dot against Earth and we do not see any edge.
What we do see is our own horizon line of conflicting light reflection back to our eyes.

Reflecting back from what?

Quote from: JJA

So tell me, what what point does the edge mysteriously disappear?
There is never any edge if you live on a globe. All your level sight would  see, would be sky.
This does not happen.

Yes it does. I can see it right now.

Quote from: JJA

How close to the basketball do I need to get before it vanishes, turns invisible or whatever you think happens to it?
Try it and see. Considering we are not talking about the convex edge of a small basket ball.

Big or small it doesn't matter, you can always see the edge of an object you are standing on, unless it's an infinite plain.

If you start shrinking that camera above a basketball, you think the edge suddenly vanishes? Why would this be? You can't explain any of this.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 20, 2020, 02:48:04 PM
It doesn't need to magically glue both regions together.
In order to produce what is observed, IT DOES!
That is due to the direction of the object.
Merely not be able to see it due to losing light or whatever nonsense you want to appeal to would result in a region of darkness, like shown in the image provided.
Again, the night sky is an example of this, where you seen small points of light with large regions of darkness between them.

Deal with what we are dealing with, which is your global Earth sphere.
Yes, good advice. Care to follow it?
Deal with how a ball appears, rather than continually deflecting and making excuses.
Deal with just how large a portion of a full 360 degree FOV a ball would take up.
Until you actually deal with this, every time you claim you would not see a horizon on the RE you are blatantly lying, as you have no rational response to the refutation of that claim.

looking horizontally
We aren't talking about looking out horizontally any more, as you continually ignore the basic math which shows just how insignificantly it is below level.
We are talking about looking in a full 360 degrees, including looking directly at the ball.
That would be looking straight down, on the very real round Earth.
Do you still think you wont see Earth? Do you still think Earth will magically be invisible, even when looking straight at it?

If it isn't, that means somewhere between looking straight down and straight in front you will see the edge of Earth (unless you want to switch to claiming you will see Earth regardless of where you look.

Now again, answer the simple question:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.

Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.
Again, if that is the case, how are photos like this produced:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Basketball_%28Ball%29.jpg)
According to you this should be impossible, because you claim round objects like a RE should be invisible.

Do you understand the insanity of this?
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.

Again, if you want to claim that that is magically different to looking at the very real round Earth, you need to explain why it should be different, why standing on the ball magically makes it invisible.

Sit your camera level on your ball and tell me where your horizon is.
I already told you, for an elevation of 2 m, it is 2.7 arc minutes below level.
You have also been provided with plenty of photos showing it isn't at eye level, and instead is below.

I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.
No, you are continually repeating the same few lies and refusing to engage in any form of rational debate to discuss why those lies are wrong.
Continually repeating the same false assertions in no way disproves the globe.
This also isn't a matter of belief. It is a fact that you are not disproving the globe.

In order to disprove the globe you need to justify why we wouldn't see a horizon on a RE, not simply that it isn't perfectly level, but that we wouldn't see it.
The closest you have done is claiming such a round object would be invisible. But that would apply to every round object including balls. We have photos of balls clearly showing that is not the case.
That means Earth should be visible, and there is no reason to think otherwise until you can actually justify why Earth should be invisible.
Based upon Earth being visible, and not completely surrounding you, then looking straight down, you see Earth, looking straight up, you see sky. Somewhere between those 2 extremes you will see the edge of Earth, the boundary between Earth and sky, below which you see Earth and above which you see sky.
The question is then where does this occur?
I have already done the math for you and shown that for a height of 2 m, it is a mere ~2.7 arc minutes below the horizon, which is pretty much indistinguishable from the horizon.
This means that even when looking straight out (i.e. looking out level), you would need to have a FOV less than 5.4 arc minutes to see just sky.
And you have been provided with photos from a higher altitude that clearly show the horizon is below eye level.

So no, objectively, factually speaking, you have not disproven the globe. Instead you have continually repeated a strawman of the globe to pretend you have disproven it. This strawman is not what is expected for the RE you live on.

(and all that is just focusing on your alleged disproof and doesn't address the other evidence showing Earth is a globe, which you likewise haven't refuted)

Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones.
I wouldn't call repeatedly avoiding simple questions as "answering", nor just repeating what he had already said while basically ignoring the content of the posts. Responding is not the same as answering.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 20, 2020, 03:58:34 PM


Like I’ve stated before, you don’t seem to have knowledge of the conventional model of earth you so rail against. In the conventional model, Earth is huge:

(https://i.imgur.com/mkIuNm4.jpg?1)

Nor do you understand how a humans Field of View works on the enormity of Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)

Considering how massive Earth is and our up-down, side-to-side, all around FOV, there is literally no rational reason why one would not see a horizon line on a globe Earth. None whatsoever.

And you never answered my question regarding your odd notion that somehow the hidden 600’ of the base of the CN tower from 39 miles away is because it’s too dark to see. What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zxnWLns/s4l9nY3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.

Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?

Here's a human FOV:

(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)

Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?

And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.

And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 20, 2020, 10:24:34 PM
Well, if nothing else, Septic, you're a true gentleman. You've politely answered everybody's posts, even the super angry ones. Your pseudo optometrist mind has been working overtime.

I know you don't want to talk about the dome in this thread, and insist there is no edge, but a lot of these posts deal with the horizon.

So, be a good chappie and please explain what you call the line in your earth cell, where the sky physically meets the ground? I say sky, but you say dome, right?
The sky always physically meets the ground or water all over the Earth.
If you mean where is my physical horizon. There is no physical horizon that we can touch. Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You still haven't responded to the fact all continent and island shapes and sea and ocean shapes, have been accurately mapped and found to form a sphere like a giant 3d puzzle when put together.
That's because they have not be found to form a sphere.
If you really believe this then show me the reality.

Septic, you are where you belong - the flat earth society. But I've almost read enough. You're burying yourself and I don't even have to lend you a shovel.

It intrigues me your view of earth seems to be it is flat on top, and finite, but does not have an edge or a physical horizon line. So, your flat earth belief is the air just sits over the dish and there is no physical barrier keeping it contained and nothing beyond the atmosphere?

"Your horizon is your reflected distance of light back to your eye lens." What the hell does that sentence mean????? Reflected light off what? The horizon is the line where land or sea meets sky. What pseudo discipline are you ascribing to here?


Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 10:49:22 PM
Quote
So, basically you observe lights in the sky and track them

Lets take that part of what you say and forget about the rest.  Yes you are right. We observe points of light in the sky (we call them stars) and we align our telescopes with the north and south celestial poles which also happen to be 180 degrees apart. 180 degrees as you probably know represents a straight line.

In the northern hemisphere we see the stars surrounding the NCP moving anticlockwise around it.  In the southern hemisphere we see the stars around the SCP rotating clockwise around it. 

The stars themselves are so far away that we can only see them as points of light in the sky. We know they are very distant through analysis of the light from them.  I will happily go into all that if you are interested but I suspect you won't be because you already have your own preconceived beliefs about the nature of the stars.

So given that we only ever see them as points of light we have have no direct means of knowing what their distances are.  We can therefore (for astrometric purposes) assume that they are all the same distance from us. This means we can 'visualise' the stars as being attached to the inside surface of an indefinitely large sphere.  The shape of the Earth and the size of the celestial 'sphere' are irrelevant when it comes to describing, measuring and defining the positions of the stars on the 'sphere'.

The celestial sphere is tilted at the same angle as the Earths polar axis (for obvious reasons) and so regardless of where we are located on the Earth we can always see at least one of the celestial poles.  But once again given the way FE models work I haven't a clue how you could have a south celestial pole which is a point of rotation.  Perhaps you could enlighten on that.

I would underline the point that astronomers know there is no physical celestial sphere.  We do know that because we can now use various methods to measure the distances of a lot of stars and we know they vary significantly. 

I could go on and on about this but I'm sure you have already fallen asleep because you don't accept or believe a word of it so I won't waste any more time. You have your alternative Earth theory and it follows from that that you no doubt have your alternative celestial theory as well.  How much evidence you have to support that is another matter.
You seem to be able to follow and pinpoint dots of light and you visualise them being inside a dome for ease of purpose.
You visualise a pole due to a certain point of light.

Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.
It could quite simply be a dome and you are actually not stood on a globe, at all.

Nothing of what you say, in any way shape or form proves a globe. You know this....but fair play to you if you study the points of light and what not.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 10:55:39 PM
Quote
First of all you need to show where you get a 93 million mile sun with a 860,000 mile diameter.
How did you arrive at that?

Ok let me first ask you a question.  Have you ever seen Venus in the sky?  A straight yes or no will do.

What do you suggest the distance and diameter of the Sun is then? I will use your answers and my figures to compare our methods and then decide which is most likely to be correct.
I've seen points of light in the sky. Some more clear than others and some of varying colours to our vision.

So let's say I've seen this point of light you call venus.

Tell me why this is relevant to the size and distance of your sun and show me how you came to it....or why you believed the story of how someone came to this conclusion.
Also I have no clue what the distance and diameter of what we see in the sky, is. They are dome reflections in my theory.

However, this isn't about my theory, this is about how you come to verify the sun to be 93 million miles away and 860,000 miles in diameter.

If you can't answer it, just say so.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:00:18 PM
It's fun arguing the points made though don't you think?!?

Quote
I'm doing a very good job or proving the Earth is not a globe.

Not really.  You can't prove something is true that isn't.  Even if you think it is.
It's not for me to prove, it's for people like yourself to accept there is evidence that puts your globe into massive question.....or deny it. I'm not in charge of your thoughts.
However, I am in charge of mine and I believe I've proved it to myself that....at he very least...we do not live on a rotating globe.

I've given the basic reasons which to me are way more than enough to destroy the global nonsense.....but that's just me.
It's up to people to sit back and start thinking for themselves and using their own logic to determine whether what they've been indoctrinated into, is a reality.....or something else.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:09:12 PM
You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.

I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.
As long as you have eyes to see...of course you can.I'm not arguing any other.
What I am arguing....and I'm sure you know this, by now........is........ you are seeing an eye level horizon and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe.

You see it because the sky meets the water to the distance your eye lens can focus on.
Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated.


Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2020, 11:13:32 PM
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.
No I'm not.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 21, 2020, 12:40:02 AM
Quote
Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.

OK I will be totally honest with you.  I have been an amateur astronomer for over 40 years and in the next couple of years I will be completing a degree in astrophysics.  So whether you believe it or not I do know one or two things about your 'lights in the sky'.  No doubt a hell of a lot more than you.  So please stop the assuming and patronising.  Just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I am wrong and you suddenly know everything.

If there's anyone around here who has zero clue about anything here is is you.. so please stop pretending you do.  The comments from the others in this discussion seem to back me up.

If you can explain to me how equatorial mounts can possibly work in the southern hemisphere according to your belief system then please explain.  They do work I can assure you from any point on Earth.  Northern or southern hemisphere.  The problem with flat Earthers is that their belief system says one thing but real life tells a completely different story.  But that doesn't seem to matter to them.

I realise that part of being a conspiracy theorist is the 'buzz' they get from arguing with those who don't agree with whatever beliefs they hold. The more they get challenged about them the more it feeds their belief and they love that.  I have read that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change the belief of a conspiracy theorist so in that sense,  I (we) are wasting our time trying to discuss anything here aren't we.  Neither side will change their minds and so that is a classic recipe for stalemate.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 01:05:49 AM
First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.
I can size and resize images just fine.
The issue its at your end with what you are using to view it with.
It's absolutely fine at my end on the forum.


Quote from: Stash
Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?
Nope. You see a wide view over distance. You perceive light all around the convex lens of your eye.
However, your focus is directly centered like a cross hair is on a lens of a camera or anything else centralised.


Quote from: Stash
Here's a human FOV:

(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)

Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?
Nope. I'm saying your focus is centred, hence why you can determine your horizon. You cannot have any horizon other than centre focus to bring that imaginary line into view.


Quote from: Stash
And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.
Your globe cannot give rise to any horizon....ever. The fact we observe one is proof to me it is not a globe, for the very reasons I've stated.
No matter how it's dressed up....Earth does not curve downwards and if it did, you would see sky and nothing would ever rise up to meet your eye level.




Quote from: Stash
And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
I have answered. Your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it wasn't explained.

Light to the lens of your eyes. Your horizon is your sky to sea convergence point because the sky above shows more reflected light back to the top part of your eye than the bottom which finishes at your lens focus point (centre).
What you see above and below is determined by distance to any objects within that line.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 01:29:00 AM
Quote
Be totally honest with me.
You have zero clue what those points of light actually are and you also have zero clue from this whole explanation, what Earth is.

OK I will be totally honest with you.  I have been an amateur astronomer for over 40 years and in the next couple of years I will be completing a degree in astrophysics.  So whether you believe it or not I do know one or two things about your 'lights in the sky'.  No doubt a hell of a lot more than you.  So please stop the assuming and patronising.  Just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I am wrong and you suddenly know everything.

If there's anyone around here who has zero clue about anything here is is you.. so please stop pretending you do.  The comments from the others in this discussion seem to back me up.

If you can explain to me how equatorial mounts can possibly work in the southern hemisphere according to your belief system then please explain.  They do work I can assure you from any point on Earth.  Northern or southern hemisphere.  The problem with flat Earthers is that their belief system says one thing but real life tells a completely different story.  But that doesn't seem to matter to them.

I realise that part of being a conspiracy theorist is the 'buzz' they get from arguing with those who don't agree with whatever beliefs they hold. The more they get challenged about them the more it feeds their belief and they love that.  I have read that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change the belief of a conspiracy theorist so in that sense,  I (we) are wasting our time trying to discuss anything here aren't we.  Neither side will change their minds and so that is a classic recipe for stalemate.
Just remember one simple and basic thing.
Telescopes are nothing more than a magnifying optic to magnify what your eye cannot make out of light reflecting back to it.
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.

Do you know what that means?
It means you are not looking at millions of mile distant lights in any way shape or form.

Sizes cannot be accounted for and neither can the distances we are told about.
My belief is very simple.
What you view is what is reflected from Earth....not external to it.

What it is you're viewing, is points of light and Earth's own holographic images.

You being able to map those reflections is fine.
If you want to believe you are viewing light year stars/balls of fire and planets with man made vehicles/equipment on them....then fine also.

You're certainly not doing any of it from a global Earth vantage point.....in my opinion.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 21, 2020, 02:03:08 AM
Quote
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.

So based on your logic then I shouldn't be able to see further out into space with my telescope than I can with my eyes alone. Is that what you are saying?   You do realise that telescopes collect more light than the human eye can on its own and that is the main function of telescopes in astronomy.

Distance is pretty irrelevant to telescopes in astronomy.  I can see galaxies which are millions (or even billions) of lightyears away and too faint to be seen with the naked eye but I can see them with my telescopes.  I have several ranging from 77mm aperture through to 500mm.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 02:03:38 AM
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
Again, that means it is invisible.
Do you understand the insanity of that?
You are claiming that a RE would mean Earth is invisible.
Bingo....correct. It would not exist, just as I've been telling you.
The reason we have the horizon is because the Earth is not a globe or ball or whatever you want to make it.

So just to make sure I understand this. Here's a picture of Colmer Hill, Dorset UK. It's pretty round, certainly near the very top. If I've understood what you're saying, if I stand on the top of this hill, I should not be able to see it at all because it's curving away from me, just like a RE would do. Have I got that right? I stand on top of this hill and I won't be able to see it? What do I see instead then?

(https://i.imgur.com/26LeaIz.png)

So what's happening here? This is taken from the top of Colmer Hill. Not only do we see a clear edge, but we see the vertical fence posts disappearing over that edge. What's your explanation?

(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 21, 2020, 02:07:41 AM
First off, thanks for attempting a diagram. Secondly, can you learn how to post an image at the proper size? It came through as tiny almost unreadable. I blew it up.
I can size and resize images just fine.
The issue its at your end with what you are using to view it with.
It's absolutely fine at my end on the forum.

I wasn't meaning to be a dick about it. I was just excited that you actually attempted to diagram something. For some reason, and only for this one image, it's tiny in a regular old browser. Properly scaled in mobile. Never had this problem with anyone elses images ever. So I do't know what's going on.

Quote from: Stash
Thirdly, you're not making any sense at all. Do we only see a straight laser line through the dead center of our eyes? Meaning we have no peripheral vision?
Nope. You see a wide view over distance. You perceive light all around the convex lens of your eye.
However, your focus is directly centered like a cross hair is on a lens of a camera or anything else centralised.

If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?

Quote from: Stash
Here's a human FOV:

(https://i.imgur.com/XLb1kW4.png)

Are you saying we can only see through the center of our lens meaning just only inside the blue circle in the FOV image?
Nope. I'm saying your focus is centred, hence why you can determine your horizon. You cannot have any horizon other than centre focus to bring that imaginary line into view.

I have no idea what that sentence means. Can you point to some reference that explains these optic qualities in greater depth?

Quote from: Stash
And again, appreciate your attempt at a diagram. But you are literally just continuing to appeal to you can't see a horizon on a globe. With no rational optical reason why. And you don't seem too get the very basics of perspective, FOV and the immense size of earth. 3 strikes right there. You argument amounts to, "Well the earth is not a globe." That's it.
Your globe cannot give rise to any horizon....ever. The fact we observe one is proof to me it is not a globe, for the very reasons I've stated.
No matter how it's dressed up....Earth does not curve downwards and if it did, you would see sky and nothing would ever rise up to meet your eye level.

Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?

Quote from: Stash
And, why won't you answer my other question: What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?
I have answered. Your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it wasn't explained.

Light to the lens of your eyes. Your horizon is your sky to sea convergence point because the sky above shows more reflected light back to the top part of your eye than the bottom which finishes at your lens focus point (centre).
What you see above and below is determined by distance to any objects within that line.

How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.

(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)

And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 02:14:57 AM
You are literally claiming that balls are invisible and that every photo of a ball like a basketball is fake, because they should be invisible.
No I'm not.
Then why are you claiming that Earth, a round object, would be invisible?
That even when looking straight down at Earth, you see nothing but sky?

Again, if you wish to claim that you see nothing but sky, even when looking straight at Earth, you need to explain why a RE behaves so differently to a basketball, or other roughly spherical objects where that is clearly not the case.
Not just appeal to them superficially being different, but actually provide the explanation of why basketballs are visible, but a RE would be invisible.

Or do you finally accept that you can see a round Earth? That it wouldn't be invisible, and that looking you down you do see it and it takes up some amount of a full 360 degree FOV including up, down, front and back?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 21, 2020, 05:02:17 AM
You need to take a refresher course in optics and art, you don't need a lens, I don't know why you are so focused on that. Learn how perspective works.

I can see the horizon with or without a paper towel holder, with or without a lens, with or without a crosshair drawn on it.
As long as you have eyes to see...of course you can.I'm not arguing any other.
What I am arguing....and I'm sure you know this, by now........is........ you are seeing an eye level horizon and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe.

You see it because the sky meets the water to the distance your eye lens can focus on.
Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated.

You are not arguing or debating because you haven't stated any reasons, you are just making unfounded claims.

you are seeing an eye level horizon... - You are just saying this, it's not proof of anything.

...and because of this you are seeing it because you do not live on a globe. - Again, this is just you claiming it's true.

You see it because the sky meets the water... - At least we can agree on one thing.

...to the distance your eye lens can focus on. - No, we can focus to infinity. You don't understand how light works.

Your globe model cannot provide you with any horizon for reasons I've stated. - Sa you see, you have not given any reasons, just a bunch of baseless claims.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:16:33 AM
Quote
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see...it can only enlarge that focal point.

So based on your logic then I shouldn't be able to see further out into space with my telescope than I can with my eyes alone. Is that what you are saying?
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.....but....if you mean, do I mean...would you not be able to see further into the sky or over Earth, then yes, that's what I mean.


Quote from: Solarwind
   You do realise that telescopes collect more light than the human eye can on its own and that is the main function of telescopes in astronomy.
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.


Quote from: Solarwind
Distance is pretty irrelevant to telescopes in astronomy.  I can see galaxies which are millions (or even billions) of lightyears away and too faint to be seen with the naked eye but I can see them with my telescopes.
 I have several ranging from 77mm aperture through to 500mm.
You think you can but, if you're honest you can never prove it..
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:25:39 AM
So just to make sure I understand this. Here's a picture of Colmer Hill, Dorset UK. It's pretty round, certainly near the very top. If I've understood what you're saying, if I stand on the top of this hill, I should not be able to see it at all because it's curving away from me, just like a RE would do. Have I got that right? I stand on top of this hill and I won't be able to see it? What do I see instead then?

(https://i.imgur.com/26LeaIz.png)

If you were stood on the top of that hill as your Earth....not as a hill on Earth and looking out level, you would see sky. You would have no horizon line.


Quote from: robinofloxley
So what's happening here? This is taken from the top of Colmer Hill. Not only do we see a clear edge, but we see the vertical fence posts disappearing over that edge. What's your explanation?

(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 05:34:56 AM
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 21, 2020, 05:35:52 AM
Quote from: robinofloxley
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)

Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.

Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.

You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:50:10 AM
If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?
I highly doubt I'll get references to scupper a global Earth with this...do you?


Quote from: Stash
Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?
It makes no difference what size it is.

If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.




Quote from: Stash
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?


Quote from: Stash
And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.
Not by me it hasn't.

Quote from: Stash
And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
It's your eyes that lose the light. The bottom of your eye lens.
The top receives more light due to less dense atmosphere.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:52:13 AM
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:53:13 AM
Quote from: robinofloxley
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)

Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.

Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.

You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
Maybe someone can help you out.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 06:10:03 AM
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 06:49:38 AM
Quote from: robinofloxley
(https://i.imgur.com/5Yy25a0.png)
You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use. :)

Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.

Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.

You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!
Maybe someone can help you out.

I really don't think JJA needs any help from me or anyone else.

You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 21, 2020, 07:10:57 AM
Quote
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.

You really don't get it do you.  Our eyes are light detectors.  The pupil is the 'aperture' of the eye and reaches a maximum diameter of around 6mm when fully dilated such as when it is dark adapted.

A telescope increases this aperture to whatever the diameter of the primary lens or mirror is. So the telescope gathers more light than the human eye is capable of on its own. It does this by increasing the size of the light gathering area. Very distant objects such as galaxies are absolutely huge but they are also very faint because they are a long, long way away.  Only two external galaxies are visible with the naked eye but countless more are visible with telescopes.  Take M81/M82 for example.  M82 has a size of 9 x 4 arc minutes on the sky but is also 12 million light years from Earth. I cannot see it with the naked but I can see it with a telescope. So the telescope is allowing me to see deeper into space.

So the telescope most certainly is allowing me to see objects which are further away that I can see with the naked eye alone.  Nothing to do with the size of the image or magnifying power.  It is to do with the additional light gathering power of the telescope.  If an object is too faint for me to detect it with a telescope then no amount of magnifying power will make it visible.

The resolving power and light gathering power are fixed properties of a telescope.  You can vary the power (by using eyepieces of different focal lengths) but no amount of magnifying power will allow me to see an object if my telescope is not picking up any photons from it. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 07:51:04 AM
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 07:54:38 AM


You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 07:57:52 AM
Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.
So what is there?
I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.
Care to share a link?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0
Thank you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 21, 2020, 07:59:16 AM
Maybe someone can help you out.

You're the only one claiming that you can't see an object if your standing on it.  ::)

You need all the help here, in basic geometry, optics and general common sense. Sadly I don't think they teach a class in the last one.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 21, 2020, 08:01:02 AM


You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

I can't believe you don't understand you can stand on a hill AND a globe at the same time.  I suppose you think it's impossible to take a picture of two objects at once or see them with our eyeball lenses.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:02:47 AM
Quote
Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.

You really don't get it do you.  Our eyes are light detectors.  The pupil is the 'aperture' of the eye and reaches a maximum diameter of around 6mm when fully dilated such as when it is dark adapted.

A telescope increases this aperture to whatever the diameter of the primary lens or mirror is. So the telescope gathers more light than the human eye is capable of on its own. It does this by increasing the size of the light gathering area. Very distant objects such as galaxies are absolutely huge but they are also very faint because they are a long, long way away.  Only two external galaxies are visible with the naked eye but countless more are visible with telescopes.  Take M81/M82 for example.  M82 has a size of 9 x 4 arc minutes on the sky but is also 12 million light years from Earth. I cannot see it with the naked but I can see it with a telescope. So the telescope is allowing me to see deeper into space.

So the telescope most certainly is allowing me to see objects which are further away that I can see with the naked eye alone.  Nothing to do with the size of the image or magnifying power.  It is to do with the additional light gathering power of the telescope.  If an object is too faint for me to detect it with a telescope then no amount of magnifying power will make it visible.

The resolving power and light gathering power are fixed properties of a telescope.  You can vary the power (by using eyepieces of different focal lengths) but no amount of magnifying power will allow me to see an object if my telescope is not picking up any photons from it.
Let me make this a bit more clearer for you.

A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.

What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.

Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:03:36 AM
Maybe someone can help you out.

You're the only one claiming that you can't see an object if your standing on it.  ::)

You need all the help here, in basic geometry, optics and general common sense. Sadly I don't think they teach a class in the last one.
I'm fine. I'm more than happy with what I'm saying.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:04:17 AM


You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

I can't believe you don't understand you can stand on a hill AND a globe at the same time.  I suppose you think it's impossible to take a picture of two objects at once or see them with our eyeball lenses.
Get back to me when you can address the issue.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:27:11 AM
Can I prove this.?Of course not.

Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..
This is a real problem. Sceptimatic, your version holds about as much water as New Earth's flavour of month model.

And, actually, what do you think of those? Can't remember you telling New they are wrong...?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:30:52 AM
Can I prove this.?Of course not.

Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..
This is a real problem. Sceptimatic, your version holds about as much water as New Earth's flavour of month model.

And, actually, what do you think of those? Can't remember you telling New they are wrong...?
I don't have any problem. When I do,  I'll let you know.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:33:46 AM
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?

The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:47:18 AM
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?

The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
Make up as many words as you feel you need.
I've never said any of that so leave it off here or your posts get bypassed.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:50:49 AM
So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?

The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?
Make up as many words as you feel you need.
I've never said any of that so leave it off here or your posts get bypassed.
I see. You do not have the proverbial balls to tell them they are wrong because they are not RE.

It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist, yet, for some odd reason, they get a pass while RE does not, even though the status is the same.

You lack spine.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 08:58:15 AM




It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

There can only be one correct model.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:59:38 AM




It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

There can only be one correct model.
And it is the 4D cylinder, right?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 21, 2020, 09:11:14 AM




It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

There can only be one correct model.

That would be the globe, yes.  ;D
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 09:19:57 AM


You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.
When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

Basically you can never see any horizon line. It would be impossible on your globe.

I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.

What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only

Quote from: JackBlack
Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.

Quote from: JackBlack
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.



Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.
I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.

And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?

Is it my turn to sit back and laugh now?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 09:30:27 AM


So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.


Quote from: robinofloxley
And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?
Absolutely not.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 21, 2020, 12:26:22 PM
Quote
A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.

What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.

Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

Yes you are quite right. Telescopes do magnify distant objects. I only have to look at the Moon or any of the major planets to realise that. For example when you look through a telescope at Saturn you can see the rings clearly and when you look at Venus you can see the various phases as it orbits the Sun just like the Earth does.  Simple, basic concepts.

You said earlier (unless I misunderstood exactly what you meant - in which case my apologies are sent) that a telescope doesn't allow you to see further then you can see with the naked eye.  That simply isn't true. I cannot see Pluto with my naked eye but I can see it with a telescope. Therefore the telescope does allow me to see more distant objects.  That has nothing to do with magnification though. The angular size of Pluto on the sky is less than the resolution limit of my 4 inch telescope. Piling on more and more magnification is not going to change that so that particular telescope will not allow me to see Pluto visually.

However if I replace the eyepiece with a camera and then aim my telescope in the direction of Pluto and take an exposure of a minute or and so then I will be able to detect Pluto.  Because I am now able to record all the photons of light arriving from Pluto over the course of that minute and that is enough to bring it into view. The only way I can see Pluto visually is by using a larger aperture which also has greater light gathering power and a better resolution.

So yes telescopes do magnify so they will show targets which are visible to the naked eye larger and with better resolution. The details we see in the planets are due to a combination of these. But they also allow us to see objects which are too distant and faint to see with the naked eye.  Not because of magnifying power but because of their better light gathering power and better resolution.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 02:22:44 PM
level sight.
Stop appealing to level sight. It just confuses you.
Deal with if the edge is visible first, and then deal with where that edge is.
Then we can discuss if it is seen with a level sight.

Again, tell us exactly why a round Earth (like the one you live on, unless you don't live on this planet) should be invisible; why if you are looking directly at this ball, you see nothing but sky.
Once more, this is not about looking straight out level. This is about looking directly at Earth.

Because if you can see Earth, that means there will be a horizon for this round Earth (unless it is placed so far away that limited visibility through the atmosphere would render it a blur) as there will be a border between where you can look towards Earth and where you cannot.
Everything available shows you are wrong.
Simple pictures of balls show you are wrong.
Basic math shows you are wrong.
The picture of the hill shows you are wrong.
Your continued avoidance of the questions show you are wrong.

You are a clinging to a strawman so you can pretend Earth isn't round.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:30:58 PM
Quote
A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.

What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.

Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

Yes you are quite right. Telescopes do magnify distant objects. I only have to look at the Moon or any of the major planets to realise that. For example when you look through a telescope at Saturn you can see the rings clearly and when you look at Venus you can see the various phases as it orbits the Sun just like the Earth does.  Simple, basic concepts.

You said earlier (unless I misunderstood exactly what you meant - in which case my apologies are sent) that a telescope doesn't allow you to see further then you can see with the naked eye.  That simply isn't true. I cannot see Pluto with my naked eye but I can see it with a telescope. Therefore the telescope does allow me to see more distant objects.  That has nothing to do with magnification though. The angular size of Pluto on the sky is less than the resolution limit of my 4 inch telescope. Piling on more and more magnification is not going to change that so that particular telescope will not allow me to see Pluto visually.

However if I replace the eyepiece with a camera and then aim my telescope in the direction of Pluto and take an exposure of a minute or and so then I will be able to detect Pluto.  Because I am now able to record all the photons of light arriving from Pluto over the course of that minute and that is enough to bring it into view. The only way I can see Pluto visually is by using a larger aperture which also has greater light gathering power and a better resolution.

So yes telescopes do magnify so they will show targets which are visible to the naked eye larger and with better resolution. The details we see in the planets are due to a combination of these. But they also allow us to see objects which are too distant and faint to see with the naked eye.  Not because of magnifying power but because of their better light gathering power and better resolution.
Do you accept that a telescope is just a large version of a microscope.
I'll await your answer before I carry on.
If you don't think a telescope is just a large version of a microscope, then tell me why.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 21, 2020, 10:35:40 PM
If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?
I highly doubt I'll get references to scupper a global Earth with this...do you?

It doesn't have anything to do with a globe earth. It's merely how human optics work regardless of the shape of the earth. Do you have a reference for how you describe human optics to work?

Quote from: Stash
Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?
It makes no difference what size it is.

If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.

I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?

Quote from: Stash
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

Quote from: Stash
And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.
Not by me it hasn't.

I understand "not by you". But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:

(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)

If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.

Quote from: Stash
And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.
It's your eyes that lose the light. The bottom of your eye lens.
The top receives more light due to less dense atmosphere.

And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:41:15 PM
level sight.
Stop appealing to level sight. It just confuses you.

Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:46:49 PM

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, tell us exactly why a round Earth (like the one you live on, unless you don't live on this planet) should be invisible; why if you are looking directly at this ball, you see nothing but sky.
Once more, this is not about looking straight out level. This is about looking directly at Earth.
This all about looking out horizontally level. It is my argument that kills off your globe.
You trying to alter that to claim looking at a basket ball from distance proves edges, is pointless.
Deal with what you believe you are stood upon, which is your global Earth.
Let's see you address this.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:47:56 PM

Quote from: JackBlack
Because if you can see Earth, that means there will be a horizon for this round Earth (unless it is placed so far away that limited visibility through the atmosphere would render it a blur) as there will be a border between where you can look towards Earth and where you cannot.
Everything available shows you are wrong.
Simple pictures of balls show you are wrong.
Basic math shows you are wrong.
The picture of the hill shows you are wrong.



None of it shows I'm wrong.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 11:11:43 PM

Quote from: Stash
I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?
And once again, it does not matter how big it is.




Quote from: Stash
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.


Quote from: Stash

 But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:

(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)

If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.

No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.

Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.
Quote from: Stash
And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 11:16:43 PM
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
That is not intrinsically tied to level sight.
It has also already been dealt with, repeatedly, with you ignoring it repeatedly.
Once more, at an elevation of 2 m, the horizon would be ~2.7 arc minutes below level. That is pretty much indistinguishable from level, and kills your argument.
The fact that it is observed to be lower the higher you go further kills your argument.

But you moved on from simply claiming that the horizon wouldn't be dead level for a RE, and instead started falsely claiming you would not see the edge at all, that a horizon would not exist on a RE at all as you would see nothing but sky. You repeatedly refused to answer where such a horizon would appear on a RE other than saying that it wouldn't exist. As otherwise, your arguments are all dead.
That is because once you admit there is an edge of a RE, a division between where you can look at the land/sea and where you can't and instead only get sky, the question then becomes where is it. And when you do the math, that turns out to be very close to level and thus would likely be seen when looking level.

So this is well beyond just talking about level.

This is now talking about if a round object, like the very real round Earth, has a horizon, if it has an edge between where you see it and where you see what surrounds it (e.g. the sky). And that is not tied to level.

And that means I am dealing with what I KNOW I am standing on. A round, roughly spherical, visible object.
I see no reason why a RE should be invisible.
I see no reason why a RE should magically behave differently to a basketball and magically not have an edge.
I provided the math to calculate where the horizon would appear. I pointed out just how close that would put it to level, and thus match what is observed. I provided pictures showing that it drops as you get higher.
So I have dealt with it.
Your straw-man of the RE has been refuted.

Unless you are looking at with an extremely small FOV, or from very far away, if you are looking level, you will see the horizon on the RE. All you have offered in response to back up your strawman is repeatedly asserting the same strawman.
Your nonsense has been dealt with, and not just by me. Your claims have been addressed, and not just by me.

Now it is time for you to start justifying your claims, to start answering the questions that are asked of you instead of continually deflecting.

So, when you are looking straight down at a round Earth, do you think you see it, or is it invisible?
Can you actually answer that question, or do you need to continually dishonestly deflect to pretend you can disprove the RE, when in reality you have nothing.

So again, looking straight down towards a RE, do you see Earth, or do you just see sky?
If you think the latter, then why doesn't the same apply to a basketball.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 11:21:41 PM
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.

So that means before you even get to doing the experiment you need to calculate where the horizon should be for a RE, something you refuse to do as you know it destroys your argument.

For example, if you have a cylinder that is 30 cm long and 1 cm in radius, then the FOV (assuming your eye is right on it) is 3.8 degrees. Many times larger than the ~5.4 arc minutes. In order to get it to 5.4 arc minutes, you would need to view it from over 12 m away.
You then also start running into issues of the limit of human vision.

If you honestly wanted to do it, the simplest way is to get a water level, and go to a high mountain, like the pictures you have already been provided with which clearly show the horizon below level.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 21, 2020, 11:42:29 PM

Quote from: Stash
I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?
And once again, it does not matter how big it is.

I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?

Quote from: Stash
How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?
If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.

Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?

Quote from: Stash

 But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:

If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.

No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.

It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:

(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)

Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.

I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?

Quote from: Stash
And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?
Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.

Sorry, I may have missed it. Maybe you can type the few characters again. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the CN tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. A simple 3-2 character response requested. Yes or No.

I'll make it even easier, a one character answer:

1 = Yes
2 = No
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 12:15:14 AM
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.

No we are not.
Twist is anyway you like but you simply waste your posts.

We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.

Don't waste your time trying to use anything that you can't correlate with your global Earth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 12:16:17 AM


So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.


Quote from: robinofloxley
And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?
Absolutely not.

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size? Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size? Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:

It makes no difference what size it is.

If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.

OK, well if size is not the problem, it must be something else. Something special about the earth which makes it different to other balls? Nope, because according to you:

Quote from: JackBlack
The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.
If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.

This is a general statement about balls. You're claiming if you stand on a ball, any ball, any size, you don't have edges. So it's nothing to do with size and the edge issue applies to balls in general, not specifically the earth.

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 12:21:44 AM
Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.
I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV,horizontally converged.......hence your horizon line.

Impossible. Absolutely impossible on a globe Earth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 12:50:43 AM
I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?
I don't know how big Earth is.
It also does not matter.
What does matter, is what's observed and the simple logic of that.

Quote from: Stash
Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?

It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:

(https://i.imgur.com/MrGy8xd.jpg)

[/quote]I recognise a true distant horizon to the eye and 2 tubes with level liquid in.
You're proving nothing otherthan cementing the reality of Earth absolutely not being a globe.

Whoever used these tubes and liquid level and focusing them under the true horizon,made a massive error.
Why?
You see....if you wanted to prove a globe Earth that showed a reality...those two tubes with level liquid would need to be above any edge/line.
This so called experiment is an absolute abomination.

Quote from: Stash
Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.

I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?

Yep, as long as the image being taken is actually on the ball and levelled, using a wall or closed in background that would be your space.

Make absolutely sure you make the focus......level on that ball.
Let's see if you can produce this in an honest way.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 01:29:07 AM
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.

Quote from: robinofloxley
Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?
They do if you're stood on one.

Quote from: robinofloxley
Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:
It isn't a problem.


Quote from: robinofloxley
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:01:45 AM
So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.

This is a completely circular argument. Your reasoning why the earth can't be a globe is because it's flat? Seriously?

Water is level. Level is not flat.

Quote from: robinofloxley
Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?
They do if you're stood on one.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Quote from: robinofloxley
Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:
It isn't a problem.

You just agreed that balls vanish beyond a certain size. Now size doesn't matter. Which is it? Can we have just a little bit of consistency please.

Quote from: robinofloxley
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 02:06:59 AM

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Any ball you can stand on.

Quote from: robinofloxley
Quote from: robinofloxley
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 22, 2020, 02:26:58 AM
Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.
No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
No we are not.
Yes, we are, as you are claiming on a RE you wouldn't see any horizon.
That claim is an outright lie, as repeatedly explained to you.
So now, to get to the bottom of the lie you are being asked an extremely simple question you repeatedly refuse to answer as you know it will expose your lies.

Or do you now accept that the a round Earth would have an edge, a visual line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
If so, WHERE IS IT? At what angle below eye level?
If not, then answer the question:
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?

We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.
And as we have already been over countless times, what is observed matches with what is expected for a RE.
When close to sea level you have a horizon which is imperceptibly below eye level, with it appearing to get further below eye level as you get higher.
So if you just want to deal with that, then accept that a RE WOULD have a horizon and when close to sea level it would basically at eye level, and thus what is observed matches reality.

If you wish to claim you only see sky then tell us how far below eye level the horizon is on this round Earth you live on.
If you cannot answer that simple question then tell us if looking straight down you would see a RE or not.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.
I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV
Like I said, you don't understand. If the horizon was as far as you can see, top to bottom, that requires a FOV of 0.
You are denying the fact that that tube would still produce a FOV which is not 0 and thus allow the horizon to appear in that FOV for a round Earth.
So good job showing yet again you either don't understand or are just lying.

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?
It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.
It is quite clear what that question was asking.
You are claiming a RE has no visible edge, that all you see is sky. Yet we observe plenty of balls where that isn't the case.
So why would a RE be so vastly different to all the balls we have seen?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:34:21 AM

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Any ball you can stand on.

Quote from: robinofloxley
Quote from: robinofloxley
So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?
You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?
No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 03:11:41 AM

When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?

Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 03:16:21 AM
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:21:06 AM
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...

(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)

So, to repeat:

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
Can you see the sky? - No
Can you see the earth's horizon? - No

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 06:41:27 AM
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...

(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)

So, to repeat:


Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2020, 06:47:46 AM
Lol, a photo of a hill is fake?

Poor sceptitank.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:58:13 AM
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...

(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)

So, to repeat:


Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 08:47:54 AM
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 22, 2020, 02:07:38 PM
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?
Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.
And more avoidance of a simple question.
You didn't seem to have any issues with making bold proclamations before without any clear definition. Why change now?

For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.

Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?

The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.
No he isn't.
In effect the photo has 2 "horizons". One is the edge of the hill, the other is the edge of the round Earth.
For the first "horizon", below (visually) it you see the hill and things directly on the hill. Above (visually) it you see the land and sky surrounding the hill.
This photo shows that a round Earth would have a horizon, and thus the question is where it is.

Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.
Try following your own advice, rather than repeatedly clinging to a refuted strawman.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 22, 2020, 02:13:22 PM
Quote
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..

This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:21:50 PM
Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.
First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...

(https://i.imgur.com/ERZrU5a.jpg)

So, to repeat:


Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:23:35 PM
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:24:09 PM
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:32:44 PM
For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.

Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?

.
Let me make this crystal crystal crystal clear for the last time.
Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.
You see your horizon.
You would not see this on your supposed globe.
Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.

The issue you are having isin trying to convince me that what we see on Earth, is due to it being the globe you believe it is, so you are using it when you should really know it's impossible.

Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.

You and others attempts to twist it away is pointless with me buit feel free to keep doing so and I'll respond accordingly.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:43:04 PM
Quote
What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..

This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?
Look at a microscope plate with a speck of dust on it. You may not see it with your naked eye but you will see it with your microscope.

Does the plate sink into distance or does the scope simply magnify it?
That should answer your telescope issue.
However....if you want to believe you're looking at light year stars/suns/galaxies....et.....etc.....etc, then fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
I just simply think it's nonsense.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 23, 2020, 01:53:59 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 02:55:39 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 23, 2020, 03:36:46 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9 (https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9)

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.
Get back to me when you can be honest.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.
Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.
I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.

So when challenged to back up your statement that I've been dishonest, you come up with precisely nothing at all. What a surprise. Yes, I've re-read the post. Tells me nothing, you're going to have to do better than that.

And no, I'll decide when I'm done, you don't get to dictate to me thank you very much.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 04:46:53 AM
Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy).  Which could the other two be then???  (a little quiz for you).

If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.

We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 23, 2020, 06:38:38 AM
I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Well, at least you admit you don't judge anything based on facts or evidence or reality, just your preconceived beliefs.

Always knew that, but nice to have it confirmed.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 06:53:10 AM
Quote
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 07:20:03 AM
Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy).  Which could the other two be then???  (a little quiz for you).

If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.

We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it....unless you want to brush it off.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 07:21:37 AM
Quote
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 07:43:49 AM
Quote
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

Quote
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.

OK then enlighten us.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 08:19:45 AM
Quote
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.


I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 23, 2020, 08:20:07 AM
Quote
Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.
None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.

I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 23, 2020, 08:59:36 AM
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 09:19:34 AM
Quote
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.

How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat?  This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?

So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.

Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons.  I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I.   I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself.  I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die. 

So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.

Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is.  Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course.  But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 23, 2020, 09:35:11 AM
Quote
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.


I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 09:58:34 AM
A few years back there was a supernova event in the galaxy M82. I have the equipment that allows me to obtain spectra of stars through telescopes and so I was able to obtain the spectra of the supernova. I was using the Star Analyser 100 diffraction filter and Tom Fields excellent RSpec software. 

There is a distinct line which appears in the spectra associated with type 1a supernovae and I was able to identify this line almost straight away.  I then calibrated my software by using a classic A type star which has the strongest hydrogen balmer lines. I then looked up (without verifying it for myself first) the quoted laboratory standard wavelength of the line I had observed in the supernova spectra.  In my spectra the line was visibly blue shifted which is what I predicted because the line came from the shockwave 'shell' of gas which was rapidly expanding out into space.  The shell was expanding faster then the recession velocity of the galaxy itself.

By plugging in the numbers I had measured with other standard figures I was able to calculate (posh term for verify) that the shell was expanding at 5% of the speed of light.  A typical speed for a supernova just a few weeks after the event itself.

I also measured redshift of the core of the galaxy and used that to verify the distance to the galaxy.  I got a figure of 10.95 million lightyears.  Very close to the modern accepted figure of 11.5 million lightyears.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 23, 2020, 10:48:21 AM
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun.  The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.

As I remember anyway, it's been a while.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 23, 2020, 12:14:36 PM
I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.
I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun.  The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.

As I remember anyway, it's been a while.
Something like that. One would think it would be easy to see.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: faded mike on September 23, 2020, 01:00:13 PM
I've asked and answered this question before.  I've never heard a Flat Earther answer, but maybe someone will respond this time.  I'm not a Flat Earther, but to change my mind it could be any number of things. 

Touching the dome.

Looking over the edge.

Flying out into the endless ice plain.

Reporters discovering an ISS set in Hollywood, complete with the actors and all the real ISS feeds showing reporters walking around in space on the set.

An explanation or theory that actually made any kind of sense at all. :)
The only entrance to the hollywood set is in New York!
 just kidding

Also, maybe we can't understand the whole world...?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 23, 2020, 02:26:05 PM
Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.
And again you repeat the same refuted nonsense.
The point of asking these questions is to show that your claim in no way matches what you would expect for a globe.

The entire point is that you would see the horizon when looking out level on a globe, unless you were very far away from the globe, or your FOV was tiny.

Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.
Good, now we are making progress.

So you accept that when looking straight down, you see ground, and when looking perfectly level at 0 degrees, with nothing below that, you see sky.

That means at some point it must change.
If you start looking straight down, and bring your head up towards level, at some point you will see an imaginary line below which there is ground/sea and above which there is sky, i.e. you will see a horizon. Just like the example of the basketball and hill, but instead of sky you have the regions surrounding them.

Now the next question is where does it change?
Looking straight down is ground. Now we tilt the camera up, towards level. At what point does it change to sky?
i.e. at what angle would this horizon be on a round Earth?
For simplicity, you can start with the camera being 2 m above the surface.
But even better, can you provide a formula which relates the height above the surface, the radius of the ball, and this angle?

Feel free to have the angle be from level or from straight down, just clarify which you are using.

Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.
You mean they destroy the fictional FE model and support the globe.

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
You mean reality, not nonsense, not indoctrination. In fact, you seem to be clinging to those while you reject reality.
This also shows just how close minded you are and how dishonest you were when presenting what would change your mind.
Your mind is set, and you refuse to change. Even if you are shown evidence which conclusively shows Earth is a globe, you still wont accept it.

None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I am for changing, but not just for the hell of it.
I am set with the globe because so far it is the only model I know of that actually matches reality, the only model I know of that is supported by evidence and can explain what is being observed in reality.
If you can present a FE model which works better than the RE model I will happily change.

The problem is that no FEer does that. Instead they make completely false misrepresentations about what "should" happen on a globe to pretend the globe doesn't match reality, while repeatedly avoiding simple questions and ignoring all the problems with a FE or just coming up with nonsense to pretend it works, even if it contradicts the alleged evidence for a FE.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 11:22:27 PM


I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 23, 2020, 11:26:27 PM
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 11:26:36 PM
Quote
I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat?  This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?
So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.

Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons.  I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I.   I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself.  I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die. 

So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.

Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is.  Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course.  But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 11:29:00 PM
Quote
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.


I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 12:11:07 AM
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.
Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 24, 2020, 12:45:11 AM
Well, he is not wrong asking for evidence.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 24, 2020, 01:45:25 AM
Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.
Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.

Evidence would help. You've already been presented with evidence that the horizon and eye level are not always the same and that on a ball/rounded hill, a horizon line can be seen. And so far, you have presented zero evidence for your claims that have been refuted with actual evidence. So yeah, evidence would be a good thing to back up what you say at this point.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 24, 2020, 01:47:40 AM
Quote
Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.


I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.
How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?

Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.

My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.

The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.

They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.

Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.

As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 24, 2020, 02:16:26 AM
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.
Well that doesn't include you. You seem to just want to reject it for no good reason at all, and continually avoid simple arguments/questions which show your claims to be wrong, like you have done yet again.

Once more, you have accepted that for a round Earth straight down is ground, yet looking level there is sky.
That means that if you start looking straight down and bring your head up towards level you must reach a point where it transitions, you must get an imaginary line below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.

Do you accept this fact, or do you reject it?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 24, 2020, 04:11:20 AM
Quote
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.

So you are going on and on and on about us simply accepting as true what we have been told or what we have read etc etc and whether we have 'verified' it for ourselves or whatever.

Are you not simply doing the same with regards to your belief that the Earth is flat?  Or have you personally verified it as being true and if so how did you do it?   I would love to know.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 24, 2020, 04:41:27 AM

I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.

I would, but your entire argument is based on some random book you read.  And you continue to ignore most of what I say, so I'm not the one refusing to engage here. 

If you are so sure all this land exists, why not fly out there and discover it yourself? Be famous.

There are infinite worlds out there.. why are you so afraid to go look for one?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 06:17:22 AM
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.

My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.

The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.

They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.

Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.

As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 06:23:16 AM
Once more, you have accepted that for a potential round (global) Earth straight down is ground, yet looking level there is sky.
Yep, absolutely.

Quote from: JackBlack
That means that if you start looking straight down and bring your head up towards level (on a flat/level sea/water/liquid on Earth with concave sky) you must reach a point where it transitions, you must get an imaginary line below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.

Do you accept this fact, or do you reject it?
I fully accept what is put in bold.

Do you fully accept what is in bold?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 06:28:20 AM
Quote
I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.

So you are going on and on and on about us simply accepting as true what we have been told or what we have read etc etc and whether we have 'verified' it for ourselves or whatever.

Are you not simply doing the same with regards to your belief that the Earth is flat?  Or have you personally verified it as being true and if so how did you do it?   I would love to know.
I do not know what the Earth is in it's entirety.
I do know what it is not....and it is not, a globe.

My theory/hypothesis/thought process is what I've put forward.
I can't physically prove a lot of it....but then again I'm not asking anyone to follow it.
You or others ask what my Earth is like and I answer. That's it.

You can shout and scream from the rooftops about not accepting it and pushing your indoctrinated model forward. It's fine with me....but don't be shocked when I dismiss it as I have done and use basic logic to destroy it as far as I am concerned with it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 06:29:59 AM

I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?
Come back to me when you want to engage.

I would, but your entire argument is based on some random book you read.  And you continue to ignore most of what I say, so I'm not the one refusing to engage here. 

If you are so sure all this land exists, why not fly out there and discover it yourself? Be famous.

There are infinite worlds out there.. why are you so afraid to go look for one?
What book is this?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 24, 2020, 06:35:32 AM
Scep, why do you know it is not a globe?
Unless you can provide evidence, I'd like to point out that you believe it is not a globe, but you dont know it. Big difference.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 24, 2020, 06:57:48 AM
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.

My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.

The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.

They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.

Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.

As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.

Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 24, 2020, 07:00:55 AM
Scott Manly used this technique to get the distance to the moon using smart phones.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 07:28:42 AM
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?

Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 24, 2020, 07:45:34 AM
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?

Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?

It's all explained in the Wikipedia article I linked. Look I'm not teaching basic astronomy to a class here, I'm just telling you that I did an experiment years ago to verify the distance to a galaxy and explained how I did it. Go read the article, it explains how you do it. Come back to me with any part requiring further explanation.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 24, 2020, 09:02:22 AM
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?

Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?

Look up the details yourself, it's all out there.  Several ways.

But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart.  Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon.  When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.

A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.

But the modern method is using radar.  We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely.  Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.

Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 09:38:05 AM


It's all explained in the Wikipedia article I linked. Look I'm not teaching basic astronomy to a class here, I'm just telling you that I did an experiment years ago to verify the distance to a galaxy and explained how I did it. Go read the article, it explains how you do it. Come back to me with any part requiring further explanation.
I'm not asking you to teach anything. I'm asking you to explain your first reference point of distance to your star, sun or whatever to gauge size and distance to be accurate or close to.

If you can't explain it then fine, just say it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 09:44:35 AM
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?

Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?

Look up the details yourself, it's all out there.  Several ways.

But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart.  Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon.  When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.

A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.

But the modern method is using radar.  We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely.  Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.

Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 24, 2020, 10:05:20 AM
Stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)

Roughly speaking, take two photo's of the same part of the night sky 6 months apart. Compare the two. Any star which has changed position is a candidate. Work out by how much the star has changed position and then use trigonometry to work out the distance in terms of earth-sun distance (defined as 1 astronomical unit - AU), so you know how many AUs away the star is. This is only a practical solution for relatively close stars, but there are some cepheids close enough to use this method.

I can't remember if we ever worked through a practical experiment to determine parallax. It's quite likely we did because we were working through the whole thing from first principles as part of the course. At some point we were also looking at redshift, that I do remember.

I'm sorry, but this started out as an answer to a simple question. You asked solarwind if/how they had verified a distance to a galaxy. I responded because I have actually done this myself, as I explained. This is now starting to turn into a tutorial about how to measure astronomical distances, something you can go away and read about for yourself if you are that interested.

I'm sure you're going to start poking holes in the methodologies at some point, I don't really care. I just pointed out that I have done this myself in the past, that's all, because you often ask "did you verify this for yourself" - In this case, yes I did.
In bold.
How do you use trigonometry on these so called stars to get the distance?

Basically what is your starting point in order to elevate to these so called stars?

Look up the details yourself, it's all out there.  Several ways.

But basically you can use two people observing the moon at the same time from far apart.  Knowing the distances between them, and measuring the moons position against the background stars you can use parallax to determine the distance to the moon.  When the moon is half illuminated it forms a right angle triangle with the sun, and basic trigonometry gives you the answer.

A more accurate method is by using the transit of Venus across the sun, watched from multiple locations. Timing the transits will give you everything you need to calculate the distance, which was done back in the 1700s.

But the modern method is using radar.  We can bounce radar signals off of Venus, and using the known speed of light we can determine it's distance very precisely.  Again, it's just trigonometry to then calculate the distance to the Sun which is at the center of both planet's orbits.

Once you know the size of Earths orbit, using parallax and trigonometry to find the distance to nearby stars is simple.
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 24, 2020, 10:58:17 AM
I will second what JJA has said.  None of this is about a genuine debate about what shape the Earth is because we figured that out using a variety of methods a long, long time ago. Call it what you like Scepti it won't change the truth. 

These 'discussions' are simply an opportunity for conspiracy theory loving people to pass some time in their lives arguing with anyone who doesn't go along with their beliefs. In their view they will always win the arguments put to them because in their view they think they know differently to everyone else and obviously makes them feel good.  Fair enough. If that's what you need to do to feel good about yourself then feel free.

Scepti has demanded explanations about how we have personally 'verified' the points we have made and we have done that. Perhaps not to his satisfaction but then would we expect anything else?!?. He simply replies by talking about global 'nonsense' without apparently being able to be more specific about what made him change his mind and how he personally verified whatever it was that made him change his mind.  All we have had so far is that he is 'well aware' of what it was that made him change his mind.  In that case, please... share it with the rest of us.

There are many websites out there which talk about the psychology of conspiracy theorists and all of them say it is a waste of time arguing with them. Often the comments they make are deliberately phrased or worded to provoke a response from those who don't agree with them. When they do get a response that simply strengthens their own beliefs.  In short they enjoy arguing until those who don't agree with them simply give up.  That gives them the psychological boost of having the last word and in their view winning the argument.

So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us.  Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 24, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us.  Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.

There has been a lot of talk about Flat Earth regulars leaving and making the forum dead, but I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's really the non-flat earthers that really drive the conversation.

Just look at the True Believers section. Completely dead. A few threads where people archive their theories, and maybe once a year two of them will get into a discussion about something for a day.

Imagine the entire forum like that.

Of course that's true for almost any discussion. If you don't have opposing viewpoints, what is there to talk about?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Shifter on September 24, 2020, 01:33:25 PM
That gives them the psychological boost of having the last word and in their view winning the argument.

Does that actually work? It's a thing? Do people feel they need 'the last word' in order to feel a victory? Seems ridiculous.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 24, 2020, 02:02:37 PM
I fully accept what is put in bold.
So again you avoid an extremely simple question.

This is about what you would expect for a RE, to see if your claim about it is valid or pure nonsense.
Why try switching back to a FE?
Why avoid the question yet again?
Is it because you know your argument is wrong and that this line of reasoning will clearly show why so you avoid it at all costs?

So, try sticking to what is expected for a RE for this one.
One more, you have accepted that when you look straight down, you see ground (and presumably that if you were over water you would accept you see that); and you have accepted (in fact you claimed this) that if you look straight out level, then directly at the centre of your FOV you would see sky.

The logical consequence of this is that if you start looking straight down on top of this round Earth, and raise your head, as you do so you will reach a point where you can see both ground/sea and sky, where there would be an imaginary line dividing your vision, below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky.

Do you accept this fact?


I do know what it is not....and it is not, a globe.
How?
You are yet to provide a single thing that shows that and repeatedly avoid things which show the opposite or show your arguments to be horrible flawed?
It seems more like you falsely believe it is flat and will do whatever you can to pretend that false belief is justified.

You have never used basic logic to disprove a globe. You have avoided basic logic at all costs.
Even now you avoid simple logic and extremely basic questions which show your argument to be pure nonsense.

Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.

My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.

The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.

They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.

Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.

As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
Did you miss the part right before it?

As for more, you have already been told how the distance to the sun is determined and thus the size of Earth's orbit, and thus how far Earth would have travelled in 6 months.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 24, 2020, 02:03:57 PM
Well that's for you to decide isn't it. You will never hear a committed conspiracy theorist admit they are wrong no matter how compelling the evidence against their beliefs become.  For them that makes the challenge more attractive to them and increases their commitment to their cause.

So yes I agree it does seem ridiculous in this day and age to still believe (or claim to believe) the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 11:23:36 PM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 24, 2020, 11:31:10 PM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 11:35:53 PM
Scepti has demanded explanations about how we have personally 'verified' the points we have made and we have done that.
Perhaps not to his satisfaction but then would we expect anything else?!?.
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.


Quote from: Solarwind

So the best thing we (the globe knowing people) can do really is to fall silent and not take the bait that the conspiracy theorists cast out to us.  Take away the fuel source and the fire dies.
Let's see if you can stick to it. I'm fine with it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:03:12 AM
As for more, you have already been told how the distance to the sun is determined and thus the size of Earth's orbit, and thus how far Earth would have travelled in 6 months.
How did the measurements first come about to be close to what people like yourself believe to be accurate.

None of you can explain it from your own minds.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:05:35 AM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 12:23:14 AM
Granted, yes, the answer provided deals with astronomical objects. Which I believe is more challenging than a terrestrial object.

There are ways to gauge the size from a picture too, but even that is not enough for you, I am quite sure.

"To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor."

Pretty pointless to try to provide you with answers, as in your opinion none of them hold any water, yet you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for your, quite inane, ramblings.

EDIT: As someone already wrote you:
"You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else."
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 12:38:36 AM
Actually, what came first: the Earth is flat, or there is no space (as RE sees it)? Might help to unravel things, because if there is no space, then, of course, the measuring of astronomical objects cannot happen, right?

Do you believe we have been to the Moon? How far does the conspiracy go? Or are you of the opinion there is no conspiracy, but the Earth is still flat, it's just that everyone is dumb, and cannot see it, the maps work for some odd reason and so on?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 25, 2020, 12:48:04 AM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 01:38:33 AM
Oh yeah, true.

There was and is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 01:44:02 AM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.

You asked how I worked out the distance to a galaxy, I told you how. It relies on other peoples' discoveries about the nature of cepheids , it relies on other people having used the parallax method to measure distances to cepheids and that relies on other people having determined the distance to the sun and that the earth orbits around it.

Nobody is going to start from first principles, re-invent calculus, re-invent trigonometry, re-invent radar, re-discover cepheids etc. etc. just to satisfy you.

If you weren't willing to even take the first step and accept the method of parallax, then what on earth was the point in asking about the distance to a galaxy?

OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 01:49:59 AM
I doubt he is.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
I doubt he is.

I think I'm picking up the odd hint here and there to suggest you may be right.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 25, 2020, 02:11:11 AM
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed
All while dodging the questions posed to you to point out why your claim about the horizon is factually incorrect.
And yet again, you avoid those simple questions.
WHY?
Is it because you know that they will expose your dishonesty? That they will show that your claim is completely wrong and your justification for why you think Earth is flat does not hold at all?


How did the measurements first come about to be close to what people like yourself believe to be accurate.
Already explained that, now how about sticking to the topic of the thread and answering the questions posed to you?

Once more, for a round (globe) Earth, you accept that if you look directly down, you see Earth. You claim that looking directly level you see sky, (which holds for a FOV near 0).
So do you accept the logical consequence of this, that if you start looking straight down and raise your head up, as you do so you reach a point where there is an imaginary line across your vision which divides the land below from the sky above?

You have avoided this very simple question repeatedly.
The only reason why is if you know it will show that you are wrong.
So can you answer it this time, or at least say why you refuse?



, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

[/quote]
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:44:46 AM
Granted, yes, the answer provided deals with astronomical objects. Which I believe is more challenging than a terrestrial object.

There are ways to gauge the size from a picture too, but even that is not enough for you, I am quite sure.

"To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor."

Pretty pointless to try to provide you with answers, as in your opinion none of them hold any water, yet you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for your, quite inane, ramblings.

EDIT: As someone already wrote you:
"You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else."
Rather than accept you cannot do my experiment and get any accurate reading,you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:46:03 AM
Actually, what came first: the Earth is flat, or there is no space (as RE sees it)? Might help to unravel things, because if there is no space, then, of course, the measuring of astronomical objects cannot happen, right?

Do you believe we have been to the Moon? How far does the conspiracy go? Or are you of the opinion there is no conspiracy, but the Earth is still flat, it's just that everyone is dumb, and cannot see it, the maps work for some odd reason and so on?
Can you answer my question?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:47:05 AM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 02:49:32 AM
Can you answer my question?
I did. And others answered it, too.

You choose to disregard it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:54:12 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.



Quote from: robinofloxley
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:58:45 AM
Can you answer my question?
I did. And others answered it, too.

You choose to disregard it.
Because you don't explain it. You just shoot a copy/paste in and expect me to accept it.

Show me exactly how you can calculate my ball at distance.
Explain it and why you get to the answer.
I see mountains being used and trigonometry from ball diameters and angular diameters.
What do they all mean to get back to a end calculated point?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 03:00:31 AM
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 03:09:19 AM
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 25, 2020, 03:41:41 AM
Quote
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.

Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations.  You don't need to when you know what you are talking about.  I can't speak for others obviously.  I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that.  Nor has anyone else I doubt.

As regards to your other comment.  I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match.  At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 03:55:20 AM
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
But you can't prove it shows a reality.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:00:42 AM
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 04:01:22 AM
You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.
But you can't prove it shows a reality.
Well, I consider what we have real. You have another opinion. "Our" reality works, your exists only in your head.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:01:47 AM
Quote
Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.

Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations.  You don't need to when you know what you are talking about.  I can't speak for others obviously.  I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that.  Nor has anyone else I doubt.

As regards to your other comment.  I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match.  At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.
Feel free but you've never answered the question.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 04:02:50 AM
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?
Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:27:24 AM
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?
All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?
Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?
You need to go as far as you need to.
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 25, 2020, 04:33:06 AM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?


You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:51:14 AM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?


You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 04:54:09 AM
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.
Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 04:55:36 AM
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.

EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder (https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 25, 2020, 05:02:56 AM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?


You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

I said radar, not laser.  Try again.

This is how trigonometry works.  If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math.  Study on your own time.

(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 06:05:20 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.



Quote from: robinofloxley
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.

Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.

Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.

The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).

So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.

Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.

(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 06:53:45 AM
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.
Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.
Ok, we'll start with this 250 BC (or BCE) carry on and what exactly did the greek dude do to measure the distance to the moon.
Basically explain what went on.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 06:58:54 AM
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.
Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.

EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder (https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder)
So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.

Your belief in it all is fine but you are simply trying to tell me it's a truth and you have never tried any of it to get any real feedback.

If you have, then explain it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:03:29 AM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?


You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

I said radar, not laser.  Try again.

This is how trigonometry works.  If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math.  Study on your own time.

(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
I know how trigonometry works. I'm telling you it doesn't work for your fictional stars .
It's great for building walls and such.
It's no good for finding distance to fictional things and equally no good to find sizes of fictional things.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:03:41 AM
Radar was mentioned, too. As were other methods. Just for a change you could tell us what it is with those methods you do not believe works? You ask, you are given answers. We ask, you give nothing.

As I am sure you understand, the majority have no problems operating with the model we have, yet you cannot tell us how that is possible if the Earth really is flat as you claim.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:05:43 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.



Quote from: robinofloxley
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.

Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.

Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.

The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).

So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.

Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.

(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
And how big is the ball?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:17:07 AM
So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:28:09 AM
You accept laser rangefinding works.

What is your issue with the other listed methods?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:30:23 AM
So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
And those different methods are?

I'm waiting for some feedback on the 240 BC greek who managed to gauge distance and size of the moon. Any ideas yourself?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 25, 2020, 07:32:42 AM
This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.
There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?


You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.
Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

I said radar, not laser.  Try again.

This is how trigonometry works.  If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math.  Study on your own time.

(https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/step-up/sect4/ratbig.gif)
I know how trigonometry works. I'm telling you it doesn't work for your fictional stars .
It's great for building walls and such.
It's no good for finding distance to fictional things and equally no good to find sizes of fictional things.

I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:34:51 AM
So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.
That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.
And those different methods are?

I'm waiting for some feedback on the 240 BC greek who managed to gauge distance and size of the moon. Any ideas yourself?
He used parallax, as was stated.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:37:15 AM
You accept laser rangefinding works.

What is your issue with the other listed methods?
I accept a lot of things for reality.
I accept a bounce back laser and radar and such.

I'm just waiting to get answers to my ball and its distance. I've been told a mountain is required and walking to different points to get the diameter and distance.

I still don't get why.

I mean, I get told, right angles. I understand stuff like the 3/4/5 method for a right angle and such.
I'm tying to figure out how it works for stars and moons and what not.

Is it an imaginary line to the edge of a star and another to the other edge by walking a short distance and the two points should add up to something?

Someone can explain it in a simple way so to be clear.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 07:38:49 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.



Quote from: robinofloxley
OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?
Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.

Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.

Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.

The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).

So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.

Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.

(https://i.imgur.com/8foddqv.png)
And how big is the ball?

Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).

(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:40:25 AM


I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.

No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:41:12 AM

He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:42:47 AM


Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).

(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
I get that but I want you to explain how you come to get the distance and actual size of what you are observing by using that.
Explain it to this dummy as simple as you can.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:52:44 AM

He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
I, myself, cannot explain it, I admit, but the link should. There is a lot of the history there as well.

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html (https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html)

Parallax is “the best way to get distance in astronomy,” said Mark Reid, an astronomer at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He described parallax as the “gold standard” for measuring stellar distances because it does not involve physics; rather, it relies solely on geometry.

EDIT: The Greek:
Hipparchus noted that on March 14 of that year there was a total solar eclipse in Hellespont, Turkey, while at the same time farther south in Alexandria, Egypt, the moon covered only four-fifths of the sun. Knowing the baseline distance between Hellespont and Alexandria — 9 degrees of latitude or about 600 miles (965 km), along with the angular displacement of the edge of the moon against the sun (about one-tenth of a degree), he calculated the distance to the moon to be about 350,000 miles (563,300 km), which was nearly 50 percent too far. His mistake was in assuming that the moon was directly overhead, thus miscalculating the angle difference between Hellespont and Alexandria.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 07:55:20 AM

He used parallax, as was stated.
Explain it and how it works for stars/suns...etc.
Explain the reality.
I, myself, cannot explain it, I admit, but the link should. There is a lot of the history there as well.

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html (https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html)

Parallax is “the best way to get distance in astronomy,” said Mark Reid, an astronomer at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He described parallax as the “gold standard” for measuring stellar distances because it does not involve physics; rather, it relies solely on geometry.
Thanks for being honest.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 07:58:52 AM
Thanks for being honest.
I try to. Still, appreciated.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 08:10:47 AM
Somewhat related, and interesting:
 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/177/1/012028/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/177/1/012028/pdf)

The aim of this study is to create a simple algorithm for distance estimation to unknown size objects, using some properties of a bee eye.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 25, 2020, 08:18:19 AM


I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.

No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.

Dude, it's been explained to you over and over.  Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.

There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.

I'll try and explain.  Here is a chart of trig functions.

(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)

Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.

We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.

We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.

Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse

We solve for the hypotenuse:

hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent

This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

This is basic trig.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 08:24:04 AM


Use a sextant to measure the angular width of the ball φ - that's angle BAC.
Angle DAC is φ/2.
Triangle ADC is a right angled triangle.
Distance to ball is AC or "?" from earlier diagram.
Side DC is the radius of the ball.
DC = AC x Tan(φ/2).

(https://i.imgur.com/7ljMV3x.png)
I get that but I want you to explain how you come to get the distance and actual size of what you are observing by using that.
Explain it to this dummy as simple as you can.

OK well let's try an example. So first step is for the observer to move sideways to line the ball up with the distant mountaintop or other convenient distant object (see first diagram from earlier). The key is the distant object has to be a long way away compared to the distance of the ball.

Move sideways far enough that the ball no longer lines up with the mountain, let's say 5 metres. Now get out your trusty sextant and measure the angle between the ball and the mountain. Let's say this is 7°. Plug these figures into the first equation, and the distance to the ball is 5/Tan(7) = 41 metres.

Now use the sextant to measure the angular diameter of the ball, let's say 1/2 of a degree (see second diagram). Plug the distance and this new angle into the second equation to get the ball radius: 41 x Tan(0.5) = 0.36 metres. Diameter of ball is therefore 0.72 metres, i.e. 72 cm.

Edit: Oops, just spotted that I should have halved the angle for the second equation, so that's 41 x Tan(0.5/2) = 0.18, so diameter of ball is 36 cm, not 72. My bad.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 08:45:54 AM
Cool!

I thank you for that, too.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 25, 2020, 08:48:27 AM
Quote
Feel free but you've never answered the question.

Sorry, remind me what question was that?  I will answer any question put to me but whether you choose to accept/believe my answer is something I have no control over.

JJAs explanation for finding a value for the distance of Venus and hence the Sun is perfectly valid and perfectly correct.  The maximum elongation of Venus comes to 46 degrees give or take a tiny bit and we can use radar or indeed laser pulses to work out the distance to Venus. Both use electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or radio waves) so the result will be the same.  If we plot the position of Venus relative to the stars over the course of either a morning (western) or evening (eastern) elongation we can the join the points to form a nice arc.  That arc takes the form of part of an ellipse which is actually the orbit of Venus.  The Sun can be seen to mark one of the focii of the ellipse as described by Keplers 1st law.  This is an interesting project which has been done successfully by many amateur astronomers across the world. So yes we can verify it for ourselves.

That is perfectly valid science because we are confirming theory by observation. If you look at Venus through a telescope at various times during a western and eastern elongation you will see a phase sequence which exactly matches what we would expect to see according to the heliocentric model which puts Venus as the second planet of the solar system.

All this will be lost on Scepti because he won't accept any of it.  No problem - just describe to us a better explanation and be sure to back it up with how you verified it yourself.  Then I will give you the email address of the editor of Nature magazine so you can write a paper on it explaining how science has got it all wrong but you have got it right and have it published. I'm sure they would be very keen to read your alternative views. 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 09:19:37 AM
All this will be lost on Scepti because he won't accept any of it.  No problem - just describe to us a better explanation and be sure to back it up with how you verified it yourself.  Then I will give you the email address of the editor of Nature magazine so you can write a paper on it explaining how science has got it all wrong but you have got it right and have it published.
I've tried the same, but FE rarely bites.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 25, 2020, 12:16:30 PM
That's because FE haven't got any better explanations. They will claim they have and they are very good at their put downs of traditional science. They demand explanations from us and then ignore them without producing any of their own.

If they seriously think the crazy stuff that the FE Wiki is full of offers a better explanation for how the world and the Universe work compared to mainstream science then this whole flat Earth business is even more far fetched than I used to think it was.

Anyone can make meaningless comments like 'globalist nonsense' or 'angry globalists' but until they can come up with anything more convincing than what we already have, the globalists have it in my view. 


Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 25, 2020, 12:20:41 PM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 25, 2020, 03:34:25 PM
Rather than accept you cannot do my experiment and get any accurate reading,you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.
Rather than accept your argument is pure nonsense and you cannot answer my simple questions without refuting yourself, you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.

Can you answer my question?
Can you answer mine?
You know, the one directly relating to the topic which shows your argument for why you think Earth is flat is pure nonsense?

Once more, you have admitted that (on a round Earth) looking straight down, you see ground. You claim that looking straight out level you see sky, which is true if your FOV is small enough.
The logical consequence of this is that if you start looking straight down and raise your head up, you will reach a line/division below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.

If you don't agree, tell us how this transition occurs.
As you continually ignore the question, I will just continue with the rest of the logic (something you seem to hate and never want to use as it never supports you).

This division between land/sea and sky is the horizon for a round Earth.
This means the RE does have a horizon, and the only question is where this horizon is.
First we note that the horizon will be at the maximum distance from straight down as possible.
This means your line of site to the horizon would be tangent to Earth at this horizon.
This allows us to construct a right angle triangle (Yes, now we are going into math, something else you seem to despise).
This triangle has a right angle at the horizon.
It then has a line connecting straight down to the centre of Earth (of distance r), and a line connecting the horizon to your eyes.
The final line is the hypotenuse connecting your eyes to the centre of Earth (of distance r+h).
Now we can finally find out where the horizon is.
We can measure it from straight down, using sin(x)=r/(r+h). Or we can measure it from straight out level, noting that straight out level is at 90 degrees to straight down, and thus the angle we are looking for is 90 degrees - x, and that cos(90 degrees - x) = sin(x).
So the angle from straight out level is given by acos(r/(r+h)).

When we plug in 6371 km for r, and 2 m for h we end up with acos(6371/6371.002)=2.72395557 arc minutes, or ~2.7 arc minutes to 2 sig figs.

This shows that when you are looking out level, unless your FOV is tiny (less tan 5.45 arc minutes) YOU WILL SEE THE HORIZON ON A ROUND EARTH!
Your claim that you would see nothing but sky is pure nonsense.
Thus your justification for why you think Earth is flat is nonsense.
Thus the thing you claim would cause you to change your mind is not something you would expect for a RE of this size.


So going to address it?
Or will you continue to dishonestly ignore it so you can dishonestly pretend that your false claim that Earth is flat is justified?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 12:17:02 AM
Sceptimatic is planning his next attack.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 26, 2020, 12:28:48 AM


I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.

No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.

Dude, it's been explained to you over and over.  Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.

There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.

I'll try and explain.  Here is a chart of trig functions.

(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)

Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.

We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.

We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.

Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse

We solve for the hypotenuse:

hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent

This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.

Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 12:36:00 AM
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 12:38:12 AM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 26, 2020, 01:00:16 AM
I'm fine with basic trig.
Really?
So what is your objection to the basic trig that shows where the horizon would be on a round Earth, that shows that unless your FOV is extremely tiny or you are quite far from Earth, you would see the horizon when looking out level?

Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 26, 2020, 01:06:35 AM
Quote
Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?

Yep... the basic principle of parallax which has proved to be a very useful and very accurate tool in astronomy. GAIA has used it to determine the distances of stars across most of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Another way of measuring the distance to Venus is via the observation of transits.  As Venus moves across the disk of the Sun its observed position on the disk at a given moment will be slightly different for observers at different geographic locations. So by measuring these differences in position and by knowing the distance separating each observer we can again use some basic trig to work out how far away Venus is.  We can then cross check these figures with those obtained by using laser or radar ranging.

We might as well try and reason with a brick wall as reason with Scepti.  He is simply completely ignoring everything presented to him which shows his beliefs are wrong.

So be it. That is the typical MO of conspiracy theorists. They shut their eyes and ears and slam the door shut to anything which shows how their beliefs are wrong. By flatly (punn incidental) denying that all the evidence that RE put before them is in anyway a valid argument against what they believe they know that eventually the 'non-believers' will simply give up and move on to prevent them from being driven insane.  That way they will seem to have won their argument without actually producing any evidence of their own.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 26, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.
A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?
Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.
This means nothing and you know it.
They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 04:45:47 AM
Sceptimatic, robinofloxley did provide you an example with numbers. And as you know trigonometry, it should be easy for you to verify it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 26, 2020, 05:38:49 AM


I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.

No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.

Dude, it's been explained to you over and over.  Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.

There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.

I'll try and explain.  Here is a chart of trig functions.

(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)

Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.

We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.

We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.

Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse

We solve for the hypotenuse:

hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent

This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.

Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.

So you totally understood all of that, and claim it's all wrong somehow, but can't tell me how it's wrong?

That actually sounds like someone who doesn't understand any of it and is just in denial about it.

Show me where the math is wrong.  I even gave you all the steps to make it easy to follow.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 26, 2020, 06:06:29 AM


I seriously doubt you understand trig if you think it only works in some cases but not others. That's not how math works.  ::)

Another instance of you just rejecting things because it conflicts with your beliefs.

What exactly stops math from working when we use it for things in space?  Your denial can't make math stop working.  Here's a picture.  Can you explain why math won't work on that particular triangle?

(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Explain the reality of that diagram and how it works to gauge distance and size.

No having a pop, unless you can't explain it....then you may have as many digs as you like because I'll know you have no clue.

Dude, it's been explained to you over and over.  Denying things and being ignorant of math is your problem.

There isn't any way to make things more simple, you just have to sit down and learn how basic trig works.

I'll try and explain.  Here is a chart of trig functions.

(https://i.imgur.com/ayHbfIK.jpg)

Earth is at B, Venus is at A, the Sun is at C.

We measure the distance from the Earth to Venus with a radar pulse and get the adjacent length.

We measure the angle between the Sun and Venus as the angle B.

Now we want to find the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

cos(B) = adjacent / hypotenuse

We solve for the hypotenuse:

hypotenuse = cos(B) / adjacent

This gives us the distance to the Sun from the Earth.

This is basic trig.
I'm fine with basic trig.
I'm simply asking for a reality of the ball of unknown size and unknown distance to be calculated.

Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.

So you totally understood all of that, and claim it's all wrong somehow, but can't tell me how it's wrong?

That actually sounds like someone who doesn't understand any of it and is just in denial about it.

Show me where the math is wrong.  I even gave you all the steps to make it easy to follow.
He agrees with it, but his issue is that there are two balls (sun, venus) instead of one.
But he's too stupid to realize you could use the exactely same method with a single ball by using the angular size of the single ball-shaped object instead of the angle between sun and venus. Then you could solve for the size of said ball (you get the distance with e.g. radar).

But as we all know, scepti is nothing but a troll. He already knows all of this, he just pretends to be stupid for fun and entertainment.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 06:27:47 AM
I am not sure he pretends. I find that hard to believe.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 26, 2020, 07:36:50 AM
He agrees with it, but his issue is that there are two balls (sun, venus) instead of one.
But he's too stupid to realize you could use the exactely same method with a single ball by using the angular size of the single ball-shaped object instead of the angle between sun and venus. Then you could solve for the size of said ball (you get the distance with e.g. radar).

Yes, I told him I could do exactly that with his ball and radar, using a camera to determine it's size based on the angular projection.

It got lost in his constantly shifting set of demands and attention.

I don't think he understands any of it.  It's all a mystery to him as I've not seen him make a single comment that shows even a tiny bity of understanding of angles and how they work.

But as we all know, scepti is nothing but a troll. He already knows all of this, he just pretends to be stupid for fun and entertainment.

If he's lying to anyone about all of this, it's only to himself about his understanding of the world.  In his own mind he's smarter than everyone, and confused why nobody else can understand his amazing theories.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 08:45:19 AM
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?

If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.

EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 26, 2020, 03:40:08 PM
Quote
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

Think of a telescope as being an amplifier of light. An image is formed by light and nothing more. No human being can see the dwarf planet Pluto with their eyes alone. Firstly because it is too small and secondly because it is too faint. Yet despite its size and distance, Pluto is reflecting sunlight back towards Earth. There simply are not enough photons passing through the 28.27mm^2 light collecting area (assuming a dilated pupil diameter of 6mm) of the pupil to register as an image by the brain.

However my 300mm telescope has a light collecting area of 70,685mm^2 which is 2,500 times greater than the pupil of my eye.  That means more photons can enter my telescope per unit time than can enter my eye. The telescope, in conjunction with the eyepiece then acts like a light funnel to focus all those photons down into an area which allows them to enter my eye.  Hence I can see fainter objects with my telescope than I can without it.  Since I cannot see Pluto without a telescope it follows that my 300mm telescope allows me to extend the distance I can see.  Not because of the telescopes magnifying power but because of its light gathering power.  This can be demonstrated by the fact that a telescope of smaller aperture (say 6 inch) has a correspondingly smaller aperture (light gathering power) and so no matter how much magnification I use it still won't show me Pluto.

Distance though is irrelevant to astronomical telescopes. It is all about light gathering power. An object could be very nearby but if it is also very faint then I wont be able to see it no matter how much magnifying power the telescope can deliver.  On the other hand if an object is very distant but is emitting or reflecting a lot of light then I will be able to see it. The stars are so far away that no telescope on Earth will ever be able to resolve a physical disk. That's because the stellar disk is too small to resolve.  But light from a given star can travel infinite distances across the Universe. So we can see all those stars the light from which has had time to reach Earth.  The physical size and distance of the star doesn't make any difference to whether I can see it or not.  The magnify power can increase the resolving power of the telescope however which is why I can resolve a double star better at higher magnification than I can at a lower power. The two stars have to be far enough apart in the first place though for the airy disks to be resolved as separate images.  If they are not then no amount of magnification will resolve them.

In that way astronomical telescopes are different to microscopes because microscopes are just about increasing the ability of the eye to resolve detail. An astronomical telescope is primarily a light detector.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 26, 2020, 11:55:19 PM
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:43:50 AM
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
We're all scientists.
The world and discovering/searching, is all science.
Scientist can apply to all who do it.

So basically we are it, we're not given it.

As long as there's a truthful/honest mindset of a person to search and hypothesise, there's always a scientist.
It's all about accepting what is told, even without real proof's.
And this is where we all differ.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:46:29 AM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:47:29 AM
I'm fine with basic trig.
Really?
So what is your objection to the basic trig that shows where the horizon would be on a round Earth, that shows that unless your FOV is extremely tiny or you are quite far from Earth, you would see the horizon when looking out level?

Then again, why are you rejecting the idea that by measuring the angle to an object at 2 locations and measuring the distance between those 2 locations gives you the distance to that object?
There is not trig that shows where any horizon is on  your supposed global Earth.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:51:04 AM


We might as well try and reason with a brick wall as reason with Scepti.  He is simply completely ignoring everything presented to him which shows his beliefs are wrong.


Don't show me where my belief's are wrong. Show me where your belief's become your truth's that you can relay to me, without the novel, telling me I'm this and that.

Make it so simple and we may get somewhere.
There seems to be a fear to going right down to the basics for this  globe and space stuff you believe in.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:52:09 AM

They are valid options that someone with the requiered knowledge could use to perform the task in question, and you know it.
Can you do it?
You rely on it so you must be able to do it.
Explain it from your own mind.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:53:33 AM
Sceptimatic, robinofloxley did provide you an example with numbers. And as you know trigonometry, it should be easy for you to verify it.
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 12:57:36 AM
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?
If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.

EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
You can ask all these questions in another thread if it bugs you.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 01:02:31 AM
Quote
Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

Think of a telescope as being an amplifier of light. An image is formed by light and nothing more. No human being can see the dwarf planet Pluto with their eyes alone. Firstly because it is too small and secondly because it is too faint. Yet despite its size and distance, Pluto is reflecting sunlight back towards Earth. There simply are not enough photons passing through the 28.27mm^2 light collecting area (assuming a dilated pupil diameter of 6mm) of the pupil to register as an image by the brain.

However my 300mm telescope has a light collecting area of 70,685mm^2 which is 2,500 times greater than the pupil of my eye.  That means more photons can enter my telescope per unit time than can enter my eye. The telescope, in conjunction with the eyepiece then acts like a light funnel to focus all those photons down into an area which allows them to enter my eye.  Hence I can see fainter objects with my telescope than I can without it.  Since I cannot see Pluto without a telescope it follows that my 300mm telescope allows me to extend the distance I can see.  Not because of the telescopes magnifying power but because of its light gathering power.  This can be demonstrated by the fact that a telescope of smaller aperture (say 6 inch) has a correspondingly smaller aperture (light gathering power) and so no matter how much magnification I use it still won't show me Pluto.

Distance though is irrelevant to astronomical telescopes. It is all about light gathering power. An object could be very nearby but if it is also very faint then I wont be able to see it no matter how much magnifying power the telescope can deliver.  On the other hand if an object is very distant but is emitting or reflecting a lot of light then I will be able to see it. The stars are so far away that no telescope on Earth will ever be able to resolve a physical disk. That's because the stellar disk is too small to resolve.  But light from a given star can travel infinite distances across the Universe. So we can see all those stars the light from which has had time to reach Earth.  The physical size and distance of the star doesn't make any difference to whether I can see it or not.  The magnify power can increase the resolving power of the telescope however which is why I can resolve a double star better at higher magnification than I can at a lower power. The two stars have to be far enough apart in the first place though for the airy disks to be resolved as separate images.  If they are not then no amount of magnification will resolve them.

In that way astronomical telescopes are different to microscopes because microscopes are just about increasing the ability of the eye to resolve detail. An astronomical telescope is primarily a light detector.
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.

They do not see farther than the eye. They magnify what the eye cannot focus on in the set distance the eye can see of reflected light back to it.

It doesn't matter how a telescope is dressed up...it simply magnifies. It does not see farther.

Argue this all you want but you know I'm right.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 01:03:06 AM
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
Show me.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 27, 2020, 01:09:00 AM
Quote
Don't show me where my belief's are wrong. Show me where your belief's become your truth's that you can relay to me, without the novel, telling me I'm this and that.

Making comments like this simply reinforces what I said earlier.  We have shown you and explained to you where and how your beliefs are wrong. As would be said on the 'other' FE website, it is not up to us to do your homework for you.  If you want answers then go and find them yourself.  We have explained the basics to you.  Whether you choose to accept them or not (clearly not) is your problem not ours.

As you said earlier, you know what you believe in and why.. Same for me and that is all I am going to say in this discussion.  I've already wasted too much time on it.

Quote
Argue this all you want but you know I'm right.

See that's the problem with FEers. They just plod along thinking they are right all the time.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 27, 2020, 01:32:47 AM
”If only there was a way to do X.”
”Oh, there is! I can show you an example. Here!”
”It can’t be done.”
Show me.

Read the thread.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 27, 2020, 01:42:39 AM
They really give the title of scientist to anyone?
We're all scientists.
As long as there's a truthful/honest mindset of a person to search and hypothesise, there's always a scientist.
And that part rules out you.
Being a scientist involves honestly looking at the evidence and what models would predict to see which models match reality and which models do not.
It also involves following rational arguments and responding to criticism.
Instead of doing that you set up a strawman to dismiss the RE, refuse to justify this strawman and fail to refute the refutations of those strawmen.

It's all about accepting what is told, even without real proof's.
And this is where we all differ.
Yes, you seem to expect people to just accept what you tell them, without any proof at all, while I expect evidence and justification and, for claims of what a model indicates, proof. I accept the RE model due to the abundance of evidence supporting it and reject your model as you have no evidence to support it and there is plenty that contradicts it.
But you don't care about that proof or evidence. That is where we differ.

There is not trig that shows where any horizon is on  your supposed global Earth.
Yes there is. I provided it, first just as the conclusion, then as the trig, then as the series of questions leading up to that that trig, which you repeatedly ignored.

I even provided it not too long ago in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2284231#msg2284231

Once more, you accept that if you look straight down, you see ground. You accept that looking out level you see sky.
That means there must be some point where the centre of your FOV changes from ground/sea to sky. That is the horizon.
And for a sphere of radius r, with an observer at height h, this will be located at either acos(r/(r+h)) or asin(r/(r+h)) depending on if you measure from straight down or from eye level.
With a height of 2 m on this Earth you end up with this horizon being at 2.7 arc minutes below eye level or 89 degrees and 57.3 arc minutes from straight down.

This is something you are yet to refute, nor follow the simple questions through as you seem to know it refutes you.
Basic trig refutes you.
So if you do understand basic trig, you understand that what you are saying is pure nonsense, you are blatantly lying.

So do you understand and thus are lying to us, or do you not understand?

Or perhaps you can finally finish this line of inquiry to show you are wrong.

Once more, you have admitted that, for a RE, looking down you see ground and looking level you see sky.
Does this mean you accept the logical consequence of this, that at some point there will be a transition between the land/sea and the sky, a line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
If not, just how do you think it goes from seeing just land/sea to seeing sky?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 02:11:47 AM
Sceptimatic, is it true you have been telling people about atmospheric stacking since 2013 or so? And was it your uncle who taught you?
If so, you have had a long time to polish your model. I am also interested in knowing what started you on this path. If it was a person other than yourself, what made you believe that person.

EDIT: Were you young enough to challenge your teachers? Did you do so? Was your beliefs a driver for what you do nowadays?
You can ask all these questions in another thread if it bugs you.
Isn't this thread about that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 27, 2020, 02:18:13 AM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

Oh my word, are you for real?

I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.

I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 02:53:46 AM
It is infuriating. But goes with being FE. The only means in their arsenal.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 27, 2020, 03:46:34 AM
Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..

So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.

As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat.  We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round.  But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.

I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance.  We cannot do everything for ourselves.  However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 27, 2020, 04:56:43 AM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle.  If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it.  Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why.  Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.

Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid.  If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".

I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 08:13:35 AM
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.

I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.

Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance


That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”

(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/disapproving_look.jpg)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 27, 2020, 08:16:24 AM
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.



The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 27, 2020, 08:56:11 AM
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 09:50:44 AM
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
Could just be me, but I associate a troll with some guile and wit. Sceptimatic appears to me more like an idiot, pure and simple.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JJA on September 27, 2020, 10:34:41 AM
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).

By the very fact we are posting here shows that we do in fact have time to waste. :)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 27, 2020, 11:12:26 AM
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).

By the very fact we are posting here shows that we do in fact have time to waste. :)

Wrong - for example I get paid for posting here.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 27, 2020, 11:13:16 AM
Quote
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.

Both instruments extend the range of size of objects that the naked eye can perceive. If a telescope cannot allow an observer to see further than is possible with the naked eye on it's own, how then do you account for the fact that with a telescope I can see Pluto but without one I cannot.  I have various telescopes ranging in size from a 2in refractor to a 20" reflector. I can set both telescopes to have an effective magnification of 100x by using an eyepiece of the appropriate focal length. With the 20" at 100x I can see Pluto but with the 2in refractor at 100x I can't.  How do you explain that?

There is a fundamental difference though in how microscopes and telescope form images. In the case of an astronomical telescope the target object is at optical infinity.  The same cannot be said for microscopes.  Yes both microscopes and telescopes magnify but they do it in fundamentally different ways.

Quote
Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.

Really. A telescope will never show me structural details in a human hair. A microscope will never show me craters on the Moon or the satellites of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn.  All they have in common is that they magnify.  Nothing else.

The question I would put to you is how do telescopes create a magnified image of a distant object? If I point my telescope at the Moon I will see more detail on the Moons surface than I can without it.  The question is how does it do that?  How for example would you explain that to a child who has just looked through a telescope at the Moon for the first time?

Quote
Are telescopes and microscopes the same thing?
On the surface, telescopes and microscopes might appear to function the same. They both have lenses, they both magnify objects, and they both bring the invisible world into focus. But underneath, these two devices use opposite mechanics to bring images to your eye.

https://theydiffer.com/difference-between-a-microscope-and-a-telescope/#:~:text=Telescopes%20are%20designed%20to%20see%20things%20that%20are,focal%20point%20while%20microscopes%20often%20use%20artificial%20light.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:22:47 PM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

Oh my word, are you for real?

I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.

I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
Let's get back to the crux.

I have a ball of unknown size, where you are concerned. I put it at a distance that you do not know.
Tell me what tools you require to calculate the distance and size of the ball.

It's fine telling me you use a mountain but I fail to see how that can do the job.
So.....instead of getting all worked up....just explain it to a dummy like me and show how it all works.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:26:28 PM
Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..

So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.

As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat.  We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round.  But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.

I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance.  We cannot do everything for ourselves.  However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
You say you cannot do everything yourselves but apparently someone did it in BC, as I was told. So surely you can show me how you get to your distance and sizes......Right?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:29:38 PM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle.  If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it.  Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why.  Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.

Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid.  If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".

I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.

This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 27, 2020, 09:38:11 PM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle.  If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it.  Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why.  Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.

Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid.  If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".

I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.

This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.

I suppose this applies too to your dome and carbonate crystal sun projector?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:53:22 PM
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.

I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.

Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance


That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”

(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/disapproving_look.jpg)
No it's not and you know it and so do the rest of you who are trying your best to argue your stance..

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:54:26 PM
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.



The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.
And how was the distance to supposed mars calculated?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 09:56:32 PM
Ya'll are idiots for engaging with a troll.
Just present the facts, if he does not accept them and creates his own reality, just leave him be (unless you have spare time you want to waste).
Could just be me, but I associate a troll with some guile and wit. Sceptimatic appears to me more like an idiot, pure and simple.
And yet, here you are, engaging with the idiot.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 10:14:12 PM
Quote
Microscopes are small telescopes. Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.
Magnification of objects.

Both instruments extend the range of size of objects that the naked eye can perceive. If a telescope cannot allow an observer to see further than is possible with the naked eye on it's own, how then do you account for the fact that with a telescope I can see Pluto but without one I cannot.
I have various telescopes ranging in size from a 2in refractor to a 20" reflector. I can set both telescopes to have an effective magnification of 100x by using an eyepiece of the appropriate focal length. With the 20" at 100x I can see Pluto but with the 2in refractor at 100x I can't.  How do you explain that?
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?
We see all kinds of dots of light with our eyes, never mind bringing more into focus.
The same thing applies as I said before.
All you're doing is magnifying.
Basically you're walking towards the tiny man and as you do this, you see the tiny man get bigger.
Your telescope is like walking towards a tiny light or walking towards, what you thought was nothing, until you see a tiny light....etc.
Your microscope is the same thing.


Quote from: Solarwind

There is a fundamental difference though in how microscopes and telescope form images. In the case of an astronomical telescope the target object is at optical infinity.  The same cannot be said for microscopes.  Yes both microscopes and telescopes magnify but they do it in fundamentally different ways.

They appear to work in different ways because of the set up. They actually work the same. The only difference is in the size and the viewed distance the eye can accept magnification of.

Quote from: Solarwind

Quote
Absolutely no difference in what they are used for.

Really. A telescope will never show me structural details in a human hair. A microscope will never show me craters on the Moon or the satellites of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn.  All they have in common is that they magnify.  Nothing else.
A telescope will show you structural differences...but on a bigger scale.


Quote from: Solarwind

The question I would put to you is how do telescopes create a magnified image of a distant object? If I point my telescope at the Moon I will see more detail on the Moons surface than I can without it.  The question is how does it do that?  How for example would you explain that to a child who has just looked through a telescope at the Moon for the first time?
They simply magnify he light back  to your eye from what the object reflects. In simple terms.

Quote from: Solarwind

Quote
Are telescopes and microscopes the same thing?
On the surface, telescopes and microscopes might appear to function the same. They both have lenses, they both magnify objects, and they both bring the invisible world into focus. But underneath, these two devices use opposite mechanics to bring images to your eye.

https://theydiffer.com/difference-between-a-microscope-and-a-telescope/#:~:text=Telescopes%20are%20designed%20to%20see%20things%20that%20are,focal%20point%20while%20microscopes%20often%20use%20artificial%20light.
Dress it up as much as you want but you know they work the same.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 27, 2020, 10:20:29 PM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

You can't just say trig works on this triangle but not that triangle.  If you have a specific problem with the diagram and math I used, state it.  Otherwise, you can't claim it doesn't work if you don't show why.  Just saying "Stars arent real" is not a counterargument.

Yes, I know you dispute it for 'stuff' but because you can't actually point out WHY you dispute it, your objection is invalid.  If you want to claim that triangles in space don't work or aren't real you have to give some reasoning beyond "cause I said so".

I showed you how to measure the distance to your ball using a radar pulse and finding the size using a camera. Did you not understand?
If you want to tell me you can see a 5 million foot jolly green giant in the distance and I tell you I don't accept that...you need tp prove it or it gets left to the choice of, you believe it and I don't...and you cannot argue for any truth of what you say but I can certainly discount it until I have proof.

This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.

I suppose this applies too to your dome and carbonate crystal sun projector?
That's my hypothesis. I'm not handing out books and what not proclaiming it to be truth.
I'm not telling any of you it's the truth.
People ask me about my theory and I give it.
Some then go into a frenzy over it, as if I've just opened a library of fact about scepti's Earth.

You see, the difference is, I have alternate musings/hypotheses/theories. Some I believe are closer to fact than anything a global indoctrination can produce....but that's for me....it's not put out there for anyone else to accept or believe.
All I ask anyone to do, is to look at it all and put their own mind to t.
I'm absolutely 100% sure none of you will bother to look into it and that's fine.

The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 11:00:59 PM
And yet, here you are, engaging with the idiot.
True, I am.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 27, 2020, 11:02:26 PM
Sceptimatic I don’t think has answered a single question related to how or why, for example, trigonometry does not work.

I trust people would be able to help him understand it all better if he could point out the errors in it.

Sceptimatic:
It's easy to verify short distances.
Let's deal with the reality of farther afield to get to size and distance


That is the same as:
”Yeah, sure. You can do 2+2, but can you do 22222+22222?”

No it's not and you know it and so do the rest of you who are trying your best to argue your stance..
And how is it not? It's maths and extrapolation.

EDIT: You keep repeating this "you know it is not" without saying what is wrong with it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: 29silhouette on September 27, 2020, 11:25:10 PM
Well it's been awhile Sceptimatic... are you still completely confused by rockets, inertia, frames of reference, and cameras?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 12:03:47 AM
Quote
The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.

OK Scepti so you have a hypothesis. Good for you.  Have you every stopped for a moment to consider the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong?  Seems to me that you have already decided it is a bit more than just a hypothesis.

Definition of the word hypothesis:

Quote
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

You and you alone are proposing you are right.  Everyone else is proposing that you are wrong.

Quote
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?

Absolutely right yes.   It's called experience.   40 years of it up to now.  To you they might be just dots of light in the sky.  But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are.  Anyone else agree?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 12:36:22 AM
But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are.  Anyone else agree?
I tend to when something makes sense based on the evidence provided.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 12:55:50 AM
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 01:43:17 AM
I consider it such, yes.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 02:32:14 AM
Well to be precise what I do is to use some software called Starry Night Pro Plus (v8) which links to my telescope mount via ASCOM so I can use it to aim my telescope.  I then aim my telescope at a nearby star, perform a plate solve which syncs my mount with Starry Night precisely and then off set to Plutos labelled position.

I then take two images of the same region of sky over a period of a week or so and then look for the 'star' which has moved.  That identifies Pluto for me.  I superimpose both image in Photoshop and then use the blink comparison method.  None of the fixed stars will have moved so I can align the two image by placing them on top of each other in separate layers.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 03:29:14 AM
Trig does not cater for any accuracy of this.
Admit it.
How is trigonometry wrong? Can you explain it?

EDIT: It is super easy to spout ”it’s wrong”, and that is why you do it. It quite a lot more difficult to explain why it would be wrong. And that is why you choose not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm disputing a lot of the stuff it it used for. You know this and I'm still waiting for the size and distance of the ball.

Oh my word, are you for real?

I've given you a complete tutorial on how to do this, diagrams, all the equations, a full walkthrough of how to go about it and a beginning to end worked example with a 36cm ball at a distance of 41 metres.

I honestly believe if someone put a steak dinner in front of you, you'd rather starve to death than acknowledge it was there.
Let's get back to the crux.

I have a ball of unknown size, where you are concerned. I put it at a distance that you do not know.
Tell me what tools you require to calculate the distance and size of the ball.

It's fine telling me you use a mountain but I fail to see how that can do the job.
So.....instead of getting all worked up....just explain it to a dummy like me and show how it all works.

I explained everything and gave you a fully worked example. If you couldn't follow the example, didn't understand the diagrams or didn't understand the maths, that's fine. You could have just told me what part(s) you didn't understand, but no, you didn't respond at all, didn't ask any questions and then later on just claim that nobody's shown you how to do it. You didn't understand the explanation, but that doesn't mean you get to claim you haven't been given one. That's just plain dishonest.

OK, so you didn't understand. Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.

Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?

You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?

You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?

Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?

Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?

That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 28, 2020, 03:48:15 AM
Let's get back to the crux.
Sure, lets get back to the actual crux.

You claim that for a RE, if you were to look out level, you would see nothing but sky, even though simple trig shows that to be BS.
You offer basically nothing except repeated assertions to back up this nonsense.

You even admit that if you were to look straight down on this RE you see ground.
That means at some point there must be a transition between ground/sea and sky.
You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this fact and its implications for your false claim.

Why?

Conspiracy theorists thrive in the face of adversity. It is what makes them 'tick'. So the more evidence that is put in front of them which contradicts what they believe to be the real 'truth' the more they become adamant that they are correct. That goes for flat Earth belief, the Moon landings, 9/11, Area 51 and so on..

So trying to reason with flat Earth believers or explain to them why their beliefs are wrong is to my mind a fruitless and pointless exercise. I sometimes wonder whether they are even interested in the subject being considered or debated. It is like the school bully who thrives on the reactions they get from whoever they choose to bully because it gives them a sense of power and control.

As what point has any FE ever described in great detail how they have personally verified that the Earth is definitely flat.  We all know that before the advent of the 20th century it was actually very difficult to 'prove' that the Earth is round.  But there has always been more evidence to support globe model than anything else.  Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.

I can measure the angular separation of Venus and the Sun and I can measure the size of Venus' disk on the sky using a reticle eyepiece. However I still need information from other sources to reach the determination of Venus' size or distance.  We cannot do everything for ourselves.  However information that I can't measure for myself I can easily get from a multitude of sources.
You say you cannot do everything yourselves but apparently someone did it in BC, as I was told. So surely you can show me how you get to your distance and sizes......Right?
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.
It is only in the last few hundred years that we were able to obtain an accurate distance with the help of Venus and other methods.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 04:16:37 AM
Quote
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.

Exactly.  It seems to me the ancient Greeks had a more accurate model or idea about the general relative distances and sizes of the Sun, Moon and Earth than the so-called 'modern' flat Earth theory has.  What does that suggest to you?  Aristarchus figured out that the Sun was very distant compared to the Moon and therefore it must be much larger.  All compliant with modern mainstream science.  FE still maintain that the Sun and Moon are the same distance away and the same size!

Obviously the actual figures have improved over the centuries as our methods of measuring the distances involved have improved.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sokarul on September 28, 2020, 06:48:41 AM
How trig was used to get the suns distance. Skip to 6:05 unless you want to see the build up.



The video calculates the distance to the sun by first finding the distance to mars.
And how was the distance to supposed mars calculated?

Trig

It’s in the video.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:09:42 AM
Well it's been awhile Sceptimatic... are you still completely confused by rockets, inertia, frames of reference, and cameras?
Not at all.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:11:59 AM
Quote
The fact that you and others are hell bent on trying to destroy it is enough for me to carry on, to give genuine people the chance to think.

OK Scepti so you have a hypothesis. Good for you.  Have you every stopped for a moment to consider the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong?  Seems to me that you have already decided it is a bit more than just a hypothesis.

Definition of the word hypothesis:

Quote
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

You and you alone are proposing you are right.  Everyone else is proposing that you are wrong.

Quote
You see a dot of light and that's pluto to you....right?

Absolutely right yes.   It's called experience.   40 years of it up to now.  To you they might be just dots of light in the sky.  But when you've studied the subject for long enough you get to know what those dots of light actually are.  Anyone else agree?
A dot of light is a dot of light. That's it.
You can have a thousand lifetimes and it would still be a dot of light. That's not experience, it's observation of a dot of light.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:15:27 AM
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:23:58 AM
Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.
Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?

You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?

You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?

Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?

Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?

That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
I take it you know the distance to he mountain, already....right?
Where did you set your ball?

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 07:27:17 AM
You said you know trigonometry, no? Did the mountain show up in the numbers?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:31:12 AM
Let's get back to the crux.
Sure, lets get back to the actual crux.

You claim that for a RE, if you were to look out level, you would see nothing but sky, even though simple trig shows that to be BS.

Simple trig does not show it to by bull.
If Earth was the globe you think it is, you would have no horizon.
The fact there is a horizon, is concrete proof that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.


Your Earth would curve away and down...always. We do not see this because we see the horizon that our own eyes produce as our meeting line. The convergence of sky to water.

The argument that your Earth bulges up between your view, makes a mockery of it, right there, before any other argument is used.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:33:59 AM
Quote
Completely wrong. The size of EARTH was known BCE. But the distance to the sun just had a lower bound.

Exactly.  It seems to me the ancient Greeks had a more accurate model or idea about the general relative distances and sizes of the Sun, Moon and Earth than the so-called 'modern' flat Earth theory has.  What does that suggest to you?  Aristarchus figured out that the Sun was very distant compared to the Moon and therefore it must be much larger.  All compliant with modern mainstream science.  FE still maintain that the Sun and Moon are the same distance away and the same size!

Obviously the actual figures have improved over the centuries as our methods of measuring the distances involved have improved.
It's a great story of fiction but it should be put back on the fiction shelf.

You can't even explain the reality of how Earth and the sun. moon, stars were calculated. You can reference what supposedly happened but that's it. That's all it is.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 07:40:42 AM
Quote
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.

OK if you want some honesty why don't you just come right out and tell us all it is a complete waste of time any of us telling you anything because you will only ever believe what you want to believe. In other words you only believe what you believe to be true.  Your 'alternative' Earth theory.  Of which we haven't had a grain of evidence or explanation of from you. 

You tell us you have got this ground-breaking all new theory about the Earth, the Universe and everything but I don't think anyone knows anything about it other than you.

Quote
You can't even explain the reality of how Earth and the sun. moon, stars were calculated. You can reference what supposedly happened but that's it. That's all it is.

OK then provide us with some references that show how you have got it right and everyone else has got it wrong.   Put your cards on the table for a change.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 07:52:21 AM
You said you know trigonometry, no? Did the mountain show up in the numbers?
Why use a mountain then?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 08:07:47 AM
Pretty sure it could be a dead uncle, too. But keep on clutching straws.

Again: where does trigonometry get it wrong? You know it, so please tell us.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 08:09:31 AM
Let's take it step by step and you can point out the bits you don't get.
Sextant - do you understand that you can use a sextant to accurately measure the angle between two visible objects? Any issues with the idea of using a sextant? Is there some other method you'd prefer - what is it?

You, the observer, need to move from side to side until the ball lines up with a distant (the further away the better) object. I'm using a mountain in my example. Any problems understanding this step?

You then move to one side or the other (let's go with left) from this starting point and measure how far you have moved. Keep moving until the ball no longer lines up with the distant reference point (e.g. mountain). In my example, this is 5 metres to the left of your original position. OK with this step?

Use the sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the distant reference point (they no longer line up, so there is an angle between them - 7 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Take the angle and the sideways distance you moved and plug these into the first equation. The result is then the distance to the ball (41 metres in my example), so that's half the problem solved. OK with this step?

Move back to your original position, where the ball lines up with the distant reference object. Use sextant or other device to measure the angular diameter of the ball (0.5 degrees in my example). OK with this step?

Plug this angle (0.5 degrees in my example) and the previously calculated distance to the ball (41 metres in my example) into the second equation and the result is the actual diameter of the ball (36 cm in my example). OK with this step?

That's it, you now know the distance and size of the ball.
I take it you know the distance to he mountain, already....right?
Where did you set your ball?

No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 08:15:10 AM
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 08:21:50 AM
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.

The origin of the word planet is the Greek planētēs, which simply meant wandering star. The Greeks noticed they whilst most stars were fixed in place, some wandered. So if an ancient Greek discovered a "wandering" star back in the day, they would just label it as a planet. If they'd had the technology to observe the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), they'd have seen them move and therefore they would be planets. So yes, if you look at the sky and see a moving star, by the old rules, it's by definition a planet.

The fact is that we've discovered a lot more about these objects in the last couple of thousand years and no longer consider every moving solar system object to be a planet by the modern definition. So yeah, a dot moving is a planet to an ancient Greek.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 08:22:53 AM
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?

That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 08:27:57 AM
Pretty sure it could be a dead uncle, too. But keep on clutching straws.

Again: where does trigonometry get it wrong? You know it, so please tell us.
Why does it have to be anything?
A ball at a distance.
Why is there a need for anything else?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 08:29:45 AM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 08:30:17 AM
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?
It depends on how its used and for what.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 08:32:05 AM
Well when I can look up the coordinates of Pluto from a reliable source such as the BAA (British Astronomical Association) handbook which tell me where to look for Pluto and then I image that area of sky and locate a white dot which is moving among the other stars at the same coordinates given, that is evidence for me that the moving dot is indeed Pluto.
A dot moving with other dots of light means it's the picture of supposed pluto that is handed to you and you say "yep, that's it alright."
Come on, let's have some honesty.
You are totally reliant on being told and sold, a story.

The origin of the word planet is the Greek planētēs, which simply meant wandering star. The Greeks noticed they whilst most stars were fixed in place, some wandered. So if an ancient Greek discovered a "wandering" star back in the day, they would just label it as a planet. If they'd had the technology to observe the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), they'd have seen them move and therefore they would be planets. So yes, if you look at the sky and see a moving star, by the old rules, it's by definition a planet.

The fact is that we've discovered a lot more about these objects in the last couple of thousand years and no longer consider every moving solar system object to be a planet by the modern definition. So yeah, a dot moving is a planet to an ancient Greek.
So, your reliance is on Greeks seeing a moving dot and calling it a planet, just because the dot is moving?

And tou accept this for no other reason than...well.....it is what it is?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 08:35:01 AM
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?

That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
I do answer.
The issue is with you lot skirting around this stuff.
Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
It's not really any answer is it....in truth I mean. It's a story but that's it.
Unless you can explain the reality of how the story unfolded into reality.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 08:40:14 AM
Nah, it is mainly you who has nothing else than a story.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 08:52:53 AM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.

Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 28, 2020, 08:55:48 AM
Is it just me, or does spectimatic’s claimed understanding of trigonometry seem iffy?

That and an apparent inability to just answer a straight question - ever.
I do answer.
The issue is with you lot skirting around this stuff.
Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
It's not really any answer is it....in truth I mean. It's a story but that's it.
Unless you can explain the reality of how the story unfolded into reality.

Of course you do.

"I have a question, how do you do such and such?"

Here's your answer.

"Don't understand the answer."

Which part?

"I have another question..."
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 28, 2020, 09:00:32 AM
Nah, it is mainly you who has nothing else than a story.
And a bunch of garden paths he wants to lead you endlessly down.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 09:31:25 AM
To Scepti I would ask simply this.  What sources of information do you use to learn anything from?  Because it seems to me that you do not believe anything you would read in any books, from any websites (unless they are flat Earth websites of course) or any TV.

Or do you simply put aside all normal sources of information and reference on the basis that you believe they are all trying to 'indoctorinate' false information into you and instead go purely on what your own senses can tell you?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 28, 2020, 12:30:20 PM
Quote
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.

So what do you think the stars are and how have you verified that your belief is correct?  Astronomers have got their models and the data to back them up.  Obviously you won't agree with any of it so what does your 'alternative' Earth theory propose?

Up to now you have certainly proved to be a true expert.  A true expert at dodging questions about how you have come to believe whatever it is you believe in while brushing aside anything tries to explain to you despite making your demands that they do. 

So lets turn the record over now shall we.  Explain to us fully.  What evidence do you have (and where have you got it from) which shows undisputedly that whatever it is that you believe in is a better and more valid explanation for everything than mainstream science. Since you are so sure that you are right then this should be easy for you.

In other words lay all your cards on the table for everyone to see or kindly put them away and shut the door behind you on your way out.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 28, 2020, 02:31:01 PM
Simple trig does not show it to by bull.
If Earth was the globe you think it is, you would have no horizon.
The fact there is a horizon, is concrete proof that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
Yes it does, as already shown multiple times.
You just keep on ignoring it and keep on ignoring a simple line of inquiry which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why?
The only reason is if you know it will show you are wrong and don't want to admit it.

If you truly believe your claims to be true, why not answer the simple questions?

Once more, you have accepted that looking straight down you see ground. You claim that looking straight out you see sky.
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level?
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?

Your Earth would curve away and down...always. We do not see this because we see the horizon that our own eyes produce as our meeting line.
No, we do see this, and see the edge of Earth as the horizon, this horizon is imperceptibly below eye level when close to sea level, but as you get higher, you can tell the difference with even simple tools, as repeatedly shown. So we DO see this curvature. You just refuse to admit it.

The argument that your Earth bulges up between your view, makes a mockery of it, right there, before any other argument is used.
Yes, so why do you make such a strawman rather than dealing with the reality of what should actually happen on the globe?
For example, I said the horizon would be 2.7 arc minutes below level. That doesn't require any bulge up.
Likewise an object being hidden by the horizon doesn't require any bulge up. It just requires the hidden portion to be below the horizon.
This isn't difficult to understand at all.

I do answer.
No, you continually avoid providing answers because you know actually honest answers will show you to be wrong, and providing dishonest ones will show you to either be dishonest or have no idea what you are talking about.

For example, you still haven't answered my question on if you accept that for a RE, there will be a transition between land/sea and sky, and if not what replaces that so that when you look down you see land/sea but when you look up/level you see sky.

That is continually avoiding providing an answer, likely because you know that answering it will show your pathetic straw man of the RE to be complete garbage.

Basically you're more or less saying " as the story goes."
No, that would be you and your model.
Meanwhile, we can and have provided evidence and math to back up the reality of a RE.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 10:58:54 PM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.

Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.

You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.

I'll make this easier.

I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.

All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 11:01:22 PM
Quote
This is where we're at with so called stars and all the otehr stuff.

So what do you think the stars are and how have you verified that your belief is correct?  Astronomers have got their models and the data to back them up.  Obviously you won't agree with any of it so what does your 'alternative' Earth theory propose?

Up to now you have certainly proved to be a true expert.  A true expert at dodging questions about how you have come to believe whatever it is you believe in while brushing aside anything tries to explain to you despite making your demands that they do. 

So lets turn the record over now shall we.  Explain to us fully.  What evidence do you have (and where have you got it from) which shows undisputedly that whatever it is that you believe in is a better and more valid explanation for everything than mainstream science. Since you are so sure that you are right then this should be easy for you.

In other words lay all your cards on the table for everyone to see or kindly put them away and shut the door behind you on your way out.
My cards are on the table. Plain and simple.
Lay your cards on the table and show me how you arrive at your facts, without using stories to back up something you cannot explain.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 28, 2020, 11:14:31 PM
What cards do you have? "You can not see the horizon on a globe", and your hypothesis? That is a belief system, if even that.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 11:18:14 PM
looking straight down (off level) you see ground.
Yep.
Quote from: JackBlack
You claim that looking straight out (level) you see sky (if Earth was a globe we walked upon).
Yep.

Quote from: JackBlack
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level? (on a globe).
You see sky.
Quote from: JackBlack
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?

On your globe you simply would look level, horizontally.
On a flat Earth, you would need to angle your view upwards, losing your level and your horizon line to your eye.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 28, 2020, 11:24:51 PM
What cards do you have? "You can not see the horizon on a globe", and your hypothesis? That is a belief system, if even that.
Everything we are dealing with is a belief system, with your globe, so don't waste your time trying to bring that argument against me, to the table.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 12:04:47 AM
Quote
My cards are on the table. Plain and simple.

But they are not are they.  All you have said so far is that you have an 'alternative' Earth theory.  Whatever that means.  Tell us about it. Share it.  Explain why it is better than what you call the 'global nonsense'.

So far it is all claims from you and no substance.  Details please of why your 'alternative' Earth theory provides us with a good reason to throw away all our old physics and science books and start over!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: JackBlack on September 29, 2020, 01:24:10 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
So just what do you think would happen if you started looking straight down, and slowly raised your head to look out level? (on a globe).
You see sky.
Quote from: JackBlack
How do you go from seeing land/sea to seeing sky?

On your globe you simply would look level, horizontally.
And more avoidance of an extremely simple question.

You admitted you start out seeing ground, so as you slowly raise your head you don't magically just see sky. This is clearly focusing on what happens AS YOU RAISE your head, not once it is already at level.
Likewise, it is asking what happens visually as you change from seeing ground/sea to sky.

So once again, you start off looking straight down at a round Earth, seeing nothing but ground/sea.
You then slowly raise you head, still looking at whatever you can see, and eventually raise it enough such that you see nothing but sky.
Tell me what happens, what you see, from the moment before you start raising your head until the moment after you see nothing but sky.

For this part, I don't care where your head is (we can move on to that extremely simple step after you deal with this extremely simple step).
What I care about for this part is what you see.
How you go from ground, to sky.

If you need a template for a diagram to fill in, here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/r4zylA5.png)
This represents a slice (or if you like the entire FOV) from when you are looking straight down at the ground, represented by green, to when you look up enough to see just sky, represented in blue.

What happens in the white region?
How do you visually transition from seeing just ground/sea to seeing just sky?

Everything we are dealing with is a belief system, with your globe, so don't waste your time trying to bring that argument against me, to the table.
No, we have evidence, math and logic backing up the reality of the globe. You have nothing more than belief and avoidance.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: robinofloxley on September 29, 2020, 01:24:14 AM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.

Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.

You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.

I'll make this easier.

I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.

All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.

Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 01:45:23 AM
It is annoying this is not a level playing field. Sceptimatic feels it is not needed for them to answer questions, only present questions. It'd be more fun if they were actually giving us something other than just "you know RE does not work".
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 02:12:00 AM
This is all you will ever get from conspiracy theorists.  Claims that anything they don't believe in is nonsense but no evidence from them about what or why what they believe in is better than mainstream science.

It's almost as if the ideas that they claim to have don't actually exist.  They just enjoy arguing with people and making comments that they know will provoke a response and thus make them feel superior because they 'know something' no one else does.

I could claim anything I wanted to couldn't I and no one on here could prove I was lying or not. Hopefully the evidence and explanations I have provided previously are detailed enough to show I speak from experience rather than just fantasy.

Scientists don't make any pre-assertions about anything.  They observe, they hypothesize, they test and then they test again to gradually develop a theory and then a model that best explains the observations and predict future events.

Flat Earth start with a pre-assertion, i.e. the Earth is flat and then just claim that everything we observe fits in with that pre-assertion. If it does then it proves the Earth is flat. If it doesn't then ignore it.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 02:35:56 AM
The conspiracy theory is super interesting due to it making no sense.

I don't think anyone has ever managed to state the reason for such a thing to exist. I have read it is to stop Man from seeing God or something like that, but not sure. It is very vague.

EDIT: Someone should change my mind.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 03:22:17 AM
It's become increasingly evident through this and other discussions/threads/arguments or whatever we choose to call them that flat Earth 'theory' really isn't a theory in the same way that scientific theories are.

So there really isn't any point in trying to reason with those who 'believe'. I have had a natural and lifelong interest in space and astronomy so any line of thinking that is different to that which I have known about all through my life raises my curiosity. Science progresses based on new discoveries.  I'm not into conspiracy theories in any way but it has been interesting to try and work out the psychology behind them.  Part political and part religious as far as I can make out. Certainly not scientific though.

I haven't come across anything on FES which has caused me to change my mind and I can't see that happening anytime soon if Sceptis claims are anything to go by. The FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.

Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 06:53:51 AM
FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
Agreed.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 09:46:17 AM
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 29, 2020, 10:12:23 AM
FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
Agreed.
Thing is: It's impossible.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 12:06:50 PM
Quote
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!

In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out whereas FE can only claim things based on... well what exactly?

BTW I have looked through this discussion all the way back to the start a few times now.  Apart from making claim that he has an 'alternative' Earth theory a couple of times I cannot find any details about what Sceptis theory involves.  Does anyone else know anything about it?  By all means describe something as nonsense but at least explain why you think it is nonsense and also explain why you think you have something better.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 12:11:24 PM
There isn’t any. It’s the ”looks flat”, as usual.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 12:17:15 PM
Hardly ground breaking.  I thought Scepti had got something that is worthy an inclusion in Nature magazine.  After all if someone comes up with a viable theory to challenge the conventional view that we all live on a globe then that is surely a 'stop press' article for Nature.  Obviously they would have to be a little bit more open with the supporting evidence than is typical for the average FEer before it ever got even considered for print.

If Scepti genuinely believed that he had a theory that could challenge modern science about the Earth and the Universe then he wouldn't be hiding in FE forums.  He would want to show the scientific community how wrong they have been all these years and claim his place in the scientific hall of fame. I know I would.

One FEer (might have been Sandokhan or Wise) said they joined a mainstream Physics forum.  They apparently got a permanent ban after a couple of weeks.  Can't think why.
 
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 12:32:37 PM
Sandokhan at least got banned or something similar.

The only member of the FE crew I know ever have tried to run with the big dogs. The rest are too weak and scared to try life outside their echo chamber.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Stash on September 29, 2020, 12:54:02 PM
One FEer (might have been Sandokhan or Wise) said they joined a mainstream Physics forum.  They apparently got a permanent ban after a couple of weeks.  Can't think why.

That was Sandokhan. It was for a thread he started over on scienceforums.net - Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula
By sandokhan, March 24, 2019
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1101653

After 3 pages it ended with:

"Moderator Note
Since the OP (Sandokhan) appears impervious to reason and genuine scientific rebuttal, this thread is closed."
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 29, 2020, 01:15:08 PM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.

Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.

You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.

I'll make this easier.

I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.

All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.

Sticks and shadows my friend. Sticks and shadows.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: Solarwind on September 29, 2020, 02:10:11 PM
Quote
You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.

In the case of bodies like the Moon and Venus we know the distance because we can bounce lasers or radio waves off them.  It only takes about 2.5 seconds for a return signal from the Moon for example.

You think it's all nonsense. We've established that. OK fair enough that is your prerogative. You not accepting something because you don't want to believe it does not magically make all that false. Except in your mind.   

When Neanderthal man stood outside his cave and saw a bright star in the west after sunset or in the east before sunrise he would have wondered what it was.  And with good reason. There was no information available to him to tell him what it was.  Now fast forward in time a few 10s of 1000s of years  to the 21st century and we now do know what it is.  The planet Venus.

Are you asking us all to roleplay as our ancestors all over again and base what we think purely and only on what we can directly see? Ignoring everything we've learned (or in your words indoctrinated) since then?  Not going to happen I'm afraid. 

I still remember when I first got interested in astronomy at the age of 12 I had no idea what a star was or how far away they were. They were just random points of light in the night sky. My way of learning more about them was to read books.  There was no Internet in the early 1980s. At least none that the average person had access to. How would you have learned about them?
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 29, 2020, 11:16:41 PM


No idea how far away the mountain is, sorry. I dunno about the ball either, I thought you were placing it for me so I could determine how far away it is, you tell me.

How about you just for once answer the questions instead of just jumping off and asking new and completely irrelevant ones. Go through my list of questions to me and give me a simple OK or not OK so I know which bits you understand and which you don't.
No. Let's understand why you're using a mountain. Why use anything other than the ball and distance I have it at?
Let's go through it.

Why? Well you asked what tools are required and I've told you. One of the required tools is some distant feature you align the ball with. The method is quite clear, you start by lining up two objects, the ball and something else. How can you line the ball up with the something else when you've taken away the something else. Try filling a bucket with water by taking away the bucket.
Never mind a bucket without water.
Why do you require the mountain.
Just answer it noice and simply.

You don't want to answer because you know you need a distance, otherwise your ball measurement and distance of it, becomes nonsense.

I'll make this easier.

I have a hovering ball of unknown size, to you....at a distance not known, to you.

All you have to work with, is clear sky.
Now get out your tools and show me how you gauge the ball size and distance.

Explain to me how you line up the ball with a distant object when you don't have one. That is step one of the method. Clear sky has stars in it. Stars are distant objects. Your sky needs to be clear of stars some how, because you won't allow distant objects. How are you achieving that?
It doesn't matter how I'm achieving it. What matters is you telling me how you would dine the size and distance of the ball with no known reference point.

Just explain it and if you can't, then fair enough.
If you can and you need a reference point, then tell me why you need it and all the rest of it.


Try not to spend any time on having a dig because they're just wasted words.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 29, 2020, 11:19:37 PM
It is annoying this is not a level playing field. Sceptimatic feels it is not needed for them to answer questions, only present questions. It'd be more fun if they were actually giving us something other than just "you know RE does not work".
You get plenty. Accepting any of it or rejecting any of it, is down to you...but it's all there.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 11:32:55 PM
What is there to reject?

You have "you could not see the horizon if it were a globe" or your problems with, for example, trigonometry? Aren't those the rock your theory is based on? It's pretty light and weak.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 29, 2020, 11:36:42 PM
This is all you will ever get from conspiracy theorists.  Claims that anything they don't believe in is nonsense but no evidence from them about what or why what they believe in is better than mainstream science.

It's almost as if the ideas that they claim to have don't actually exist.  They just enjoy arguing with people and making comments that they know will provoke a response and thus make them feel superior because they 'know something' no one else does.
Digs.


Quote from: Solarwind
I could claim anything I wanted to couldn't I and no one on here could prove I was lying or not. Hopefully the evidence and explanations I have provided previously are detailed enough to show I speak from experience rather than just fantasy.
Experience of what?
You seriously believe you can calculate sizes and distances of so called stars and so called planets that are claimed to be million/billions/trillions....etc.....etc....etc....miles away and you think this can be achieved by using basic trigonometry.
Feel free to believe it but don't expect me to follow that utter utter nonsense.


Quote from: Solarwind
Scientists don't make any pre-assertions about anything.  They observe, they hypothesize, they test and then they test again to gradually develop a theory and then a model that best explains the observations and predict future events.
Genuine scientists will do that.
The issue is in getting that feedback from them, instead of offerings from people professing to be doing scientific work.
It's about finding the truth or finding honesty in the pursuit of it. I do not see that in a hell of a lot of mainstream stuff.

Quote from: Solarwind
Flat Earth start with a pre-assertion, i.e. the Earth is flat and then just claim that everything we observe fits in with that pre-assertion.
You know that's not true but what is true, is...people like you believe in a globe because you adhere to  the story of it with CGI to match...etc.
No ability to think for yourself.
You started it.  ;)

Quote from: Solarwind
If it does then it proves the Earth is flat. If it doesn't then ignore it.
Lots of stuff proves the Earth is flat in terms of water. Land is all kinds of terrain but the water is the key to knowing it is flat.
But...yet....people like to believe it curves around a globe because of magical stuff that can't be explained.....etc.

o which one is the nuts one?
A clue: It isn't flat Earth theories.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: rvlvr on September 29, 2020, 11:38:22 PM
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/abf5960b6259bb6600bff1b2665fab58cce98964.jpg)
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 29, 2020, 11:40:01 PM
It's become increasingly evident through this and other discussions/threads/arguments or whatever we choose to call them that flat Earth 'theory' really isn't a theory in the same way that scientific theories are.

So there really isn't any point in trying to reason with those who 'believe'. I have had a natural and lifelong interest in space and astronomy so any line of thinking that is different to that which I have known about all through my life raises my curiosity. Science progresses based on new discoveries.  I'm not into conspiracy theories in any way but it has been interesting to try and work out the psychology behind them.  Part political and part religious as far as I can make out. Certainly not scientific though.
Pay more attention and start being honest.

Quote from: Solarwind
I haven't come across anything on FES which has caused me to change my mind and I can't see that happening anytime soon if Sceptis claims are anything to go by. The FE side need to come up with something rather more robust and convincing than they have so far.
I don't care what you believe. I care what I believe.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2020, 12:05:34 AM
Quote
In conclusion FE sucks, and RE rocks!

In conclusion we know things in RE because we have worked them out

No, you haven't worked anything out. You followed a storyline and what was given out for you to go with.
Your own observations and calculations do not exist to verify what you believe is your global Earth.
Just be honest.
Title: Re: What would change your mind?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2020, 12:07:37 AM