The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: thesailor on February 02, 2021, 08:09:20 AM

Title: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: thesailor on February 02, 2021, 08:09:20 AM
One calm night with clear skies, we were motor sailing from Portmouth, UK to the Channel Islands, heading for Alderney.
Some time into the darkness when we list sight of the land lights, we started observing a flashing glow ahead of us.  The frequency matched the Alderney lighthouse.  As we closed in with our slow motoring at 5-6 miles per hour, the glow became stronger and sometime later, we saw the strong light just on the horizon.  As we got closer, we started observing the reglection of the light in the channel waters.
Later, we saw the rest of the island's lights.  Which part of the flat earth explains this consistent observation with a mathematical formula?
Have a look at this to explain the dipping lights:



Also, we know that the VHF works with a line of sight which makes my handheld VHF lose contact first with land stations than the one that has the antena at the top of the sail boat's mast.  If the reason for both above is not the curvature, of the earth, which mathematical flat-earth fomula explain what I saw and listen?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 09:00:35 AM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 09:54:35 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 02, 2021, 11:01:01 AM
No.  Why/how are you able to discern that a light you see at night is on a tower tilted very very very slightly away from you?  Why would you fix your gaze towards the sky for something you expect to be on or just over the horizon.  What ship and lighthouse in history is that large when compared to the Earth?  Why must people constantly misinterpret how large the Earth is when compared to a human, ship, or other man-made structure?  So no your responses do not make sense, and are the opposite of logical.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 02, 2021, 12:04:54 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2021, 12:35:23 PM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?
At this distance, only by an insignificant amount which would not be detectable.

If you wish to disagree, do the math to show just how much it should be tilted. And then provide evidence that it should be detectable.

If you would like an example of that:
The distance between the locations mentioned is 144 km. The circumference of Earth is roughly 40 000 km. That means the distance is roughly 0.0036 times the circumference. As the total circumference is 360 degrees, that means it is ~1.3 degrees, at most.

That is far too small to be detectable. Especially when you are just looking at a light at night.

And don't forget that we don't just magically see in 1D, we have a FOV.

It makes perfect sense....right?
No, your claim makes no sense at all.
The tilt is far too small and it wouldn't magically make it invisible.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2021, 12:42:35 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 02, 2021, 04:16:57 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.

I was all excited to post my measurements and calculations but I see you beat me to it.

Yeah, this is a common absurd tactic of sceptimatic.  Use a very not to scale image and treat it like it was.  Hard to tell if it's intentional, or he doesn't understand scale.  It's pretty dishonest if it's intentional.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: boydster on February 02, 2021, 04:40:51 PM
What about the red line on the image below? It seems like it would illustrate an object appearing from the top down as it appeared over the horizon.

(https://i.ibb.co/L0XZNmB/redline.png)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 10:32:12 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 03, 2021, 05:11:22 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 03, 2021, 02:41:52 PM
It is 1° per ~70 miles


https://flatearth.ws/curvature-tilt
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 03, 2021, 03:22:57 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.
First, the scale matters quite alot since you drew such an absurdly small Earth compared to the absurdly large ship, lighthouse, and distance between them in comparison to the size of your Earth.  Second, read to post just above yours that was there for like 6 hours before.  Even Boyd, who routinely takes up for absurd FE claims, whether he supports them or not, drew it for you. 
Scale matters..  scale matters..  repeat after me.   Scale matters. 

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 03, 2021, 04:17:13 PM
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.
Yes, that is something you need to do as well.
But the big issue with your diagram isn't so much the size of the object, but just how far apart they are.

Notice that in your diagram, as I already explained, you have a distance of 4300 km, being nice and pretending that is along the surface, rather than a straight line, that would amount to ~40 degrees, or roughly 30 times the maximum angle that could be involved in the situation described in the OP.

For a more representative example, here you go (I couldn't be bothered drawing in the Earth, so instead I just drew in 2 lines, at the appropriate angles):
(https://i.imgur.com/orWMEVX.png)
Note the above, while it does have the angles correct, does suffer from one big flaw, digital images like this have aliasing so you can easily see they tilt in opposite directions. This is very obvious in the middle where it moves over 1 step (1 px), and less so at the ends.
So a better representation would be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/t5UOmOt.png)
Now you have a bunch of lines offset by that small angle, such that you can divide them into 2 sets where every line in a set is parallel. Can you pick which ones are which, just using your eyes without using any tools such as paint to measure the tilt?

Oh, and also tell me which set is tilted further to the right vs which set is more vertical.

And all of that is involving the maximum angle. He didn't tell us the distance he actually was when he started to see it, which would likely be a much smaller angle, which would make it even harder.

And of course, with these lines, you are looking at them side on, so it is much easier to see the difference.

What you need is to look at them head on, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/5ipyUBp.png)
Or if you would prefer a more textured version, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/P7vfzXs.png)

From left to right, these are cylinders at various angles to the viewer.
Can you tell which is vertical and which is at various angles? (and what those angles are?)
Just which do you think should correspond to the lighthouse?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 12:42:47 AM
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.
Because it isn't to scale you are massively overestimating the curve.
Earth is not a tiny ball.

So much of your nonsense relies upon pretending Earth is just a tiny ball you can fit in your hand rather than the massive one you are standing on.


And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.


The same kind of set issues arise with a to scale diagram.
You can see the light in question from ~ 22 km away (ignoring refraction which lets you see it from even furhter).
And the higher you are in the boat, the further the distance to the horizon and the further you can see it from.
And that is before you even consider the light passing through the water or seeing the light above you as it scatters from dust and moisture/clouds in the air.

Now, care to address your nonsense regarding the lean?

Can you tell me which of those poles are leaning forwards or back?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 04, 2021, 01:07:56 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

How do you not get that scale makes a massive difference to the diagram, line of sight, etc.?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 01:15:07 AM

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.


(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 01:16:35 AM


How do you not get that scale makes a massive difference to the diagram, line of sight, etc.?
I do get it but it doesn't matter, overall.
The distances from a ship to lighthouse would still see tilted back and angled vision, no matter how minor you think that is.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 04, 2021, 01:24:14 AM

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.


(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.

Calculate it then. Don't use diagrams, use numbers

Back in reality, all curve simulators work ( http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator )
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 01:37:48 AM
The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
So why you pretend their is with all your nonsense?
You have been refuted, deal with it.

You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.
I already clearly demonstrated that was pure BS.
Why do you just repeat the same BS as if it hasn't already been refuted.

The angle is insignificant.

Again, which of the rods in this image are vertical? Which are leaning towards you? Which are leaning away? (Note, this is viewed from the same level as the base of the rod):
(https://i.imgur.com/P7vfzXs.png)

The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.
And what is this magic "angle of sight" you speak of?
Are you back to pretending we magically only see a straight line?

What is wrong with the line provided by boydster before?

A level scope is a level scope, not angled.
No one said anything about a level scope in this thread.
And again, just like in the other thread, WE DON"T JUST SEE A LINE!
We have a FOV.

Stop pretending we magically only see a line.
It just shows how pathetic your position is.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 04, 2021, 01:41:00 AM
Yeah, this is a common absurd tactic of sceptimatic.  Use a very not to scale image and treat it like it was.  Hard to tell if it's intentional, or he doesn't understand scale.  It's pretty dishonest if it's intentional.
Of course it is dishonest.  He's been told this stuff thousands of times by now.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:41:26 AM

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.


(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.

Calculate it then. Don't use diagrams, use numbers

Back in reality, all curve simulators work ( http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator )
Your calculator doesn't allow for tilt of observer and tilt of object to be observed. Why?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:45:12 AM
The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

It won't change the angle if you are on a level.
We aren't talking about a level with your theory of a globe, are we?
Your Earth is supposedly a globe. I'm sure you can understand if you placed two masts 10/20/30/40/50 miles apart they would be closer at the base to base and farther away at the very top to top.

Try and tell me this wouldn't be the case.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 03:21:08 AM
Your calculator doesn't allow for tilt of observer and tilt of object to be observed. Why?
Probably because unlike your fantasy, the tilt is insignificant and is quite difficult to see.

Again, which of the rods in the diagram I provided are vertical? Can you tell?

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

It won't change the angle if you are on a level.
We aren't talking about a level with your theory of a globe, are we?
No, instead we are talking about simply going up higher at the same point on Earth's surface and thus at the same angle.

Your Earth is supposedly a globe. I'm sure you can understand if you placed two masts 10/20/30/40/50 miles apart they would be closer at the base to base and farther away at the very top to top.
Try and tell me this wouldn't be the case.
Why would I say that?
You claimed the ANGLE would be greater, not the distance.
Do you understand the difference?

The distance along the surface of Earth would still be exactly the same.
The angle subtended at the centre will still be exactly the same.
So that means the ship wouldn't be more angled away.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 04, 2021, 03:37:24 AM
It whoud be case, but by a few centimeters, at best
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 04, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UjmPNta.jpg?1)...
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 04, 2021, 06:44:59 AM
Whoudn't two black lines go above tower, and not intercept red line near it?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 04, 2021, 07:13:23 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

"You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies."

This is you not understanding scale.  If you stretch this out, eventually those lines you drew will intersect the light house.

That is how scale works, and why it seems you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:51:00 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

"You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies."

This is you not understanding scale.  If you stretch this out, eventually those lines you drew will intersect the light house.

That is how scale works, and why it seems you don't understand it.
Forget your scale.
The tilt will always take your level view away from the object if you were on a globe.

Go and get your globe and try it.
Yeah I know I know....it's not to scale.

Are you happy with near 8 inches per mile squared or have you got another way to sort that?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 04, 2021, 10:32:32 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5cHwg6/download.png) (https://postimages.org/)
So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

"You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies."

This is you not understanding scale.  If you stretch this out, eventually those lines you drew will intersect the light house.

That is how scale works, and why it seems you don't understand it.
Forget your scale.
The tilt will always take your level view away from the object if you were on a globe.

Go and get your globe and try it.
Yeah I know I know....it's not to scale.

Are you happy with near 8 inches per mile squared or have you got another way to sort that?

Again, you dismiss scale as unimportant because you don't understand it.  Your not to scale drawings are absurdly wrong because of this.

I have created to-scale drawings of the Earth to demonstrate what the curve actually looks like and does.  It's quite possible to do so, the fact that you can't is just more evidence you don't really understand what scale is or how it works.

The tilt of objects on the surface of the Earth as it curves away from you is so small and tiny you can't see it.  We are talking about less than 1 degree tilting away from you.  Try and measure that at a distance of 3 miles.

As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point?  It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 10:41:39 AM
The tilt of objects on the surface of the Earth as it curves away from you is so small and tiny you can't see it.  We are talking about less than 1 degree tilting away from you.  Try and measure that at a distance of 3 miles.
How about 30 miles?

Quote from: JJA
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point?  It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 04, 2021, 11:00:39 AM
The tilt of objects on the surface of the Earth as it curves away from you is so small and tiny you can't see it.  We are talking about less than 1 degree tilting away from you.  Try and measure that at a distance of 3 miles.
How about 30 miles?

4 degrees.

I can't imagine you could tell if a skyscraper 30 miles away was tilting 4 degrees in your direction even with a good telescope.

Quote from: JJA
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point?  It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?

For short distances it's fine.  At 1000 miles it starts to diverge to the point the error makes it no longer viable.  Further than that the error gets bigger and bigger extremely quickly.

The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared rule.  It eventually diverges from the circle pretty badly as you can see.

(https://i.imgur.com/Eoq0K3N.jpg)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 12:41:08 PM
The tilt will always take your level view away from the object if you were on a globe.
Only if you want to pretend that we magically see a single line with no FOV.

Again, back in reality, the difference in angle can be so small you wont tell.

Again, pretending scale doesn't matter just shows you have no idea what you are talking about or are just lying to everyone.


Now, again, care to address your idea of being able to tell that it is sloping backwards?
Which of the rods in the image I provided are tilting backwards?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 04, 2021, 02:35:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/UjmPNta.jpg?1)...
This made me laugh, ty much my favorite moose.  I needed that, been a rough week for me irl. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 10:14:25 PM
The tilt of objects on the surface of the Earth as it curves away from you is so small and tiny you can't see it.  We are talking about less than 1 degree tilting away from you.  Try and measure that at a distance of 3 miles.
How about 30 miles?

4 degrees.

I can't imagine you could tell if a skyscraper 30 miles away was tilting 4 degrees in your direction even with a good telescope.

Quote from: JJA
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point?  It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?

For short distances it's fine.  At 1000 miles it starts to diverge to the point the error makes it no longer viable.  Further than that the error gets bigger and bigger extremely quickly.

The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared rule.  It eventually diverges from the circle pretty badly as you can see.

(https://i.imgur.com/Eoq0K3N.jpg)
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 11:09:15 PM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Just what did you expect that line to look like?



And again you refuse my simple request.
You claimed that the curvature of Earth should result in the light house being visibly tilted away.
I provided an image of 19 rods.
Can you identify which of these rods are vertical, which are tilted towards you and which are tilted away from you?
At least one of them is even tilted by 10 degrees, while the tilt you claim as "massively angled" is a mere 1.3 degrees, if he was claiming to see the lighthouse from Portsmouth.

So you should easily be able to spot the one at 10 degrees if you think 1.3 degrees will be noticable.
So which are vertical, which are tilted towards you and which are tilted away?

(And as an addendum, I later realised that I measured to the wrong location on the Island. It is actually a smaller angle as the distance should be smaller).
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 12:12:24 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?

This one question just shows your total inability to understand the most basic concepts. This is one of the reasons no-one takes you seriously.
Explain it then.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 12:19:27 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 05, 2021, 12:33:59 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?

This one question just shows your total inability to understand the most basic concepts. This is one of the reasons no-one takes you seriously.
Explain it then.

It baffles me why you're asking this question of all questions. I mean it's obvious that the point of the 8" per Mile approximation formula is to calculate the drop/curve on a Globe Earth. I mean why wouldn't it curve if that what it's trying to approximate, you know, a curve? Are you unfamiliar with the 8" per Mile approximation formula?

In any case, as has been mentioned by others, it's a handy back-of-the-envelope approximation that gets out of whack the farther out you're measuring. If you want the nuts and bolts as to why and how, Walter Bislin lays it out quite nicely with formulas, calculators and dynamic graphs. You can also check out some surveyor/geodesy sources that are exacting as well. From Bislin:

Eight Inches per Miles squared Formula Derivation
This formula is an approximation. It is commonly under- or overestinated how accurate this approximation is. Here I give the accuracy of the approximation and derive the exact formulas and the approximation 8" per miles squared and compare the results in a Calculator Form.

- The 8 inches per miles squared approximation function underestimates the correct value at distances less than 391.1 km or 243.1 mi, so at 391.1 km it is the most accurate.
- At 1 mi or 1.609 km its error is about −0.0314% and decreases to 0% at 391.1 km or 243.1 mi.
- On longer distances the error starts to increase again. At 799.9 km or 497.0 mi the error is about 0.1%. At 2234 km or 1388 mi the error is about 1% and then rapidly increasing.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Eight+Inches+per+Miles+squared+Formula+Derivation
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:49:47 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
This one question just shows your total inability to understand the most basic concepts. This is one of the reasons no-one takes you seriously.
Explain it then.

And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.\
No reason for a curved line.

So do you really have no idea at all what you are talking about, or are you just trolling/knowingly spouting BS?

The reason is quite simple, the drop is 8 inches per mile squared.

i.e. to find the drop, take the distance, divide it by mile, square the result and then multiply it by 8 inches.
Or, to express it more correctly and as a simple formula: h=d^2/(2*R)

Notice the square part?
That is what makes the curve.

For a distance of 0 miles, the drop is 8*0^2 = 0 inches.
For a distance of 1 mile, the drop is 8*1^2 = 8 inches.
For a distance of 2 miles, the drop is 8*2^2 = 32 inches.
For a distance of 3 miles, the drop is 8*3^2 = 72 inches.

If you plot these (and the other numbers produced by the same formula) you will get a curve.

Now do you understand why the curve is there?

And again, which of the rods in the image I gave are vertical, which are leaning forwards and which are leaning backwards?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:17:29 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?

This one question just shows your total inability to understand the most basic concepts. This is one of the reasons no-one takes you seriously.
Explain it then.

It baffles me why you're asking this question of all questions. I mean it's obvious that the point of the 8" per Mile approximation formula is to calculate the drop/curve on a Globe Earth. I mean why wouldn't it curve if that what it's trying to approximate, you know, a curve? Are you unfamiliar with the 8" per Mile approximation formula?

In any case, as has been mentioned by others, it's a handy back-of-the-envelope approximation that gets out of whack the farther out you're measuring. If you want the nuts and bolts as to why and how, Walter Bislin lays it out quite nicely with formulas, calculators and dynamic graphs. You can also check out some surveyor/geodesy sources that are exacting as well. From Bislin:

Eight Inches per Miles squared Formula Derivation
This formula is an approximation. It is commonly under- or overestinated how accurate this approximation is. Here I give the accuracy of the approximation and derive the exact formulas and the approximation 8" per miles squared and compare the results in a Calculator Form.

- The 8 inches per miles squared approximation function underestimates the correct value at distances less than 391.1 km or 243.1 mi, so at 391.1 km it is the most accurate.
- At 1 mi or 1.609 km its error is about −0.0314% and decreases to 0% at 391.1 km or 243.1 mi.
- On longer distances the error starts to increase again. At 799.9 km or 497.0 mi the error is about 0.1%. At 2234 km or 1388 mi the error is about 1% and then rapidly increasing.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Eight+Inches+per+Miles+squared+Formula+Derivation
You can see I'm not talking about the curved ball, I'm talking about the curved line use from it.
There's no reason for it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:18:37 AM

Am I right?
About what?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 05, 2021, 01:37:59 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?

This one question just shows your total inability to understand the most basic concepts. This is one of the reasons no-one takes you seriously.
Explain it then.

It baffles me why you're asking this question of all questions. I mean it's obvious that the point of the 8" per Mile approximation formula is to calculate the drop/curve on a Globe Earth. I mean why wouldn't it curve if that what it's trying to approximate, you know, a curve? Are you unfamiliar with the 8" per Mile approximation formula?

In any case, as has been mentioned by others, it's a handy back-of-the-envelope approximation that gets out of whack the farther out you're measuring. If you want the nuts and bolts as to why and how, Walter Bislin lays it out quite nicely with formulas, calculators and dynamic graphs. You can also check out some surveyor/geodesy sources that are exacting as well. From Bislin:

Eight Inches per Miles squared Formula Derivation
This formula is an approximation. It is commonly under- or overestinated how accurate this approximation is. Here I give the accuracy of the approximation and derive the exact formulas and the approximation 8" per miles squared and compare the results in a Calculator Form.

- The 8 inches per miles squared approximation function underestimates the correct value at distances less than 391.1 km or 243.1 mi, so at 391.1 km it is the most accurate.
- At 1 mi or 1.609 km its error is about −0.0314% and decreases to 0% at 391.1 km or 243.1 mi.
- On longer distances the error starts to increase again. At 799.9 km or 497.0 mi the error is about 0.1%. At 2234 km or 1388 mi the error is about 1% and then rapidly increasing.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Eight+Inches+per+Miles+squared+Formula+Derivation
You can see I'm not talking about the curved ball, I'm talking about the curved line use from it.
There's no reason for it.

I know, you're talking about the blue line. I'm not sure why you are not getting the reason for it. It's been explained several times now. In short the 8" squared per mile approximation mathematically ultimately forms a parabola at distance, not a circle. It's really quite simple. But we are all well aware you have a distinct aversion to math.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 02:11:52 AM
Lines don't exist at all in reality and neither do curves. or blue.
Ok, fair enough.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 02:13:50 AM


I know, you're talking about the blue line. I'm not sure why you are not getting the reason for it. It's been explained several times now. In short the 8" squared per mile approximation mathematically ultimately forms a parabola at distance, not a circle. It's really quite simple. But we are all well aware you have a distinct aversion to math.
And what distance does it simply have a level line of sight?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 05, 2021, 11:54:30 AM
The tilt of objects on the surface of the Earth as it curves away from you is so small and tiny you can't see it.  We are talking about less than 1 degree tilting away from you.  Try and measure that at a distance of 3 miles.
How about 30 miles?

4 degrees.

I can't imagine you could tell if a skyscraper 30 miles away was tilting 4 degrees in your direction even with a good telescope.

Quote from: JJA
As for your 8 inches per mile thing, what is your point?  It's an approximation, and a pretty good one at that at least until you start trying to use it for much longer distances. Then it becomes inaccurate and eventually the amount it diverges from reality jumps to infinity.
How much longer distance?

For short distances it's fine.  At 1000 miles it starts to diverge to the point the error makes it no longer viable.  Further than that the error gets bigger and bigger extremely quickly.

The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared rule.  It eventually diverges from the circle pretty badly as you can see.

(https://i.imgur.com/Eoq0K3N.jpg)
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?

Uh... because that's the formula plotted by "8 inches per mile squared".

I don't 'have' the line curved, that's what you get when you plot that equation.  The reason it curves is because that's how math works.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 05, 2021, 11:59:28 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.

Look, it's just math.  8 inches per mile squared.  It makes a curve, what shape do you expect this formula to make?

x = 8 * y^2

Plot it yourself.  It plots a curving line.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4oawr9rfty

Astounding. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:11:45 PM
No reason for a curved line.
The blue line is the 8 inches per mile squared approximation.
He is showing how this closely matches a circle (for the RE) at short distances, but goes off quite significantly for larger distances.
That is the reason for it.

Remember, you brought up the 8 inches per mile squared.


And again, can you tell me which of the rods in my diagram are leaning forwards, backwards or are upright?
If not, can you admit this angle you claim you should be able to see is irrelevant as you can't tell?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 05, 2021, 07:49:23 PM
What is going on here?  I do not understand the confusion about the plotted blue line.  Am I missing something?  It was explained in the original post containing the plot.


I know, you're talking about the blue line. I'm not sure why you are not getting the reason for it. It's been explained several times now. In short the 8" squared per mile approximation mathematically ultimately forms a parabola at distance, not a circle. It's really quite simple. But we are all well aware you have a distinct aversion to math.
And what distance does it simply have a level line of sight?
Why would it go to level?  That's not how a parabola works.  I get that you do not trust math that doesn't agree with your claims but why would you intentionaly act this ridiculous.  I know it's an act because I've seen you able to string together and try to defend a theory, a very flawed and silly one, but you did it just the same without the act of not knowing how basic math or scale works. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:36:36 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.

Look, it's just math.  8 inches per mile squared.  It makes a curve, what shape do you expect this formula to make?

x = 8 * y^2

Plot it yourself.  It plots a curving line.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4oawr9rfty

Astounding.
The curve is under the line (your so called Earth) not the line itself, so why use it?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:40:05 AM
What is going on here?  I do not understand the confusion about the plotted blue line.  Am I missing something?  It was explained in the original post containing the plot.


I know, you're talking about the blue line. I'm not sure why you are not getting the reason for it. It's been explained several times now. In short the 8" squared per mile approximation mathematically ultimately forms a parabola at distance, not a circle. It's really quite simple. But we are all well aware you have a distinct aversion to math.
And what distance does it simply have a level line of sight?
Why would it go to level?  That's not how a parabola works.  I get that you do not trust math that doesn't agree with your claims but why would you intentionaly act this ridiculous.  I know it's an act because I've seen you able to string together and try to defend a theory, a very flawed and silly one, but you did it just the same without the act of not knowing how basic math or scale works.
Let me make myself clear.

If I set up a level sight or straight and level super long stick along your supposed globe, the stick will be above the ground straight away over a very small distance.
That stick then carries on in that straight line as the so called Earth curves under it.
Why should that stick suddenly create a parabola?

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 06, 2021, 02:48:33 AM
What is going on here?  I do not understand the confusion about the plotted blue line.  Am I missing something?  It was explained in the original post containing the plot.


I know, you're talking about the blue line. I'm not sure why you are not getting the reason for it. It's been explained several times now. In short the 8" squared per mile approximation mathematically ultimately forms a parabola at distance, not a circle. It's really quite simple. But we are all well aware you have a distinct aversion to math.
And what distance does it simply have a level line of sight?
Why would it go to level?  That's not how a parabola works.  I get that you do not trust math that doesn't agree with your claims but why would you intentionaly act this ridiculous.  I know it's an act because I've seen you able to string together and try to defend a theory, a very flawed and silly one, but you did it just the same without the act of not knowing how basic math or scale works.
Let me make myself clear.

If I set up a level sight or straight and level super long stick along your supposed globe, the stick will be above the ground straight away over a very small distance.
That stick then carries on in that straight line as the so called Earth curves under it.
Why should that stick suddenly create a parabola?

If it is strong stick, it shoudn't

It won't creare parabola
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 06, 2021, 03:05:58 AM
The curve is under the line (your so called Earth) not the line itself, so why use it?
Again, YOU were the one who brought it up.
If you are just going to reject it, why bring it up in the first place?

If I set up a level sight
No one in this thread other than you is talking about a level sight.
Again, no one other than you thinks we magically only see a single line rather than having a FOV>

Now stop with the deflections.

Again, you claim it should be angled, so can you tell me which of the rods in my diagram are vertical, which are leaning back and which are leaning forwards?
If not, are you going to admit that angle is irrelavent?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 06, 2021, 03:55:42 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.

Look, it's just math.  8 inches per mile squared.  It makes a curve, what shape do you expect this formula to make?

x = 8 * y^2

Plot it yourself.  It plots a curving line.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4oawr9rfty

Astounding.
The curve is under the line (your so called Earth) not the line itself, so why use it?

You're going to need to explain yourself better, what exactly is your problem with the blue line?  Are you getting it confused with the blue line in the other thread?

It curves because the equation has an exponent.  If you plot an exponent it curves.  Ever hear of an 'exponential curve'?  That's it, the blue line.

I don't know how else to explain this to you.  It's a very simple plot. Just showing a circle vs your 8-mile-squared equation.

This is all basic math you should have been taught in school.  Did you never learn to plot an equation?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 05:53:41 AM


Uh... because that's the formula plotted by "8 inches per mile squared".

I don't 'have' the line curved, that's what you get when you plot that equation.  The reason it curves is because that's how math works.
There's no need for it....at all.

You're just plotting a graph.
We are simply talking about your Earth curving down and away from sight.
This means we only need to concentrate on that curve away and down, not a parabola over and away from it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 05:56:35 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.

Look, it's just math.  8 inches per mile squared.  It makes a curve, what shape do you expect this formula to make?

x = 8 * y^2

Plot it yourself.  It plots a curving line.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4oawr9rfty

Astounding.
Any graph will plot a curved line of you have a reason for it.
There's none with your Earth and it's also pointless.

What counts is the Earth itself, like I said.
If its a globe it will curve down and your sight will stay level through a scope centre. This means you will not see any distant light house because of that curve. But we do see them. Why?
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon....100%
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 07, 2021, 07:19:41 AM


Uh... because that's the formula plotted by "8 inches per mile squared".

I don't 'have' the line curved, that's what you get when you plot that equation.  The reason it curves is because that's how math works.
There's no need for it....at all.

You're just plotting a graph.
We are simply talking about your Earth curving down and away from sight.
This means we only need to concentrate on that curve away and down, not a parabola over and away from it.

You were the one who ASKED ME about the 8 mile squared rule.  That plots a parabola.

If you didn't want to talk about it, WHY DID YOU ASK?   :o
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 07, 2021, 07:21:38 AM
And the reason why you have the blue line, curved?
Because it shows the 8 inches per mile squared.
It shows the approximation for the curvature of Earth, and it is compared to a circle representing Earth.

No reason for a curved line.

Look, it's just math.  8 inches per mile squared.  It makes a curve, what shape do you expect this formula to make?

x = 8 * y^2

Plot it yourself.  It plots a curving line.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4oawr9rfty

Astounding.
Any graph will plot a curved line of you have a reason for it.

Um, that's not how plotting or math works. Equations don't plot curves or not based on what you want them to do.

Your 8 inches per mile squared formula plots a curve, you can't make it do anything else!

There's none with your Earth and it's also pointless.

What counts is the Earth itself, like I said.
If its a globe it will curve down and your sight will stay level through a scope centre. This means you will not see any distant light house because of that curve. But we do see them. Why?
Because the Earth is not a globe we walk upon....100%

You and your level tubes.  I don't understand how you can be so obsessed with them yet never actually look through one to see if you are right.

Astounding.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 07, 2021, 01:26:24 PM
There's no need for it....at all.
Then why bring it up, at all?

your sight will stay level through a scope centre.
NO ONE OTHER THAN YOU BROUGHT UP ANY LEVEL SCOPE!
Stop bringing it up when it has nothing to do with the topic, especially when you want to pretend we magically see in 1D with no FOV.

Back in reality, people have a FOV and can see things below and above level.

Now stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball, and deal with the actual issue.

What they saw is exactly what is expected for a RE.
The glow went past the horizon of the lighthouse and into the air and also hit the water making a glow. Then eventually you get close enough to see the light directly.

For a FE, you should be able to see the light directly, from any distance.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 09:56:32 PM


Uh... because that's the formula plotted by "8 inches per mile squared".

I don't 'have' the line curved, that's what you get when you plot that equation.  The reason it curves is because that's how math works.
There's no need for it....at all.

You're just plotting a graph.
We are simply talking about your Earth curving down and away from sight.
This means we only need to concentrate on that curve away and down, not a parabola over and away from it.

You were the one who ASKED ME about the 8 mile squared rule.  That plots a parabola.

If you didn't want to talk about it, WHY DID YOU ASK?   :o
I asked if you believed it to be true.
It seems you do whether you use the graph parabola or whatever.
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
The mere fact they are seen, as are far away buildings, shows Earth to be essentially flat, where water is concerned.
Which is blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to actually use logic.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 09:58:04 PM

Then why bring it up, at all?

Bring what up?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 12:58:05 AM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

Which is blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to actually use logic.
No, it isn't.
What is blatantly obvious to anyone who actually uses logic is that it will depend upon distance, the height of the observer, the height of the object and the radius of Earth.

This is because one limit of a round Earth is a flat Earth. A flat Earth is the same in this regards to a RE with an infinite radius.
So if Earth merely being round was enough to mean you couldn't see it, then you couldn't see it on a FE either.

That also means it is blatantly obvious to anyone who actually uses logic, that you are spouting pure garbage and cannot defend your claims at all.

Then why bring it up, at all?
Bring what up?
The 8 inches per mile squared, which you claim isn't needed.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: thesailor on February 08, 2021, 04:10:36 AM
Here are some maths for people to check the line of sight.

Reading material:
ECEF model (https://docs.eegeo.com/unity/latest/docs/examples/ecef-coordinate-system/)
Online Calculator: https://www.oc.nps.edu/oc2902w/coord/llhxyz.htm
LLH: Longitude,Latitude,Height

Method:
Take two points on earth and conver the WGS-84 coordinates and height above mean sea level (AMSL).  Find the mid point ECEF coordinates of the these  two points.
This is easy: take the middle of each X,Y and Z figures:  Xm = X1 + (X2-X1)/2 and so on. 
Calculate the LLH of the mid point.
If the calculated height is below the elevation of that coordinate, then these two points are not in direct sight of each other.  If the calculated height is the same or larger than the recorded elevation for that location, then there is a line of sight.

With this formula, you can confirm the curvarure of the earth, wherever you are assuming that you have a good understanding of the elevation.  Also, nore that the earth is not a perfect sphere so expect variations depending on your latitude.
If you try these measurements on tidal seas, you need to adjust for the current tidal height at the positions of observation.

Example:  https://ibb.co/DkKgRq2

This model works everywhere on earth at any given moment.  For those in the audience that still don't get the earth is like any other planet, you should join a sailing trip to experience it with your own eyes.  If you are on dry land, then do your calculations and find a high and a nearby low point on a clear day and observe with you eyes,based on the maths, objects disappearing from sight.  Ask (or better, join a trip, go on a cruise) the sailors that arrive from Europe to Carbbean via Canary Islands to show you the clouds touch the horizon that sit above the islands, later see the mountain peaks and finally see the port/shore.
Has any of the flat earthers exeprienced the above?  Is any of the flat eathers a sailor, a navigator or a pilot?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 08, 2021, 04:25:13 AM


Uh... because that's the formula plotted by "8 inches per mile squared".

I don't 'have' the line curved, that's what you get when you plot that equation.  The reason it curves is because that's how math works.
There's no need for it....at all.

You're just plotting a graph.
We are simply talking about your Earth curving down and away from sight.
This means we only need to concentrate on that curve away and down, not a parabola over and away from it.

You were the one who ASKED ME about the 8 mile squared rule.  That plots a parabola.

If you didn't want to talk about it, WHY DID YOU ASK?   :o
I asked if you believed it to be true.
It seems you do whether you use the graph parabola or whatever.
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
The mere fact they are seen, as are far away buildings, shows Earth to be essentially flat, where water is concerned.
Which is blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to actually use logic.

Yes, I believe x=8y^2 plots a parabola which matches a sphere with the radius of 4000 miles for about 1000 miles and then rapidly diverges.

If you think it doesn't feel free to complain math is lying to you.

There is zero logic in anything you said here, just random claims with nothing to back them up.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 04:54:20 AM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 08, 2021, 11:22:45 AM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 12:42:51 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.
It's not a lie.
I have clearly explained how it is a lie.
Earth being round is not enough to conclude you shouldn't be seeing any distant lighthouse.

If you wish to disagree, justify your lie.
And then means without appealing to a level sight no one other than you mentioned, and without pretending we only see in 1D rather than having an actual FOV (which means that it is measured in degrees).
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 09:04:56 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 09:05:37 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.
It's not a lie.
I have clearly explained how it is a lie.
Earth being round is not enough to conclude you shouldn't be seeing any distant lighthouse.

If you wish to disagree, justify your lie.
And then means without appealing to a level sight no one other than you mentioned, and without pretending we only see in 1D rather than having an actual FOV (which means that it is measured in degrees).
Already done.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 10:57:09 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
So either a delusion or a lie, because it quite clearly isn't reality. It is outright rejection of reality.

Again, if you wish to disagree, you need to justify this outright lie of yours.
Claiming you have, just shows that you have no justification.

Again, unless you invoke the height of the object, the height of the observer, the radius of Earth and the distance between the 2 objects, any claim about what is seen on a RE would also hold for a FE.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:10:03 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
So either a delusion or a lie, because it quite clearly isn't reality. It is outright rejection of reality.

Again, if you wish to disagree, you need to justify this outright lie of yours.
Claiming you have, just shows that you have no justification.

Again, unless you invoke the height of the object, the height of the observer, the radius of Earth and the distance between the 2 objects, any claim about what is seen on a RE would also hold for a FE.
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 08, 2021, 11:13:01 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
So either a delusion or a lie, because it quite clearly isn't reality. It is outright rejection of reality.

Again, if you wish to disagree, you need to justify this outright lie of yours.
Claiming you have, just shows that you have no justification.

Again, unless you invoke the height of the object, the height of the observer, the radius of Earth and the distance between the 2 objects, any claim about what is seen on a RE would also hold for a FE.
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?

Obviously it depends upon the focal height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. You can look through lighthouse almanacs that "rate" visibility of every lighthouse on the planet. Every last one. These have been recorded for 100's of years.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:17:36 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
So either a delusion or a lie, because it quite clearly isn't reality. It is outright rejection of reality.

Again, if you wish to disagree, you need to justify this outright lie of yours.
Claiming you have, just shows that you have no justification.

Again, unless you invoke the height of the object, the height of the observer, the radius of Earth and the distance between the 2 objects, any claim about what is seen on a RE would also hold for a FE.
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?

Obviously it depends upon the focal height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. You can look through lighthouse almanacs that "rate" visibility of every lighthouse on the planet. Every last one. These have been recorded for 100's of years.
Give me a distance and height that you know of.

Edit to add:
The longest distance you know of.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 08, 2021, 11:48:46 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.
So either a delusion or a lie, because it quite clearly isn't reality. It is outright rejection of reality.

Again, if you wish to disagree, you need to justify this outright lie of yours.
Claiming you have, just shows that you have no justification.

Again, unless you invoke the height of the object, the height of the observer, the radius of Earth and the distance between the 2 objects, any claim about what is seen on a RE would also hold for a FE.
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?

Obviously it depends upon the focal height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. You can look through lighthouse almanacs that "rate" visibility of every lighthouse on the planet. Every last one. These have been recorded for 100's of years.
Give me a distance and height that you know of.

Edit to add:
The longest distance you know of.

Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 09, 2021, 01:22:22 AM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 03:39:57 AM


Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Are you scared to show your hand?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 03:41:04 AM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
It's very important...and you know it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 09, 2021, 05:46:58 AM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
It's very important...and you know it.
Why is it important?  You tell us.


Food for thought for you.
You should really have a basic grasp of the opposing arguments of a debate when trying to lay out a trap where you get them to claim something that seems to be irrefutable only to be shown as questionable so you can pin their whole argument to it in hopes of invalidating them.  You should not try this when you do not actually understand what they are arguing or you have such a weak position that it screams desperation, your strawman will burn you instead.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 07:32:13 AM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
It's very important...and you know it.
Why is it important?  You tell us.


Food for thought for you.
You should really have a basic grasp of the opposing arguments of a debate when trying to lay out a trap where you get them to claim something that seems to be irrefutable only to be shown as questionable so you can pin their whole argument to it in hopes of invalidating them.  You should not try this when you do not actually understand what they are arguing or you have such a weak position that it screams desperation, your strawman will burn you instead.
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: LuggerSailor on February 09, 2021, 09:39:16 AM
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm (http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm)

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 09, 2021, 10:03:20 AM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
It's very important...and you know it.
Why is it important?  You tell us.


Food for thought for you.
You should really have a basic grasp of the opposing arguments of a debate when trying to lay out a trap where you get them to claim something that seems to be irrefutable only to be shown as questionable so you can pin their whole argument to it in hopes of invalidating them.  You should not try this when you do not actually understand what they are arguing or you have such a weak position that it screams desperation, your strawman will burn you instead.
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Why do you think we can't see from a sphere?  There is no logic in your argument at all.  My eyesight extends from my eyes in a cone, I have the ability to look up or down, left or right, my sense of level is my eyes to the horizon not some arbitrary point that makes me look at a rigid tangent.  Perhaps you should see a medical professional if you think eyesight works the way you are trying and failing to claim. 
Plus, misrepresenting something you say should be true if the opposing argument is true just to say that misrepresentation being false is proof of the opposing arguments false position is in fact a strawman.  You do it in about 80 percent of your posts.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 10:28:27 AM

Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Are you scared to show your hand?

Huh? What in the world are you going on about now? Show my hand of what? If you want to talk about being able to see or not see lighthouses, pick one out with all of the details of it and we can take a look at it. Why you want me to pick one out, I don't know. Pick anyone you want, I don't care.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 09, 2021, 01:09:15 PM
Well then, let's make this a bit more clear.
Can a lighthouse be seen at sea, at distance...and if so, what's the biggest distance that you know of?
Yes. It varies depending on the height of the lighthouse and the height of the observer. (and refraction can also play a role).

For that light house, the distance is roughly 20 km for someone with their eyes on the water level. Standing on a boat that would be extended to 25 to 30 km. However the light from it can be seen from a greater distance due to it passing though the water, or reflecting off clouds.

I don't really care about trying to find all the distances to have the longest that I know of, and that isn't important in the slightest.
What is important is that your argument against the RE simply doesn't hold as you don't bother considering any of that.
It's very important...and you know it.

Why is the longest distance that I know of important at all?

Again, what is actually important is that these factors actually matter, unlike your outright lie that Earth merely being round prevents you from seeing it.

What was described in the OP is entirely consistent with a RE.
Initially they was too far away and couldn't see anything.
Then when they were closer, they could see a glow, likely from the light traveling through the water.
Then when they were closer they could see the light as a point as they were now close enough for the RE to not obscure the direct line of sight to the light.

There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.
Like I explained, it is pretty simple for anyone who actually uses logic to see this is pure garbage as it doesn't consider any of the factors I pointed out.
Again, if it was that simple, you wouldn't see it on a FE either. And logic is all that is needed to see that.
A FE is merely a limit of the RE as the radius tends to infinity.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere.
It really does as, again, a hypothetical FE is merely a limit of a RE, so if you can't see it at all on a RE and the size doesn't matter, then you can't see it on a FE either.

And again, it is trivial to show that size does matter and anyone who is willing to use logic can clearly see that.

Your diagram alone is enough to show it, but just to really drive the point home:
(https://i.imgur.com/p9cOfiU.png)
We see that with the close boat, Earth does not obstruct the view to a person at the top of the mast, nor on the deck of the boat.
But if the boat is further away (which also works if Earth is smaller), then the person at the top can still see, but the person on the deck can't, because Earth gets in the way.

This is trivial for anyone with a basic understanding of geometry and/or logic to grasp.

So these factors which you continually want to ignore are very important.

As you ignore these factors, your claim has no logic in it at all. It is just an outright lie.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of
a delusional fantasy of a FE and pretending the RE must be wrong.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 09, 2021, 04:10:15 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.

Reality is what we see and measure, for example, by performing experiments, photographing them, and posting them.

What you are describing is your imagination.  What you see in your head is NOT REAL.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 10:45:32 PM
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm (http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm)

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 10:48:23 PM

Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Are you scared to show your hand?

Huh? What in the world are you going on about now? Show my hand of what? If you want to talk about being able to see or not see lighthouses, pick one out with all of the details of it and we can take a look at it. Why you want me to pick one out, I don't know. Pick anyone you want, I don't care.
Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse.
Can you do it or are you scared you'll open up a can of worms?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 10:58:09 PM


And again, it is trivial to show that size does matter and anyone who is willing to use logic can clearly see that.

Your diagram alone is enough to show it, but just to really drive the point home:
(https://i.imgur.com/p9cOfiU.png)
We see that with the close boat, Earth does not obstruct the view to a person at the top of the mast, nor on the deck of the boat.
But if the boat is further away (which also works if Earth is smaller), then the person at the top can still see, but the person on the deck can't, because Earth gets in the way.

This is trivial for anyone with a basic understanding of geometry and/or logic to grasp.

So these factors which you continually want to ignore are very important.

As you ignore these factors, your claim has no logic in it at all. It is just an outright lie.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of
a delusional fantasy of a FE and pretending the RE must be wrong.
I've altered that for you just so you understand what level would actually be in your fictional global world.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3RHYzvp/p9cOfiU.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Would you like me to draw a flat sea with a lighthouse on an elevation or simply on low ground?

That way I can show you why we do see them, because we can clearly see we wouldn't if your Earth was a reality.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 10:59:47 PM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.

Reality is what we see and measure, for example, by performing experiments, photographing them, and posting them.

What you are describing is your imagination.  What you see in your head is NOT REAL.
What are you measuring?
What experiments have you done?
What photographs prove anything to you?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 12:08:26 AM
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm (http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm)

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.

"It's the very reason you see lighthouses"? Have you lost all sense of logic? Do you mean on a globe earth one would never be able to see a lighthouse?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 12:16:32 AM

Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Are you scared to show your hand?

Huh? What in the world are you going on about now? Show my hand of what? If you want to talk about being able to see or not see lighthouses, pick one out with all of the details of it and we can take a look at it. Why you want me to pick one out, I don't know. Pick anyone you want, I don't care.
Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse.
Can you do it or are you scared you'll open up a can of worms?

I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.

Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 03:45:32 AM
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm (http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm)

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.

"It's the very reason you see lighthouses"? Have you lost all sense of logic? Do you mean on a globe earth one would never be able to see a lighthouse?
Big red bold is the reason we see lighthouses, because it is not a globe. Have a think about it for a few days/weeks or seconds.... depending.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 03:48:01 AM
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.


Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 10, 2021, 03:57:44 AM
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.

Reality is what we see and measure, for example, by performing experiments, photographing them, and posting them.

What you are describing is your imagination.  What you see in your head is NOT REAL.
What are you measuring?
What experiments have you done?
What photographs prove anything to you?

Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 04:11:40 AM
I've altered that for you just so you understand what level would actually be in your fictional global world.
You mean you have yet again set up a pathetic strawman because you have no hope of refuting the globe.

Again, WE DON'T SEE IN 1D. WE HAVE A FOV! Do you understand that?

My diagram is correct.
It shows how the distance and height plays a role in your ability to see a distant object.

That way I can show you why we do see them, because we can clearly see we wouldn't if your Earth was a reality.
And there you go repeating the same lie.
My diagram clearly shows that your ability to see it depends on how far away from it you are, how high above the surface of Earth you are, how high it is above the surface of Earth and how large Earth is.

Just like the OP describes.

Again, if Earth was flat, the light would be visible all the way from Portsmouth.

Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt.
And yet again, that means your argument against the globe is garbage.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2021, 07:22:36 AM
Anyway, what do you want?
He wants you to play stupid games so you can win stupid prizes. 

It's what he always wants.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm (http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm)

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.

"It's the very reason you see lighthouses"? Have you lost all sense of logic? Do you mean on a globe earth one would never be able to see a lighthouse?
Big red bold is the reason we see lighthouses, because it is not a globe. Have a think about it for a few days/weeks or seconds.... depending.

Actually, the reason you don't see a 1° tilt is because it's a measly 1°. Pretty simple, really.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 02:08:22 PM
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 10:05:28 PM


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 10:07:10 PM
I've altered that for you just so you understand what level would actually be in your fictional global world.
You mean you have yet again set up a pathetic strawman because you have no hope of refuting the globe.

No. I've set up what we actually see with a level.
You've set it up as if the person is angled with scope. It's basically cheating.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 10:09:08 PM


Actually, the reason you don't see a 1° tilt is because it's a measly 1°. Pretty simple, really.
That would be 1 percent tilt for both sides, right?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 10:12:00 PM
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 10:51:43 PM
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.

My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 10:56:47 PM
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
And it has been explained to you why.
All it does is throw in a bunch of needless complexities which just serve to make the experiment harder and reduce the FOV to move it further away from your original claim.
And there is absolutely no reason to think your response to it will be any different. For the last experiment you simply dismissed his results as fake and threw in needless complexities. Why should anyone think you would do any differently now?
You refuse to provide the requirements for you to simply accept the results. You demand to have a way out.

And that is why you never do the experiments yourself, because you can't then turn around and say you were cheating yourself.

I've set up what we actually see with a level.
Again, LEVEL was not mentioned.
Stop trying to bring it up where it has no place.

You've set it up as if the person is angled with scope. It's basically cheating.
No, I have set it up as if the person is looking, and is able to look in any direction, rather than magically only seeing 1D, i.e. along a single line.

What you are doing is cheating, where you are pretending you can only see level to pretend you can't see the lighthouse on a globe.

So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.
No, and that should be clear based upon what you asked.
You asked him what is the furthest he knows about, not the furthest he is willing to accept as truth.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and explain what magic prevents the close or high people seeing the lighthouse in my diagram?
Or try to explain how Earth merely being round prevents you from seeing it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 11:22:59 PM


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 10, 2021, 11:43:57 PM


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?

I'm not skirting around anything. You try and find "the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea". A web search doesn't seem to reveal what that may be. I did find a list of the tallest lighthouses in the world:

List of tallest lighthouses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_lighthouses

Pick any one of them you want. If you happen to be able to find a farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea lighthouse, cool, pick that one. I can't find anything like that with that criteria.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 12:23:36 AM


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?

I'm not skirting around anything. You try and find "the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea". A web search doesn't seem to reveal what that may be. I did find a list of the tallest lighthouses in the world:

List of tallest lighthouses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_lighthouses

Pick any one of them you want. If you happen to be able to find a farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea lighthouse, cool, pick that one. I can't find anything like that with that criteria.
Ok we'll just leave it at that.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 11, 2021, 01:52:19 AM
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 04:21:53 AM
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.
You aren't seeing over curves, no matter how much you try to dress it up.


Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 11, 2021, 05:54:56 AM


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 05:57:44 AM


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.
You've only done one thing; stop being dramatic.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 11, 2021, 07:33:14 AM


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.
You've only done one thing; stop being dramatic.

One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site.  You should pay attention.

You on the other hand, have don't nothing at all.  You are in no position to criticize the amount of work anyone else does.

Why are you so scared to show your own work?  Because you never did any?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 07:37:20 AM


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 11, 2021, 12:21:16 PM
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.
You aren't seeing over curves
Stop just repeatign the same lie and justify it.

Again, my diagram clearly shows your ability to see an object on this RE you continually deny depends upon your height, its height and the distance between you and it.
This matches the OP.

Conversely all we have from you is an irrational outright lie with no justification at all.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 11, 2021, 01:00:39 PM


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 10:14:01 PM


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?
Yes, I saw that. What's your point?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 13, 2021, 04:36:04 PM


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?
Yes, I saw that. What's your point?

What's your point? You asked me for examples.

Why do you constantly ask for things then act confused when people answer?  You need to pay more attention.  ::)

Have you performed an experiment yet?  Why are so afraid to test your own ideas?  That's a sure sign you know deep down they are wrong.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: FlatEarthisStupid on February 13, 2021, 06:28:37 PM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 14, 2021, 10:34:01 AM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.
That's just scepti vastly underestimating the size of the Earth compared to a human and human made things.  He is just making silly strawman arguments meant either to troll or setup a gotcha strawman argument or both.  His so called logic relies on us being on such a small sphere that he can make the argument that things are tilted ridiculously enough to see and he ignores any explanation to the contrary like jack has been trying to get him to address about seeing a tilt away from you at a distance. 
Also, he isn't arguing against gravity holding you down in this argument and it doesn't really have a huge bearing on what he said.  He will just use it to confuse the conversation further.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 10:06:31 PM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.
That's just scepti vastly underestimating the size of the Earth compared to a human and human made things.  He is just making silly strawman arguments meant either to troll or setup a gotcha strawman argument or both.  His so called logic relies on us being on such a small sphere that he can make the argument that things are tilted ridiculously enough to see and he ignores any explanation to the contrary like jack has been trying to get him to address about seeing a tilt away from you at a distance. 
Also, he isn't arguing against gravity holding you down in this argument and it doesn't really have a huge bearing on what he said.  He will just use it to confuse the conversation further.
Nahhh, it doesn't need to be titled ridiculously. The fact that it would have to be titled for your globe to work, even on the circumference you lot believe it to be, would still require a tilt.... and that tilt, coupled with the tilt of the object in the distance, from a level sight of the person..... that small degree would build in height over distance, meaning it would certainly not catch sight of a distant object tilted away at a small degree.


If you people go by the 8 inches per mile squared, or close to it then you can clearly understand what would be happening, so why would you deny this?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2021, 10:48:20 PM
Nahhh, it doesn't need to be titled ridiculously. The fact that it would have to be titled for your globe to work, even on the circumference you lot believe it to be, would still require a tilt.... and that tilt
Is completely insignificant.
Unless the object is quite far away, such that it starts to be obscured by the horizon, you will not notice such an insignificant tilt.

a level sight
Again, you are the one bringing up this magic level sight of yours, no one else.
And again, we don't magically see in 1D, we have a FOV.

If you people go by the 8 inches per mile squared, or close to it then you can clearly understand what would be happening, so why would you deny this?
Because if you actually do the math on it, you will find it is nothing like you want to pretend.
These 8 inches per mile square still allow you to easily see distant objects, until they become quite distant.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 01:35:41 AM
Nahhh, it doesn't need to be titled ridiculously. The fact that it would have to be titled for your globe to work, even on the circumference you lot believe it to be, would still require a tilt.... and that tilt
Is completely insignificant.
Unless the object is quite far away, such that it starts to be obscured by the horizon, you will not notice such an insignificant tilt.
Ok then, if that's the case then stop arguing about ships disappearing behind your so called horizon. You know, down the dip like you people want to go on about.
You can't have it both ways.



Quote from: JackBlack
Because if you actually do the math on it, you will find it is nothing like you want to pretend.
These 8 inches per mile square still allow you to easily see distant objects, until they become quite distant.
I don't really like to mess with figures for explanations but in this case I think you can clearly understand from your very own acceptance of the 8 inches per mile squared.....it creates a massive drop.

If you think it doesn't, then show me how.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2021, 03:58:54 AM
Nahhh, it doesn't need to be titled ridiculously. The fact that it would have to be titled for your globe to work, even on the circumference you lot believe it to be, would still require a tilt.... and that tilt
Is completely insignificant.
Unless the object is quite far away, such that it starts to be obscured by the horizon, you will not notice such an insignificant tilt.
Ok then, if that's the case then stop arguing about ships disappearing behind your so called horizon.
I take it you chose to ignore the part in bold?

You can't have it both ways.
Why not?
As shown in the other thread, the dip angle to the horizon, for someone standing at roughly sea level with their eyes 2 m above is a mere 2.7 arc minutes, basically the same as eye-level.

Do you even understand the difference between an angle and a distance?

I don't really like to mess with figures for explanations
And we all know why, because if you do, it will show you are spouting pure BS.

If you think it doesn't, then show me how.
I already did, in the other thread.
For the angle to the horizon, at an eye height of 2 m, you end up with an angle of 2.7 arc minutes.

But if you would like another example, how about for this light house?
Well, it can be seen roughly 22 km away.
Doing the 8 inches per mile squared more correctly, where it is d^2/(2R), this gives us 22*22/(2*6371) km = 0.034 km.
Now to figure out the angle, well that is just simply inverse tan. i.a. a=atan(0.034/22) = 0.089 degrees = 5.3 arc minutes.
So we end up with another tiny angle.

This is why doing the figures are important.

Your BS shortcut way would only work if Earth was tiny, and if it worked in general, it would work for a FE as well (as the limit of a RE with an infinite radius).

So like you have been told repeatedly, either do the calculations to show the numbers, or provide a to-scale diagram.

But more importantly, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM! As such, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
If YOU want to claim the angle is massive and causes problems then YOU need to show it.
If YOU don't do the calculation, all we need to do is point out you are spouting BS while ignoring the size of Earth and pretending Earth is a tiny little ball, and that is all that is required to refute your "argument".

So if YOU disagree, and YOU think the angle is so important and would make it invisible then YOU show that, with the appropriate math and/or to scale diagrams.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: WISHTOLAUGH on February 15, 2021, 09:12:16 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 09:19:37 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Yep, they're struggling.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2021, 10:32:37 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?

Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Yep, they're struggling.
No, that is still you.
You still don't seem to understand that Earth is not a tiny ball you can hold in your hand and that your nonsense applies equally well to a flat Earth.

Again, do the calculations to show you are correct, or provide a too scale diagram.

Otherwise you claims remain a pile of refuted nonsense.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: WISHTOLAUGH on February 15, 2021, 11:04:48 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?
The 8" per mile ^2 applies to the surface of the earth.

That is not a lie.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2021, 09:26:55 PM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?
The 8" per mile ^2 applies to the surface of the earth.
That is not a lie.
As an approximation yes, but who cares? The only one pretending to object is your stramanned REers.

Where are REes who claim that it only applies to the line of sight rather than Earth.
Because in case you couldn't tell, that was your lie.
Where you lied about what the RE adherents want and need.

So like I said, do you have anything constructive to add?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 01:22:54 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?

Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Yep, they're struggling.
No, that is still you.
You still don't seem to understand that Earth is not a tiny ball you can hold in your hand and that your nonsense applies equally well to a flat Earth.

Again, do the calculations to show you are correct, or provide a too scale diagram.

Otherwise you claims remain a pile of refuted nonsense.
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 01:34:59 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 03:34:33 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Unconvinced on February 16, 2021, 04:53:53 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Level scopes!  Again!

If I’m on a boat, looking out for light houses, why should I care about level scopes?  Should I ignore any lights if they are outside the field of view of a ridiculously high power, perfectly level scope?  Should I crash into the rocks and die?

Or if I see a light, should I steer to avoid danger like a normal person would?

This goes for the flat earth too.  Say the light of a lighthouse is higher than me, so as to not line up perfectly with the crosshairs on your silly scope, it’s still visible, right?  Just a little bit higher.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: WISHTOLAUGH on February 16, 2021, 04:59:41 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?
The 8" per mile ^2 applies to the surface of the earth.
That is not a lie.
As an approximation yes, but who cares? The only one pretending to object is your stramanned REers.

Where are REes who claim that it only applies to the line of sight rather than Earth.
Because in case you couldn't tell, that was your lie.
Where you lied about what the RE adherents want and need.

So like I said, do you have anything constructive to add?
Obviously you do to the point of defending that BS diagram submitted by your partner in lies. Imagine square grids having two different measurements for the x and y axis points. Totally laughable. No need to get into the rest of the BS which you peddle so frequently.

ETA (for all the followers of the thread): The ability to go in and clean up the BS graphic submitted by JJ, with no mention of an edit doing so, is noted. Way to keep it on the level, so to speak.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 16, 2021, 05:38:22 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Using what I think are your parameters:

- Standing 30' high on a ship at sea
- Looking level through a scope at a lighthouse 20 miles away (View is set to "Eye-level", meaning "level" as opposed to at "Horizon")
- Scope magnification is 600mm (I just arbitrarily picked that magnification for illustrative purposes)
- Lighthouse is 150' above MSL (I just arbitrarily picked that height for illustrative purposes)
- Zero refraction added

Here's FE v Globe:

(https://i.imgur.com/uf6pyuE.png)

Both would see the light. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.

If you would like to show how your claim that it doesn't make sense works, go ahead and whip up a diagram and calculation showing that. Otherwise, you are wrong as evidenced above.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 09:52:40 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Level scopes!  Again!

If I’m on a boat, looking out for light houses, why should I care about level scopes?  Should I ignore any lights if they are outside the field of view of a ridiculously high power, perfectly level scope?  Should I crash into the rocks and die?

Or if I see a light, should I steer to avoid danger like a normal person would?

This goes for the flat earth too.  Say the light of a lighthouse is higher than me, so as to not line up perfectly with the crosshairs on your silly scope, it’s still visible, right?  Just a little bit higher.
What you say would be absolutely fine on a flat area or a flattish sea.
Now have a think about that.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 10:03:17 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Using what I think are your parameters:

- Standing 30' high on a ship at sea
- Looking level through a scope at a lighthouse 20 miles away (View is set to "Eye-level", meaning "level" as opposed to at "Horizon")
- Scope magnification is 600mm (I just arbitrarily picked that magnification for illustrative purposes)
- Lighthouse is 150' above MSL (I just arbitrarily picked that height for illustrative purposes)
- Zero refraction added

Here's FE v Globe:

(https://i.imgur.com/uf6pyuE.png)

Both would see the light. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.

If you would like to show how your claim that it doesn't make sense works, go ahead and whip up a diagram and calculation showing that. Otherwise, you are wrong as evidenced above.
If I gave you two 30 foot high poles and asked you to plant them 5 feet apart at a tilt, do you think the distance at the bottom and the top, between them  would be different.

'Not much' I can surmise you will say.

Here's something for you.

Remember when you people argued like hell for the suspension bridge towers being closer at the bottom than at the top?
You people said this has to be done because of your supposed Earth curvature.

How far away from each other are those towers?

The tilt. Remember the tilt?

So here's the thing.
Do your calculations based on a 100 foot mast of a ship and a 100 foot top of a lighthouse at 30 miles apart.


Keep thinking of the bridge towers.


Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 11:51:51 AM
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.
And I showed how using that, the angle you are appealing to is insignificant.

Now think of a level sight.
Again, you are the one who brought in a level sight. It has no place in this thread.
But if you are going to bring it in, what is the FOV?

Again, this is an angular measurement, as people see based upon angles.
You are just trying to bring in all your refuted BS from the other thread.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that.
Your claims make no sense, and yes, there is a major reason for that, because they are merely the rejection of reality with no justification at all.

Remember when you people argued like hell for the suspension bridge towers being closer at the bottom than at the top?
You people said this has to be done because of your supposed Earth curvature.
No, I rejected that and said other factors would be more significant.

But again, you are ignoring how things change with scale and again trying to pretend the RE is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.

Do your calculations based on a 100 foot mast of a ship and a 100 foot top of a lighthouse at 30 miles apart.
What? For you to just ignore it like you ignore all the rest?

Again, you are the one claiming this pure BS. The burden is on you to prove your outright lies, not on us to repeatedly jump through hoops to show your baseless lies are BS.

So do them yourself. Until you do, you have nothing but lies.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 11:55:25 AM
Hi scepti, the RE adherents want and need you to believe the 8" per mile ^2 applies to the line of sight, rather than earth. Otherwise, they couldn't present their fantastical machinations. Just ignore that BS.
Do you have anything constructive to add, or just outright lies?
The 8" per mile ^2 applies to the surface of the earth.
That is not a lie.
As an approximation yes, but who cares? The only one pretending to object is your stramanned REers.

Where are REes who claim that it only applies to the line of sight rather than Earth.
Because in case you couldn't tell, that was your lie.
Where you lied about what the RE adherents want and need.

So like I said, do you have anything constructive to add?
Obviously you do
And there you go with more lies.
So I take it that is all you have? Nothing constructive at all?

Imagine square grids having two different measurements for the x and y axis points. Totally laughable.
Yes, laughable, where you bring up a claim with no connection to anything in the thread.

No need to get into the rest of the BS which you peddle so frequently.
You mean the facts, logical arguments and evidence you cannot refute at all?
Instead you will just stick to the outright lies to pretend RE must be wrong?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 16, 2021, 12:47:23 PM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Using what I think are your parameters:

- Standing 30' high on a ship at sea
- Looking level through a scope at a lighthouse 20 miles away (View is set to "Eye-level", meaning "level" as opposed to at "Horizon")
- Scope magnification is 600mm (I just arbitrarily picked that magnification for illustrative purposes)
- Lighthouse is 150' above MSL (I just arbitrarily picked that height for illustrative purposes)
- Zero refraction added

Here's FE v Globe:

(https://i.imgur.com/uf6pyuE.png)

Both would see the light. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.

If you would like to show how your claim that it doesn't make sense works, go ahead and whip up a diagram and calculation showing that. Otherwise, you are wrong as evidenced above.

If I gave you two 30 foot high poles and asked you to plant them 5 feet apart at a tilt, do you think the distance at the bottom and the top, between them  would be different.

'Not much' I can surmise you will say.

Yes. Could be not much, could be a lot - The difference would be determined by how much you tilted them. And then it would be dependent upon what you consider not much versus a lot.

Kind of a strange question when you think about it.

Remember when you people argued like hell for the suspension bridge towers being closer at the bottom than at the top?
You people said this has to be done because of your supposed Earth curvature.

How far away from each other are those towers?

The tilt. Remember the tilt?

My understanding is that the bridge tilt tower thing is a calculation not a measurement. In other words, people calculated what the tilt would be on a Globe Earth. Here's what whomever came up with:

Humber Bridge:
- Towers are 4625' apart
- Towers are 510" high
- Tops of the two towers are 1.4" further apart than the bases

Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge:
- Towers are 4258' apart
- Towers are 692' high
- The tops of the towers are 1.6" further apart than the bases

The Verrazzano-Narrows website does mention the tilt distance. But again, it's calculated. And as JB mentioned, there are other engineering factors involved, probably regarding flex, sway, etc.

So here's the thing.
Do your calculations based on a 100 foot mast of a ship and a 100 foot top of a lighthouse at 30 miles apart.

Keep thinking of the bridge towers.

I can't quite figure out how to do the calculation for that. I can tell you that using the same earth curve calculator I used above, the tilt of the lighthouse using those parameters is 0.434195°, defined as the angle between the observer, the center of the earth and the nearest target. So it is tilting .4° away from the mast. What that translates into distance amount I don't know. But if the above calculations are any indication, wild guess, maybe a couple of feet - based upon the much greater distance and the much shorter height. Maybe someone else knows how to calculate it.

Back to the point at hand. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is still incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 12:25:28 AM


Now think of a level sight.
Again, you are the one who brought in a level sight. It has no place in this thread.
But if you are going to bring it in, what is the FOV?


Don't waste your time on FOV. This only takes your vision high, low or horizontally wide.

Level is the best you can do with, in the case you're trying to make real with your fictional globe.

It also doesn't work.

It works well on a level with a level sight, because the sea creates a level in calm and land can also offer level with a variation of objects to set it for flatness/level.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 12:26:32 AM


Instead you will just stick to the outright lies to pretend RE must be wrong?
I'm certainly not pretending.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 02:04:39 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Using what I think are your parameters:

- Standing 30' high on a ship at sea
- Looking level through a scope at a lighthouse 20 miles away (View is set to "Eye-level", meaning "level" as opposed to at "Horizon")
- Scope magnification is 600mm (I just arbitrarily picked that magnification for illustrative purposes)
- Lighthouse is 150' above MSL (I just arbitrarily picked that height for illustrative purposes)
- Zero refraction added

Here's FE v Globe:

(https://i.imgur.com/uf6pyuE.png)

Both would see the light. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.

If you would like to show how your claim that it doesn't make sense works, go ahead and whip up a diagram and calculation showing that. Otherwise, you are wrong as evidenced above.

If I gave you two 30 foot high poles and asked you to plant them 5 feet apart at a tilt, do you think the distance at the bottom and the top, between them  would be different.

'Not much' I can surmise you will say.

Yes. Could be not much, could be a lot - The difference would be determined by how much you tilted them. And then it would be dependent upon what you consider not much versus a lot.

Kind of a strange question when you think about it.

Remember when you people argued like hell for the suspension bridge towers being closer at the bottom than at the top?
You people said this has to be done because of your supposed Earth curvature.

How far away from each other are those towers?

The tilt. Remember the tilt?

My understanding is that the bridge tilt tower thing is a calculation not a measurement. In other words, people calculated what the tilt would be on a Globe Earth. Here's what whomever came up with:

Humber Bridge:
- Towers are 4625' apart
- Towers are 510" high
- Tops of the two towers are 1.4" further apart than the bases

Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge:
- Towers are 4258' apart
- Towers are 692' high
- The tops of the towers are 1.6" further apart than the bases

The Verrazzano-Narrows website does mention the tilt distance. But again, it's calculated. And as JB mentioned, there are other engineering factors involved, probably regarding flex, sway, etc.

So here's the thing.
Do your calculations based on a 100 foot mast of a ship and a 100 foot top of a lighthouse at 30 miles apart.

Keep thinking of the bridge towers.

I can't quite figure out how to do the calculation for that. I can tell you that using the same earth curve calculator I used above, the tilt of the lighthouse using those parameters is 0.434195°, defined as the angle between the observer, the center of the earth and the nearest target. So it is tilting .4° away from the mast. What that translates into distance amount I don't know. But if the above calculations are any indication, wild guess, maybe a couple of feet - based upon the much greater distance and the much shorter height. Maybe someone else knows how to calculate it.

Back to the point at hand. Your assumption, "...at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship" is still incorrect. In other words, yes, it does make sense on a Globe Earth.
Let's deal with the bridge towers for a while.

You say they are 1.6 inches apart at the top compared to the bases.
Basically a 0.8 inch tilt for either tower over a distance of 0.8 mile.

Let's assume that bridge has many towers teh same distance apart and obviously, going by the supposed calculations of your globe that seem to have been made, we can assume each tower tilts away at 0.8 inches.
Let's do that over 30 miles.

Overall it would be a 24 inch discrepancy in just adding each individual tower over the distance.
Naturally if we squared the distance over the accepted 8 inches per mile squared we would massively show a difference.......but, let's play simple.

Imagine putting a laser on top of each tower, one aiming directly at the other on a flat plate at the top of the tower that has the tilt of 0.8 inches.
Are the lasers going to line up from one tower to the other?
Of course not...if those towers are tilted.


However, if the lasers were set to level and dipped forward a touch to attain that level, which they would need to be on each to ensure level line and bullseye hit to each laser level.


But then we have the next tower that tilts 0.8 inches away from the one closest with the laser on but further tilts away from the first.
Now we have a problem hitting the third tower from the first tower with a laser. The beam will simply go right past it.


But the major problem.

It stands to reason that lake pontchartrain pylons should follow the same mindset as the bridge, meaning each pylon should diverge away from the next one to it, given the argument of using it to supposedly show a globe and it has been used extensively as so called proof of a curve. Sort of, in your face, kind of thing.

But this is not what we would really see if this was to be the case.

We would see a central convergence as the outer towers/pylons met towards the centre.
Any open minded people that are not furious globalists, give me your thoughts.

(https://i.postimg.cc/286y8sQM/bridge-towers.png) (https://postimg.cc/NL3BdPPk)





Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Platonius21 on February 17, 2021, 05:51:16 AM
On a globe earth, the tower tops would always be slightly further apart than the tower bottoms. Your graphic is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Unconvinced on February 17, 2021, 06:26:30 AM
I'm certainly not making out Earth is a tiny ball I can hold in my hand.
You know this, so up your game.
No, you are rejecting the RE, but you are acting like the RE you reject is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand, rather than the actual RE (or just to be nice, the RE model promoted by mainstream science).

I provided the math that shows your claims are wrong and you just ignored it.

Now again, can you back up your ridiculous claims?
8 inches per mile, squared. Try again. This is your RE claim.

The thing is, what would it be from a starting point of some observer on a ship to shore?

The height on a ship would already be; what?......30 feet to start with?

Now think of a level sight. A level sight....meaning your eye or scope is looking level....crosshair level.
No need to use anything outside of that scope because that scope angles away all around and would further kill off your global view, so don't attempt to use that.

So here we are dealing with a level scope from a 30 foot high ship and at a distance....say 20 miles...I won't be greedy....and, at an angle it would require on your impossible global Earth....not to mention the angle of the dip from shore back to ship.

It just doesn't make any sense, does it?
There's a major reason for that. That reason is...we absolutely 100% do not live upon a globe, rotating or not.

Level scopes!  Again!

If I’m on a boat, looking out for light houses, why should I care about level scopes?  Should I ignore any lights if they are outside the field of view of a ridiculously high power, perfectly level scope?  Should I crash into the rocks and die?

Or if I see a light, should I steer to avoid danger like a normal person would?

This goes for the flat earth too.  Say the light of a lighthouse is higher than me, so as to not line up perfectly with the crosshairs on your silly scope, it’s still visible, right?  Just a little bit higher.
What you say would be absolutely fine on a flat area or a flattish sea.
Now have a think about that.

Turing test fail.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 09:16:24 AM
On a globe earth, the tower tops would always be slightly further apart than the tower bottoms. Your graphic is ridiculous.
No, it's not ridiculous. It would show how your globe would work with the gunk you lot shove out for it.

I'm just showing how it would end up.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2021, 11:23:28 AM
Not a furious globalist here, but someone that is appalled at your lack of drawing expertise and lack of perspective, so I have drawn this to scale (In Rhinoceros) to show you where you are going wrong.

This is the Earth in miles (approx), the purple line going up is actually two lines radiating from the centre to give an arc of 20 miles at the surface .(click drawings to expand)

(https://i.imgur.com/s6TRPra.jpg)

If we zoom in (same drawing), I have extended those line a further 0.02 beyond the green of the Earths surface which gives us just over 100 feet, the pink line is a straight line between the tops of the 100 foot protrusions.

(https://i.imgur.com/TI2zmTN.jpg)

Now if we zoom back out to encompass the 20 miles you can see that we can't actually focus on the protrusions any more as the scale makes them too small, but if we look at the radius lines below, against the green line of the earth line. If you imagine the “lean” above the line is discernable which as we have seen above isn't, you would expect to see it on the below lines, as if you look at their length we are seeing about 10 miles, but again, not really apparent.

(https://i.imgur.com/mfFYv1A.jpg)

I can put multiple lines in if you wish but it is obvious at this rate of slope it will not give you anything like your drawing.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Don't waste your time on FOV. This only takes your vision high, low or horizontally wide.
You mean you want me to ignore the fact we have a FOV and instead pretend we only see in 1D, to pretend your BS is correct, when the fact we have a FOV shows your BS to be BS.

Yes, FOV can take your vision "high" or "low", rather than just dead level. This allows you to see things that are above and below level, meaning you can see the lighthouse on a RE, at least if you are close enough so the curvature doesn't block the view.

I don't care if the best YOU can come up with requires repeatedly appealing to "level sight" to pretend we only see a single line, and anything off that line, even if it is by a tiny amount, is magically rendered invisible.
That is your delusional BS which has no connection to reality.

I will stick to reality where we have a FOV.

So if you want to continue with your outright lies to pretend you can't see the lighthouse on a RE, clearly explain why we can't, including using the angular FOV we have, and the math to back up your claims.

Instead you will just stick to the outright lies to pretend RE must be wrong?
I'm certainly not pretending.
That post wasn't even addressed to you. But yes, you certainly are pretending.
Like how you repeatedly pretend we only see along a single line, rather than having a FOV.

Basically a 0.8 inch tilt for either tower over a distance of 0.8 mile.
No, that makes no sense at all.
Tilt, just like FOV, is mesured in terms of angles, or at best a slope.
A 0.8 inch tilt makes no sense at all.

But even if you want to ignore that and instead measure tilt based upon these specific towers, then for these specific towers, it was stated as 1.6 inches over 1298 m. What you are trying to do instead is a 0.8 inch for each tower over half the span using the centre as a reference.

Let's do that over 30 miles.
Overall it would be a 24 inch discrepancy in just adding each individual tower over the distance.
It isn't a discrepancy. Do you understand what that word means?

And no, it wouldn't. The bridge isn't 1 mile long between its towers.

Naturally if we squared the distance over the accepted 8 inches per mile squared
You would be trying to calculate something completely different.
That is the drop, not the change in distance between the towers at the top compared to the bottom due to their height and the curvature of Earth.

But the major problem.
You are just providing speculation rather than any evidence from reality.

Again, no one in this thread is using it as proof of a RE. It is just you yet again trying to distract away from your complete and utter failure to defend your outright lies.


We would see a central convergence as the outer towers/pylons met towards the centre.
Any open minded people that are not furious globalists, give me your thoughts.
(https://i.postimg.cc/286y8sQM/bridge-towers.png) (https://postimg.cc/NL3BdPPk)
No, this is pure BS, which in no way matches what we would expect on a RE.

What you should have, as a massively exaggerated and in no way to scale example, is something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)

And people realising you are wrong does not make them close minded nor does it make them furious globalists. You are the close minded one here, and a furious FEer.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2021, 01:29:08 AM
Not a furious globalist here, but someone that is appalled at your lack of drawing expertise and lack of perspective, so I have drawn this to scale (In Rhinoceros) to show you where you are going wrong.

This is the Earth in miles (approx), the purple line going up is actually two lines radiating from the centre to give an arc of 20 miles at the surface .(click drawings to expand)

(https://i.imgur.com/s6TRPra.jpg)

If we zoom in (same drawing), I have extended those line a further 0.02 beyond the green of the Earths surface which gives us just over 100 feet, the pink line is a straight line between the tops of the 100 foot protrusions.

(https://i.imgur.com/TI2zmTN.jpg)

Now if we zoom back out to encompass the 20 miles you can see that we can't actually focus on the protrusions any more as the scale makes them too small, but if we look at the radius lines below, against the green line of the earth line. If you imagine the “lean” above the line is discernible which as we have seen above isn't, you would expect to see it on the below lines, as if you look at their length we are seeing about 10 miles, but again, not really apparent.

(https://i.imgur.com/mfFYv1A.jpg)

I can put multiple lines in if you wish but it is obvious at this rate of slope it will not give you anything like your drawing.
Make it simpler.
It stands to reason, going by what we're told about bridge towers tilting at 0.8 inches each tower, away from each other that the same would apply for the pontchartrain pylons over the stretch of water.

This means each pylon would tilt away from each other but this is impossible to happen after the first two from each side have tilted away, because it cannot work for further pylons.

I'm not wrong if that's the gunk set out with bridges.

The only way to get that back on track would be to admit that bridge towers do not tilt away from each other and are in fact, plumb....but then that opens up a new set of problems.


You can't win. The whole premise is nonsense.

My drawing is crude. I have no need to do anything other to show what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2021, 01:37:59 AM
Don't waste your time on FOV. This only takes your vision high, low or horizontally wide.
You mean you want me to ignore the fact we have a FOV and instead pretend we only see in 1D, to pretend your BS is correct, when the fact we have a FOV shows your BS to be BS.

Yes, FOV can take your vision "high" or "low", rather than just dead level. This allows you to see things that are above and below level, meaning you can see the lighthouse on a RE, at least if you are close enough so the curvature doesn't block the view.

I don't care if the best YOU can come up with requires repeatedly appealing to "level sight" to pretend we only see a single line, and anything off that line, even if it is by a tiny amount, is magically rendered invisible.
That is your delusional BS which has no connection to reality.

I will stick to reality where we have a FOV.

So if you want to continue with your outright lies to pretend you can't see the lighthouse on a RE, clearly explain why we can't, including using the angular FOV we have, and the math to back up your claims.

Instead you will just stick to the outright lies to pretend RE must be wrong?
I'm certainly not pretending.
That post wasn't even addressed to you. But yes, you certainly are pretending.
Like how you repeatedly pretend we only see along a single line, rather than having a FOV.

Basically a 0.8 inch tilt for either tower over a distance of 0.8 mile.
No, that makes no sense at all.
Tilt, just like FOV, is mesured in terms of angles, or at best a slope.
A 0.8 inch tilt makes no sense at all.

But even if you want to ignore that and instead measure tilt based upon these specific towers, then for these specific towers, it was stated as 1.6 inches over 1298 m. What you are trying to do instead is a 0.8 inch for each tower over half the span using the centre as a reference.

Let's do that over 30 miles.
Overall it would be a 24 inch discrepancy in just adding each individual tower over the distance.
It isn't a discrepancy. Do you understand what that word means?

And no, it wouldn't. The bridge isn't 1 mile long between its towers.

Naturally if we squared the distance over the accepted 8 inches per mile squared
You would be trying to calculate something completely different.
That is the drop, not the change in distance between the towers at the top compared to the bottom due to their height and the curvature of Earth.

But the major problem.
You are just providing speculation rather than any evidence from reality.

Again, no one in this thread is using it as proof of a RE. It is just you yet again trying to distract away from your complete and utter failure to defend your outright lies.


We would see a central convergence as the outer towers/pylons met towards the centre.
Any open minded people that are not furious globalists, give me your thoughts.
(https://i.postimg.cc/286y8sQM/bridge-towers.png) (https://postimg.cc/NL3BdPPk)
No, this is pure BS, which in no way matches what we would expect on a RE.

What you should have, as a massively exaggerated and in no way to scale example, is something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)

And people realising you are wrong does not make them close minded nor does it make them furious globalists. You are the close minded one here, and a furious FEer.
You totally (deliberately, maybe) missed the point.

Your drawing does not show reality of the bridge towers if there were a lot of them, like the pontchartrain pylons.

Let's see how honest you are.

If the bridge towers are 1.6 inches apart at the top than the bottom, on a tilt away, obviously as would be the case as we're told then you can understand that any further tower at each side of those two towers would also have to tilt away.
But here's the problem.
The two towers that are originally tilting away from each other would now be tilting towards the other towers.
Both side cannot tilt away.

Look at my crude drawing again to see what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2021, 01:51:45 AM

Let me make it simple you are wrong.

Both JB's drawing and mine show you why, either you are being willfully dim or you are incapable of understanding just how much they don't lean but however much they do, they are doing so inline with curvature.

I'll leave it at that, and with JB, as whichever the two option above you fall under, I will be wasting my time. The drawings are illustrations for any that come along and pick this up and have the modicum of sense needed to interpret proper drawings to scale.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2021, 01:53:07 AM
You totally (deliberately, maybe) missed the point.
If anyone here is missing the point, especially deliberately, that is you.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to produce the garbage you did.

Your drawing does not show reality of the bridge towers if there were a lot of them, like the pontchartrain pylons.
You mean how it clearly shows multiple towers, how any 2 towers are tilting away from each other?
You can easily see that with how they all converge to a single point at the centre of Earth.
Having more of them won't magically change that, it just means you have more of them.

The sole reason the towers are calculated as being further apart at the top (and thus "tilting away from each other" as you like to say) is that the top has a larger radius than the bottom. This larger radius has a larger circumference. As the towers are standing vertically, i.e. pointing away from the centre of Earth, that means that 2 towers subtend an angle at the centre. That means the further out you are, the greater the distance between the towers.

e.g:
(https://i.imgur.com/1QQxuVq.png)
The dark green line is longer than the dark purple line.
The light green line is longer than the light purple line.
The outside towers being further apart doesn't magically push the inside ones in.

Let's see how honest you are.
If the bridge towers are 1.6 inches apart at the top than the bottom, on a tilt away, obviously as would be the case as we're told then you can understand that any further tower at each side of those two towers would also have to tilt away.
But here's the problem.
The two towers that are originally tilting away from each other would now be tilting towards the other towers.
Both side cannot tilt away.
Look at my crude drawing again to see what I'm saying.
Or how about we see how honest you are?
My diagram shows what is expected on a RE. We can clearly see that any 2 towers tilt away from each other.
It doesn't magically cause the inner towers to point towards each other.
Look at my crude drawing to see what I am saying.
It shows that what you are saying is a blatant lie.
And now that you have a diagram which actually shows it correctly, it is no longer you simply not knowing any better. It is you intentionally lying yet again to pretend there is a problem with the RE.

This means each pylon would tilt away from each other but this is impossible to happen after the first two from each side have tilted away, because it cannot work for further pylons.

I'm not wrong if that's the gunk set out with bridges.
You are wrong. Massively wrong.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the tilt.
As the further pylons are further along the Earth, that means the span subtends a larger angle and thus it still tilts away.

The only way to get that back on track would be to admit that bridge towers do not tilt away from each other and are in fact, plumb
What you seem to fail to understand is that that is the exact same thing.
They are plumb, going vertically up from the centre off Earth.
This means they tilt away from each other.

You can't win. The whole premise is nonsense.
My drawing is crude. I have no need to do anything other to show what I'm saying.
You most certainly need better to show what you are saying, as your diagram is pure garbage, which doesn't show anything like what is expected on the RE.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2021, 09:05:14 AM

Let me make it simple you are wrong.

Both JB's drawing and mine show you why, either you are being willfully dim or you are incapable of understanding just how much they don't lean but however much they do, they are doing so inline with curvature.

I'll leave it at that, and with JB, as whichever the two option above you fall under, I will be wasting my time. The drawings are illustrations for any that come along and pick this up and have the modicum of sense needed to interpret proper drawings to scale.
I'm right.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2021, 09:09:53 AM


The only way to get that back on track would be to admit that bridge towers do not tilt away from each other and are in fact, plumb
What you seem to fail to understand is that that is the exact same thing.
They are plumb, going vertically up from the centre off Earth.
This means they tilt away from each other.

You understand plumb and you also understand that your towers are not plumb.
They cannot be plumb.

You cannot argue for plumb by using the centre of your Earth. It's total nonsense. Utter nonsense in the absolute extreme.
It's massively desperate.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2021, 12:47:35 PM
I'm right.
Then why are you completely incapable of defending your outright lie?
If all you have is a baseless assertion that you are right, then you have nothing.

Can you justify your lie at all?
Can you explain anything wrong with my diagram to explain how doesn't completely refute your claim?

You understand plumb and you also understand that your towers are not plumb.
You mean if I have no idea what plumb is and instead just follow your delusional BS.

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

For the very real RE you are so desperate to reject using whatever dishonest BS you can, the towers I drew were plumb.
Yes, there is the technicality that Earth is actually an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, so it does get distorted slightly from the centre. But lets keep it simple, considering you seem completely incapable of anything even slightly complex and treat Earth as a perfect sphere.
In that case, plumb is directly towards/away from the centre.

The towers will start at the surface of Earth and point outwards, away from the centre. Kind of like spokes on a bicycle wheel.
It doesn't matter how many of them you have, any 2 you pick will tilt away from each other.
You can clearly see this by continuing it down to the centre of Earth, as that shows what the angle is.

The distance between the tops of any pair of towers will be larger than the distance between their bases.

You can even throw in some numbers.
And yes, I know how much you hate math and numbers because of how easily it shows your claims to be pure BS, but I don't care.
If you were honest you wouldn't hate it and instead would accept that you were wrong.

If you have an arc which subtends an angle of a (in radians), with a radius of r, the length of the arc will be a*r.  (The length of the chord is 2*r*sin(a/2), which for small enough angles is close enough to 2*r*a/2 = a*r.

This means if we have 2 towers, which are pointing directly away from the centre of Earth (again, simplified to a perfect sphere to help you "understand" (i.e. admit you are wrong, I refuse to believe any could be stupid enough to not understand)), which subtend some angle a and have a height of h, the length along Earth's surface at the base will be lb=a*R, where R is the radius of Earth.
Then for their tops, that has increased the radius to R+h, and thus the length along the arc at the top of the towers will be lt=a*(R+h).

We can also easily see that a=lb/R, and thus lt=lb*(R+h)/R.
We can also find how much further apart they are at the top:
ed = lt-lb = lb*(R+h)/R - lb = lb*[(R+h)/R - 1] = lb*[(R+h)/R - R/R] = lb*[(R+h) - R]/R = lb*[R + h - R]/R = lb*h/R.


For simplicity, lets say the towers are 6.371 km tall, with a 1 km distance between their base, measured along the surface of Earth, which has a radius of 6371 km.
Then the extra distance at the top will be 1*6.371/6371 km = 0.001 km = 1 m.

If we now look at the next tower out, lb becomes 2 km, and we end up with 2 m.


The simple fact is your claim is pure delusional BS with no connection to reality at all. Now can you defend it or just throw out more baseless assertions?

If not, care to go back to the lighthouse and explain what magic prevents us from seeing even a tiny angle away from directly level such that we magically only see along one line with 0 degree FOV (i.e. no FOV at all)?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 19, 2021, 02:07:21 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

You would build everything plumb. Vertically straight.
You would never build anything that would have its constructional integrity, compromised, such a a tilt in both towers of a suspension bridge.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 19, 2021, 02:55:56 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 19, 2021, 03:24:29 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2021, 03:39:02 AM
Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

You would build everything plumb. Vertically straight.
You would never build anything that would have its constructional integrity, compromised, such a a tilt in both towers of a suspension bridge.
All you are doing is repeatedly showing you either have no idea what you are talking about, or that you are knowingly spouting pure BS.
The "tilt" you are referring to with the towers is due to the 2 plumb lines not being parallel.
Again, for a RE, plumb is on a line intersecting the centre of Earth.

Again, your claim about the towers is pure BS based upon a wilful misrepresentation of the RE.

Because you are completely incapable of presenting any argument against the actual RE model, you need to continually set up pathetic strawmen to attack to pretend the RE is wrong.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.
No, it doesn't, because WE HAVE A FOV!
Something you continually want to pretend we don't.
It doesn't matter how hard you try to pretend, we don't just magically see in a straight line.

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.
Whereas you flee from these calculations because you know that they so easily show your claims to be pure BS.
So instead you just make ridiculous claims that contradict other claims you make and refute yourself in the process, while presenting no actual challenge to the RE.

Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how.
Because you are completely incapable of justifying that, unlike us who have repeatedly shown how your claims contradict other claims you make.

Grow up.

Stop deflecting, stop trying to change the subject.

Explain what magic should prevent people seeing the lighthouse on a RE.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 19, 2021, 04:23:18 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 03:07:12 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.


I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 03:08:49 AM

Because you are completely incapable of justifying that, unlike us who have repeatedly shown how your claims contradict other claims you make.

Grow up.

Stop deflecting, stop trying to change the subject.

Explain what magic should prevent people seeing the lighthouse on a RE.
Perfectly explained and in its ultimate simple state.

Learn to curb your nastiness. It doesn't help you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2021, 04:32:10 AM
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
And if you understood the globe model you hate so much you would see it isn't a problem at all.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection.

Perfectly explained and in its ultimate simple state.
And now you resort to just lying by claiming to have already explained it.

Again we don't magically see in a single line with no FOV.

In reality, we have a FOV.

So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?

Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 05:19:44 AM
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
And if you understood the globe model you hate so much you would see it isn't a problem at all.
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong but think you're proving something against me...in my opinion.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again we don't magically see in a single line with no FOV.

In reality, we have a FOV.
I've never once denied we don't have a FOV.
If you think I have, then show me.




Quote from: JackBlack
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?
Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?
What would stop you seeing it would be your global curvature.
We see the lighthouses because it is absolutely not convexly curved.

It makes perfect sense because that's reality.

You see, you people cannot argue large curve for some stuff and then argue that the curve is itty bitty for others, just to try and suit.
Logic dictates the reality and the reality is, the Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk/sail upon.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 20, 2021, 11:24:51 AM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong
The problem for you is that we do live on a globe, and you hate that idea so much you do whatever you can to pretend we don't, using whatever dishonest BS you can.

I've never once denied we don't have a FOV.
You repeatedly deny this fact with your arguments. For example, with this post of yours:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3RHYzvp/p9cOfiU.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Would you like me to draw a flat sea with a lighthouse on an elevation or simply on low ground?

That way I can show you why we do see them, because we can clearly see we wouldn't if your Earth was a reality.
I provided a diagram with 2 ships, with lines of sight drawn in from 2 points on the ship to the lighthouse, clearly demonstrating how your ability to see the lighthouse depends on distance to it and observer height.

You reject that idea, and instead draw in your magic single line vision with no FOV to claim we cannot see it on a RE.
That is claiming we do not have a FOV and using that false claim to try to refute the RE.

Quote from: JackBlack
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?
Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?
What would stop you seeing it would be your global curvature.
Only if you are far enough away, such as how the OP was before they got close enough to see it directly.

Your argument is not that the OP was too far away or anything like that, but merely Earth being round is enough to magically make it invisible.
If you would like to change your argument and do so math to show how the OP was too far away, go ahead.

So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHTHOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: FlatEarthisStupid on February 20, 2021, 02:37:04 PM
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

No. Noone on Earth is upside down or on their side (If they're standing up, of course). There is no up, down, or sideways in space. Up is away from the Earth's surface. Down is towards the Earth's surface. Sideways is parallel to the Earth's surface. Gravity pulls down. You will not feel any tilt from that because you are standing upright.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:08:57 PM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.
You've argued like hell without having the slightest clue what you are arguing, except to stick up a few copy and paste helpers which you cannot explain.
Madness but expected.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:10:54 PM
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong
The problem for you is that we do live on a globe, and you hate that idea so much you do whatever you can to pretend we don't, using whatever dishonest BS you can.


I have no problem whatsoever. I don't pretend we don't live on a globe, I know for a fact we don't.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 20, 2021, 05:58:06 PM

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.



Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?


No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/PgZUn2F.gif)
The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4t1D379/submarine.png) (https://postimages.org/)

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.
You've argued like hell without having the slightest clue what you are arguing, except to stick up a few copy and paste helpers which you cannot explain.
Madness but expected.

No, I've cited evidence. Which I've asked you to refute. You can't. So you simply back away into some sort of copy and paste helpers corner. These copy and paste helpers are from engineers who engineered the Crossrail subway using Globe Earth calculations to great success. If you believe they are lying or are incorrect, it's up to you to provide evidence that is the case. In the mean time, you're just shirking away from evidence. Doesn't bode well for your claims.

I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 20, 2021, 07:38:25 PM
I have no problem whatsoever. I don't pretend we don't live on a globe, I know for a fact we don't.
And there you go lying again. Or will you claim you aren't passing that off as factual?

You have no justification at all for your outright lie that we don't live on a globe.
Every attempt to justify it is just built upon more lies.

Again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?

Remember, we don't magically see along a single line with no FOV like you want to pretend. We have a FOV. So there is no point in trying to appeal to a level sight.

And remember, you have made no argument that the distance matters.
In fact you indicate the opposite, that merely being round is enough.

So can you justify your outright lie?
If not, you have a massive problem.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 04:09:32 AM


I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 04:16:40 AM
Remember, we don't magically see along a single line with no FOV like you want to pretend. We have a FOV. So there is no point in trying to appeal to a level sight.


A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
The FOV would be absolutely pointless.
You're actually arguing against your globe by using this FOV and you just can't see it (pardon the pun)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2021, 04:23:42 AM
A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
i.e. in order to make your claim correct, you need to completely change the situation.

Again, back in reality, we have a FOV. We do not have a "pinprick" vision.
As such any argument based upon ignoring the FOV is entirely pointless.

So again, without rejecting the fact we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be obscured merely because Earth is round?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 04:43:19 AM
A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
i.e. in order to make your claim correct, you need to completely change the situation.

Again, back in reality, we have a FOV. We do not have a "pinprick" vision.
As such any argument based upon ignoring the FOV is entirely pointless.

So again, without rejecting the fact we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be obscured merely because Earth is round?
Only pinprick vision will work. Or let's say from a centre of crosshair view to object.

Using a FOV will get you nothing but angled view. The wide view you keep going on about. You know, the angled view all around that crosshair point.

The problem you have with your globe is very simple.
Your FOV caters for everything away from your focal point on object in the distance.

Meaning, you see the sea and around it and above it.
Where do you see a real level sight?

Yep, you got it. Your crosshair point or, to make it simple. Your level focus to a point towards the object in that distance.

Your global curvature away and down from you could only cater for a pinpoint view into distance and in a relatively short distance you hit horizon which kills your globe stone dead for starters....................but.......

But you want to bring in a height, thinking height will somehow allow your vision to see the object (lighthouse)...but even that will angle away with every inch of height on your globe.

It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 21, 2021, 10:54:36 AM


I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

According to the engineers, they had to take a spherical earth into account. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there, because the fact is, they did so. So that's what you need to combat. It has nothing to do with my qualifications as an engineer. It merely has to do with the facts. We like facts.

But sure, here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data:
"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in  distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled.”

The parameters used to achieve this were based upon the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Note the use of WGS 84. Which is defined as: The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.

So, in short, the engineers used a spherical earth model for their calculations and implementation of the running tunnels for the Crossrail Programme.

Have you ever been on the Tube? If so, odds are you rode a part of the Crossrail expansion and can thank Globe Earth calculations/engineering for your successful journey. I mean it’s kinda ironic that you probably use a lot of stuff that completely refutes your stuff.

Now it is up to you to somehow refute this evidence. What do you have?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 21, 2021, 11:33:37 AM


It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0 (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0)

What like the above?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2021, 12:25:07 PM
Only pinprick vision will work.
Again, if your argument relies upon a level pinprick vision with a 0 FOV, then it is pure garbage.

You need to explain what magic stops the lighthouse being visible with a FOV, otherwise your claim is pure garbage.

So are you going to defend your claim, or admit it is pure garabge?

Using a FOV will get you nothing but angled view. The wide view you keep going on about.
Yes, the view you keep ignoring to pretend there is a problem with a globe.

in a relatively short distance you hit horizon which kills your globe stone dead
Again, the horizon kills the FE, and you have been shown it is below level, so with your pinprick vision you would not see the horizon. You also wouldn't expect to see any horizon on a FE with this vision unless it was infinitely far away.

But you want to bring in a height, thinking height will somehow allow your vision to see the object
Yes, that is one of the factors.
In my diagram I clearly demonstrated that the more distant observer on the deck of the ship could not see the lighthouse, but by going to the top of the mast they can.

Now again, stop appealing to your wild idea of a pinprick vision with 0 FOV, and instead use the actual FOV we have in reality.
If your argument relies upon ignoring the fact we have a FOV, it is pure garbage.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 22, 2021, 07:13:44 AM


I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

According to the engineers, they had to take a spherical earth into account. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there, because the fact is, they did so. So that's what you need to combat. It has nothing to do with my qualifications as an engineer. It merely has to do with the facts. We like facts.

But sure, here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data:
"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in  distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled.”

The parameters used to achieve this were based upon the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Note the use of WGS 84. Which is defined as: The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.

So, in short, the engineers used a spherical earth model for their calculations and implementation of the running tunnels for the Crossrail Programme.

Have you ever been on the Tube? If so, odds are you rode a part of the Crossrail expansion and can thank Globe Earth calculations/engineering for your successful journey. I mean it’s kinda ironic that you probably use a lot of stuff that completely refutes your stuff.

Now it is up to you to somehow refute this evidence. What do you have?
I don't need to refute that. It means nothing.
You accept that storyline and that's it.
You have no clue whether that is the truth. You really don't, so why are you trying to push that onto me?


If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 22, 2021, 07:21:42 AM


It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0 (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0)

What like the above?
This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.

Remember, for your so called sunset to happen your Earth has to rotate away from it and in doing so your drone must also tilt away from it to follow your so called Earth curve and your so called gravity pull.

On a flattish area such as the sea with your rising drone, you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
Instead of looking through horizontal atmosphere you are now looking through angled atmosphere and less dense to more dense by angle, meaning you bring back the light a little.
The higher you go the more you bring back because the less dense the air is over that distance by angle.

Your drone proves the opposite of what you claim.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 22, 2021, 07:33:01 AM
Only pinprick vision will work.
Again, if your argument relies upon a level pinprick vision with a 0 FOV, then it is pure garbage.

You need to explain what magic stops the lighthouse being visible with a FOV, otherwise your claim is pure garbage.

You really need to get the torch mindset out of your vision.


Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: bpgodinho on February 22, 2021, 07:47:37 AM
No.  Why/how are you able to discern that a light you see at night is on a tower tilted very very very slightly away from you?  Why would you fix your gaze towards the sky for something you expect to be on or just over the horizon.  What ship and lighthouse in history is that large when compared to the Earth?  Why must people constantly misinterpret how large the Earth is when compared to a human, ship, or other man-made structure?  So no your responses do not make sense, and are the opposite of logical.

These photos are exagerated so as to fit the graph into the image, the earth has an exagerated corvature in the photo so as to compensate for the fact the the lighthouse and boat would not be distant enough if the picture was  made to scale.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 22, 2021, 07:51:18 AM


I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

According to the engineers, they had to take a spherical earth into account. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there, because the fact is, they did so. So that's what you need to combat. It has nothing to do with my qualifications as an engineer. It merely has to do with the facts. We like facts.

But sure, here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data:
"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in  distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled.”

The parameters used to achieve this were based upon the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Note the use of WGS 84. Which is defined as: The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.

So, in short, the engineers used a spherical earth model for their calculations and implementation of the running tunnels for the Crossrail Programme.

Have you ever been on the Tube? If so, odds are you rode a part of the Crossrail expansion and can thank Globe Earth calculations/engineering for your successful journey. I mean it’s kinda ironic that you probably use a lot of stuff that completely refutes your stuff.

Now it is up to you to somehow refute this evidence. What do you have?

I don't need to refute that. It means nothing.
You accept that storyline and that's it.
You have no clue whether that is the truth. You really don't, so why are you trying to push that onto me?

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.


I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 22, 2021, 07:54:42 AM


It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0 (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0)

What like the above?
This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.

Remember, for your so called sunset to happen your Earth has to rotate away from it and in doing so your drone must also tilt away from it to follow your so called Earth curve and your so called gravity pull.

On a flattish area such as the sea with your rising drone, you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
Instead of looking through horizontal atmosphere you are now looking through angled atmosphere and less dense to more dense by angle, meaning you bring back the light a little.
The higher you go the more you bring back because the less dense the air is over that distance by angle.

Your drone proves the opposite of what you claim.



Ha! The Dunning Kruger is strong in this one.

Or Scepti, it proved just what the math he did to calculate his rate of ascent was supposed to, and what a person with a scintilla of sense would understand, that the higher you go the father you see, and as you declared “you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower” Which is effectively what he did, you contradict yourself when you state it proves your point.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 22, 2021, 08:34:02 AM


I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.


I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 22, 2021, 08:36:14 AM


It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0 (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0)

What like the above?
This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.

Remember, for your so called sunset to happen your Earth has to rotate away from it and in doing so your drone must also tilt away from it to follow your so called Earth curve and your so called gravity pull.

On a flattish area such as the sea with your rising drone, you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
Instead of looking through horizontal atmosphere you are now looking through angled atmosphere and less dense to more dense by angle, meaning you bring back the light a little.
The higher you go the more you bring back because the less dense the air is over that distance by angle.

Your drone proves the opposite of what you claim.



Ha! The Dunning Kruger is strong in this one.

Or Scepti, it proved just what the math he did to calculate his rate of ascent was supposed to, and what a person with a scintilla of sense would understand, that the higher you go the father you see, and as you declared “you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower” Which is effectively what he did, you contradict yourself when you state it proves your point.
No. What the person did was to bring the sun back because the Earth is not a globe, not because it is told as one.

Pay attention to what was said.
Same inability as others, you have.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 22, 2021, 10:27:09 AM

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.


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

The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 22, 2021, 01:57:06 PM
I don't need to refute that. It means nothing.
It is yet more evidence that you are wrong, which you just ignore and dismiss as fake.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.
No, as that is nothing like what has been discussed and is yet another pathetic distraction. It also shows you have no idea how sub's navigate.
Try making it into a coherent argument, rather than just a nonsense claim.

How about you stop playing games and deal with the refutation of your claims and your complete inability to defend your claims?


Again, do you accept your argument is pure garbage as it relies upon a magical pinprick vision rather than simply looking with a FOV?

This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.
Which just shows your lack of understanding.
It is extremely strong evidence for a globe.

With a FE, the sun shouldn't set at all.
If it did, it would need to be going over the edge of Earth and woudl set for everyone at once.

The fact that it is a local sunset proves that Earth is not flat.
The fact that you can increase your altitude and still see the sun shows that you are looking over/around a curve.

This is 100% consistent with a RE and inconsistent with a FE.

It disproves your delusional fantasy, not the RE.

Remember, for your so called sunset to happen your Earth has to rotate away from it and in doing so your drone must also tilt away from it to follow your so called Earth curve and your so called gravity pull.
So what?
Remember, WE HAVE A FOV! And guess what? So does the drone.
That means that the drone can still see the sunset/horizon as it rises up.

Earth rotates at the stagggering rate of ~15 degrees per hour, or 15 arcseconds per second.
The drone starts rising at ~26 seconds and takes until 41 s to reach 100 ft. That means it has taken ~15 s. Over those 15 seconds Earth would have rotated 3.75 arc minutes.
Even at the end, when you reach 2 minutes and 9 seconds of flight time, that is still only 32 arc minutes. That is nothing compared to the 10s of degrees the FOV of the camera is.

you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
The change in atmosphere is negligible for that change in height.
That cannot explain it.
And if that was the case, the sun would be high above the horizon, rather than being obscured by it.

So no, this drone proves the opposite of what YOU claim.

You really need to get the torch mindset out of your vision.
No, you need to get your magic tunnel vision mindset out of your arguments, as it is pure garbage with no connection to reality.

WE SEE WITH A FOV!
If your argument needs to reject or ignore that, your argument is pure garbage with no hope of being sound.
It is really that simple.

Pay attention to what was said.
Same inability as others, you have.
You mean the "inability" to just accept whatever BS you say and instead to realise it is pure BS?

You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 23, 2021, 02:32:36 AM

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.


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

The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.
Come back to me when you use your own words to describe your argument against me.
Using copy and paste to claim a win is fine if that's your game.
You only win in your own mind...but...feel free.

I don't see many arguing their stance with me by using their own words to make things clear.

You don't even know what you're putting out.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 23, 2021, 02:35:38 AM


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 23, 2021, 02:45:45 AM


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep
Then perhaps you should stop doing it.

Now care to address the complete failure of your claims?

Again, if your argument relies upon ignoring that we have a FOV and instead pretending we have a pinprick vision where we see 0 degrees, then your argument is garbage.

SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 23, 2021, 03:25:52 AM


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.
Then perhaps I should stop doing it.
That's up to you.


Quote from: JackBlack
SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?
Simple answer. Tilt of the lighthouse and in the opposite direction of tilt of the person trying to view.

Your FOV creates all angled views right until the centre. The crosshair point.
Unless you can bend your vision to follow your curve from tilted (away) from object stance, your vision simply follows that angle, whether it hits the sky or the sea, in this case.

The closer FOV from just outside  the centre around the crosshair, still offers you an angle.
The only thing that does not offer you an angle is the centre point of the crosshair which offers you a direct horizontally level view to a point in the distance.

Over a curve it would be the sky over distance.
If you people go by the 8 inches per mile squared route, whether you argue specifics, you can see how this would pan out and there's no way around it other than to use desperate measures.


On a flat sea from a ship to a lighthouse, you navigate through atmospheric density through horizontal masses to your level view. It can obscure a distant object, unless you elevate one or the other, or both views to object...because the angle created allows you to dilute the dense mass of atmosphere, allowing you to see much father to a more distant theoretical horizon and what is within it.

It's pretty simple as to what is real.
A hint: It isn't a globe.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 23, 2021, 08:48:50 AM

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.


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

The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.
Come back to me when you use your own words to describe your argument against me.
Using copy and paste to claim a win is fine if that's your game.
You only win in your own mind...but...feel free.

I don't see many arguing their stance with me by using their own words to make things clear.

You don't even know what you're putting out.

I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water. On a globe earth, they do so by trimming the fore and aft "wings" (horizontal rudders) to maintain a level depth in relation to the curvature of the earth (sea). And the experts back that up. Hence bringing in the experts. Now it is for you to demonstrate that they don't do what is claimed. Not just say it's a "story" they make up. You know, present evidence. All you're saying is that you don't believe they do what they say they do. That's not evidence. That's just an opinion. What's your evidence to the contrary?

As for the Crossrail project. Same thing. I've already explained in my own words what they did. Then brought in the engineering experts who did so to back up my claim with evidence.
In my own words again: The Crossrail engineers determined that the current geodesy survey wasn't exacting enough for them to weave the new long running tunnels through the complex underground that is beneath London. So, using GPS and other surveying techniques, they re-surveyed the whole of the London area they were dealing with. And because of their new more exacting survey, they were able to get the curvature of the earth discrepancies down from 200mm accuracy per 1 km to 2mm accuracy per 1 km. Amazing stuff.

Now, you need to present evidence showing that they didn't do that or that in doing that, they were wrong. Evidence. Not just, "It's a story".

What's your evidence against all of this?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 23, 2021, 09:00:21 AM
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 23, 2021, 10:25:01 AM
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 23, 2021, 12:12:14 PM


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.
Then perhaps YOU should stop doing it.
That's up to you.
I have no ability to control you, so I can't stop you just making crap up and spouting it as if it is true.
For example, I can't stop you blatantly lying about what people have said by you modifying their quotes.

Quote from: JackBlack
SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?
Simple answer. Tilt of the lighthouse and in the opposite direction of tilt of the person trying to view.
Your FOV creates all angled views right until the centre.
And that "angled view" is what allows you to see things.

The only thing that does not offer you an angle
Again, deal with the issue at hand, which is people looking at an object with a FOV, rather than a magical pinprick vision with no FOV.

Again, can you explain why WITH A FOV like we have in reality, the lighthouse should be invisible just because Earth is curved?
Appealing to not having a FOV is entirely avoiding the claim you were making.

It's pretty simple as to what is real.
Yes, the RE, which is easily explained and can easily show why the lighthouse is visible at some times and why its visibility depends upon your distance to it and your height.
What is obviously BS are your dishonest claims which you cannot honestly defend at all.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 24, 2021, 11:55:33 AM
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 26, 2021, 02:30:29 AM
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 26, 2021, 02:45:56 AM
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 26, 2021, 02:57:14 AM
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.
And notice the key part:
LEVEL, not straight.
So your diagram is a strawman.

Now again, without just ignoring the fact that we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be invisible just because Earth is round, rather than distance and height being a factor?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 26, 2021, 03:28:45 AM
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.
And notice the key part:
LEVEL, not straight.
So your diagram is a strawman.

Now again, without just ignoring the fact that we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be invisible just because Earth is round, rather than distance and height being a factor?
Don't waste your time trying to change level and horizontally straight.
You're conning yourself, not me.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 26, 2021, 10:59:41 AM
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.

Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 26, 2021, 12:35:00 PM
Don't waste your time trying to change level and horizontally straight.
You're conning yourself, not me.
Follow your own advice. The only one in this thread you are conning is yourself.

If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
You can't just pretend it magically means straight when it does not.
A sub will likely follow a level based upon the pressure of the water, just like a plane follows a level based upon the pressure of the air using a barometer.

But again, all of that is just distracting from your inability to explain what magic hides the lighthouse?

On a RE, as my diagram shows, the ability to see it will depend on your distance to it, and your height about the level surface of Earth.
You instead want to pretend that a RE magically renders it invisible without any consideration of height or distance.
Can you justify this without we don't have a FOV?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 26, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 01:36:18 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 01:38:17 AM

If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.

I know what level and plumb means, so I have absolutely no qualms about what I see.
I'd like you or your internet friends try and simply explain your level and explain how and why it works. Nice and simple.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 01:39:08 AM
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.
Ok, let's deal with it in simple terms.
Explain space time curvature.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 27, 2021, 02:42:54 AM
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 07:20:50 AM
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Mr twister.
A spirit level will show horizontally level. It will also show vertically plumb.

As for your vertical lines looking this that and the other. If they don't show plum on a spirit level then they are not plumb, no matter whether a near vertical line looks plum to the eye.


If I set the bubble on a 360 level, at centre, I get a 360 degree level point to point. I can set up foundations and build a house...etc, because I know it's level.

I can't build a house because I think it looks level, by eye.
Basically, get your act together, Mr twister.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on February 27, 2021, 11:25:36 AM
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.
Ok, let's deal with it in simple terms.
Explain space time curvature.
That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 27, 2021, 11:36:57 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 27, 2021, 01:44:28 PM
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Mr twister.
A spirit level will show horizontally level. It will also show vertically plumb.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)
The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 03:14:46 PM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 03:18:21 PM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 03:21:06 PM
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Mr twister.
A spirit level will show horizontally level. It will also show vertically plumb.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)
The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).
Subs don't come from the centre of your globe so how about explaining how they manage to navigate using curved path whilst keeping a level?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 27, 2021, 03:31:36 PM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 27, 2021, 10:56:00 PM
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Mr twister.
A spirit level will show horizontally level. It will also show vertically plumb.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)
The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).
Subs don't come from the centre of your globe so how about explaining how they manage to navigate using curved path whilst keeping a level?
This is focusing on plumb and level. So how about you stop dodging, and take the diagram I provided and show what you think "plumb" lines should be on a RE?
Once you figure that out, you can then connect these plumb lines together with a level line.

You have already pretty much shot yourself in the foot with one of your earlier diagrams. Remember this one:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png
Level at the boat is clearly different to level at the lighthouse.

Again, the surface of Earth (ignoring terrain) is level. Plumb is perpendicular to that.
If you ignore the small offset due to the rotation of Earth which makes Earth oblate, those plumb lines intersect the centre of Earth.

And you can also try to explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of hieght and distance, without ignoring the fact we have a FOV.

Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?
For the same reason you can't draw a square circle.
It is impossible (on the RE in reality) for a line to be both straight and level. The closest you can get is when the 2 are close enough together that it doesn't matter which you use.

But in this case, the level of accuracy required was too great.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 05:41:55 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 28, 2021, 05:50:27 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere? Down is to the center, a curved track is level.

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 06:19:21 AM

This is focusing on plumb and level. So how about you stop dodging, and take the diagram I provided and show what you think "plumb" lines should be on a RE?
Once you figure that out, you can then connect these plumb lines together with a level line.

Plumb lines will not work on your global Earth, nor will horizontally level lines.

It's easily provable on land or water or even ice.

A simple laser level will show up any discrepancy, immediately, over a short distance.

An 8 inch drop over 1 mile. A 2 inch drop over 1/4 of a mile or 1 inch drop of 1/8th of a mile...or to be a bit more clear..... 660 feet.
Or let's go down to a quarter of an inch drop and 165 feet from point to point.


Anyone ever measured it to that?

This would be at sea level or ice level or ground level.

Now here's the key.
If you were to set up two 50 feet high poles and took a measurement by adding a foot height marker all the way up those poles, you would expect to see a change in length of each raised foot of height from post to post.

This is like the bridge pillar carry on.

Sooo, regardless of whether you want to play the game of level being towards the centre of your Earth, you can clearly see how, in that scenario you put out, the lines (for you) converge all the way to your centre and obviously by that argument they must diverge with every foot of height as they reach into the sky.

Bearing this in mind, you have to accept a tilt over distance and the bigger distance the bigger the tilted angle of a point to point meeting of the lines like I showed you in my diagram.


Now then, back to the lighthouse.

The higher up each point is the more tilted angle will show, as I mentioned......over the distance of both objects (ship and lighthouse).


Basically you have a major problem on your globe, of seeing objects in the distance.
On a flat sea/water/ground/ice or whatever...you have none of the problems and this is the reason why you can see objects in the distance and also see more of an object over a greater distance when you elevate your position, because, unlike angling up and away on your globe; on the flat you angle up to an elevated object (lighthouse) but see much more of it if you are elevated yourself because you are looking through less dense atmosphere.


Your globe is nonsensical when looked at in the simplest terms.
Only magical unprovable explanations keep it alive.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 06:31:37 AM
If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere?
No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense and the idea of pulling means nothing when you look at it from a realistic point of view instead of the actions we call a pull to distinguish variations of effort...which is fine until we argue gravity and the rest of this global nonsense.

You substitute logic for the utter shambles of the globe and all of its magical trimmings.
I used to do that until I started to realise it was akin to a religion.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.

Quote from: JJA

 Down is to the center, a curved track is level.
A curved track can be level if you mean it's curving around a horizontal flat area.
If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.


Quote from: JJA

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.
  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity.
Of course I don't understand. I can't understand gobbledygook.
How about you try and see what reality is because you're living in fantasy world.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on February 28, 2021, 07:23:28 AM
If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere?
No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense and the idea of pulling means nothing when you look at it from a realistic point of view instead of the actions we call a pull to distinguish variations of effort...which is fine until we argue gravity and the rest of this global nonsense.

You substitute logic for the utter shambles of the globe and all of its magical trimmings.
I used to do that until I started to realise it was akin to a religion.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.

Quote from: JJA

 Down is to the center, a curved track is level.
A curved track can be level if you mean it's curving around a horizontal flat area.
If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.


Quote from: JJA

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.
  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity.
Of course I don't understand. I can't understand gobbledygook.
How about you try and see what reality is because you're living in fantasy world.

See, this is a perfect example of you missing the entire point, again.

I ask you to try and understand the theory, and you go on a rant about how it's all lies and fantasies.

You don't even try to understand it, you just outright reject it as nonsense... but how can you reject it if you don't even understand how it's supposed to work?

It's no wonder you think gravity is nonsense, because to you it is because you simply can't understand it.  Or won't.  No idea at this point.

It's why all of your 'takedowns' of gravity are just you saying it's dumb and confusing. You have no real understanding of what the theory is trying to say.  It's a stance of pure, deliberate ignorance.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on February 28, 2021, 10:46:51 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2021, 01:25:44 PM
Plumb lines will not work on your global Earth, nor will horizontally level lines.
It's easily provable on land or water or even ice.
You mean it is easily assertable with absolutely no evidence or proof at all.

Without appealing to reality which you claim is a flat Earth, can you prove it? Clearly explaining how it wouldn't work?

Because it is quite easy to show logically that it would.

For a perfect spherical Earth, gravity (I know you have an irrational hatred of this, but it is part of the RE model, you can't just ignore it to pretend nothing can work on a RE, but if you like, as repeatedly explained, we can use your BS air instead) causes objects to fall towards the centre of Earth.

This means that plumb lines will intersect the centre of Earth. So there is plumb working perfectly fine.

Then, if you actually understood what level meant, you would also realise it makes perfect sense and works perfectly fine on Earth.

A level surface is one in which the energy doesn't not change over the surface.
Water adopts a level surface, because if it had a non-level surface, water is able to flow along the surface from a high point, falling down to a low point to lower its energy.
But with a level surface, it cannot do that, no matter where it moves on the surface, it has the same energy. It has no where to fall.
And in general, level is perpendicular to plumb.
This means level lines on the RE will be a circle.

This is exactly what I have shown in my diagram. Plumb lines that intersect the centre, and a level line which is perpendicular to those plumb lines.

So can you actually explain why plumb and level should magically cease to work just because Earth is round, rather than it merely not being what you want.

A simple laser level will show up any discrepancy, immediately, over a short distance.
You mean over such short distances that you are completely incapable of detecting the insignificant drop.
That just proves you have no honesty as you don't bother considering the errors/uncertainty of your observations.
If you want to be able to prove no curvature you need to first establish that you can measure the curvature you are trying to, rather than just saying you don't detect any and thus it can't be there.

An 8 inch drop over 1 mile. A 2 inch drop over 1/4 of a mile or 1 inch drop of 1/8th of a mile...or to be a bit more clear..... 660 feet.
Or let's go down to a quarter of an inch drop and 165 feet from point to point.
Try again.
The simple formula to measure drop is d^2/(2R).
Or as commonly expressed by FEers, 8 inches per mile squared.

The important part is that if you halve the distance you cut the drop down by 1/4.

This means over 1/4 of a mile, you cut the drop down to a 16th of what it initially was, not 1/4.
This means you go from an 8 inch drop for the 1 mile down to a 1/2 inch drop for 1/4 of a mile.
If you drop it down to 1/8th of a mile you are down to a 1/8 inch drop.

Going all the way to 165 feet, or 1/32 of a mile, you end up with a drop of 1/128 inches. That is roughly 0.2 mm.

In order to get 1/4 of an inch drop you need the distance to be roughly 1/6 miles.

This is why people tell to learn the model that you hate so much so when you try to make claims regarding it they aren't trivial to show are wrong.
But the really ridiculous part is you already accepted that it is 8 inches per mile squared. But now that you want to exaggerate the drop over a short distance you instead pretend it is 8 inches per mile. So this isn't a case of you not knowing any better, this is yet another example of your intentional misrepresentation of the globe to pretend there is a problem where none exists.

Anyone ever measured it to that?
What you should really be asking is if anyone has ever measured the drop over a long distance accurately enough to be able to measure the curvature or absence of it.
And yes, the makers of LIGO had to account for curvature, and that is effectively the same.
Likewise, surveyors using theodolites routinely measure the drop by measuring its angle.

So yes, IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.
You not liking that fact, and not being able to measure the near 0 curvature in your bath tube or sink has no bearing on that fact.

If you were to set up two 50 feet high poles and took a measurement by adding a foot height marker all the way up those poles, you would expect to see a change in length of each raised foot of height from post to post.
Assuming you could measure that change, assuming your tools were accurate enough to measure the small difference over a long distance.

Sooo, regardless of whether you want to play the game of level being towards the centre of your Earth, you can clearly see how, in that scenario you put out, the lines (for you) converge all the way to your centre and obviously by that argument they must diverge with every foot of height as they reach into the sky.
Bearing this in mind, you have to accept a tilt over distance and the bigger distance the bigger the tilted angle of a point to point meeting of the lines like I showed you in my diagram.
No, I don't.
That is because you are pretending the poles are tilted relative to plumb. THEY ARE NOT!
The point is they are plumb, and the fact that plumb lines are not level is what causes them to tilt.
If you wanted to be honest you would accept what is shown in my diagram, with the towers aligned with a plumb line which intersects Earth.
Any 2 towers you pick will be tilted AWAY from each other, with the distance between the tops greater than that between the bases.
And the further apart the 2 towers are, the greater that "tilt"
Again, this tilt is purely due to plumb lines not being parallel.
You do not get them tilted towards each other, like your nonsense pretends.

So no, your diagram remains refuted garbage.


Basically you have a major problem on your globe, of seeing objects in the distance.
That is your claim, which you need to substantiate. You are yet to even attempt that. The closest you have come is by pretending we don't have a FOV.

see much more of it if you are elevated yourself because you are looking through less dense atmosphere.
The difference in density of the atmosphere is insignificant.
And that doesn't address why we don't see it on a globe.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2021, 01:36:27 PM
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
If level tracks require them to run into something else, then no, that isn't better.

For example, typically when on the surface of Earth, train tracks follow terrain for the most part, rather than just being level.

If you would like a simple example, how about a train track which needs to go from a port at sea level (technically a few m above), to an inland town with an elevation of a few hundred m.

Would you make the train track level, so it ends up at the sea a few hundred m above the ground?
Or run it level so at the inland town it is a few hundred m underground?
Or level in between so it is way up in the air at sea and quite far underground at the inland town?
Or would you run it mostly following the terrain rather than being level?

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.
If you understood what level was, you would understand why there is a curve.

No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense
You not liking something doesn't mean it is made up nosnense.
Gravity is a force which has been established to exist beyond any sane doubt.

the idea of pulling
Is essential when you look at things like ropes and chain links.
You are entirely incapable of explaining how these work without a pulling force.
Magnets are another example where you have failed to explain how they work with only pushing.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up
As if gravity is acting akin to a string, which pulls the 2 objects togehter.
Not hard to understand at all.

as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
Or to express it more honestly, at the staggering rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, half the angular speed of a standard analogue clock.

How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.
And that really is the problem isn't it?
You have no words.
You can't explain why it is nonsense, you can't show anything wrong with it, you just repeatedly dismiss it as nonsense.

People don't see the "disgusting nonsense" of it, because it isn't disgusting nonsense.

If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.
You mean there is no helping you as you still seem to have no idea what level is.
Again, your own diagrams refute you.
You provided a diagram showing level lines for the RE, which are not parallel. If you tried to connect the 2 locations with a level line, you would see it curves.
If you try doing it with a straight line, it will not be level at the 2 locations.

Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

The other way to look at it is through elevation.
A level line, has the same elevation. For a RE, that is the distance to the centre of Earth.
What is line which has the same distance to a point all along it? A circle.
So again, on a RE, a level line will curve in a vertical direction.

If you truly don't understand that, then you do not understand the model you are trying to refute, and don't understand something so incredibly simple it isn't funny.
And this means you have no chance of refuting the RE.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2021, 01:38:17 PM
Your globe is nonsensical when looked at in the simplest terms.
Only magical unprovable explanations keep it alive.
No, it is quite simple and understandable, with plenty of evidence supporting it.

For example, one simple thing which RE defintetly explains far more simply than your FE fantasy:
Time zones and regions of day/night.
Different regions of Earth have daylight at different times because Earth is round and only part of Earth can face the sun at any given time.
The side of Earth facing the sun is day, the side facing away is night.
The sun "rises" as the location moves (due to the rotation of Earth), such that Earth no longer blocks the way to the sun.
It sets as the location moves such that Earth starts blocking the way to the sun.
The direction the sun appears to be at is simply the direction to the sun.

Pretty damn simple.

Meanwhile, for a FE, in defiance of all other flat objects, the sun magically illuminates a very strange portion of Earth, not even matching simply to the distance to the sun. Instead you have a magical sun sending out magical light which magically bends to illuminate these strange regions of Earth, and make the sun appear near the horizon, rather than the ~26 degrees it should be above the horizon given the common 5000 km height, noting that this bending is the in the opposite direction and to a far greater magnitude than that caused by refraction. Not only that, it also bends horizontally, so those in the south still somehow see the sun rise from south of east when the sun is meant to be to the north.

That is not simple and relies upon so much magic it isn't funny.

Or more relevant to the discussion, THE HORIZON!
The RE has a horizon because Earth obstructs the view, like repeatedly shown in my diagrams.
This likewise causes the bottom of objects to be obscured because Earth blocks the view.
The object appears lower due to the curvature of Earth.
All explained with a simple diagram which you can find no fault with (and no, you rejecting FOV is not a fault).

Meanwhile the FE relies upon so much contradictory magic that it cannot come up with a coherent explanation.
The bottom of the object is invisible because the atmosphere apparently obscured the view, unless you want to claim that it is merely the limit of resolution, even though you can clearly resolve the objects and parts of it comparable to the parts which are hidden, so resolution is clearly not the issue. But then instead of it merely being the bottom is blurred, pure magic results in the object appearing lower, for no reason at all.

Or would you prefer stuff relevant to the other thread, why things fall and why some things float?
The RE:
Gravity causes a downwards force on all objects. This "down" is towards the centre of mass of Earth.
The force on any object is proportional to its mass, as gravity is a force that acts on mass.
If you consider any layer of a fluid, you have the force from above pushing down, the force from below up, and the force of gravity also going down.
In order to remain in place, the pressure below needs to be greater to counter the pressure from above and gravity. This means the pressure increases as you go down.
This means that for any object immersed in this fluid, the pressure greater and the bottom and thus it pushes the object up. When you do the math this force is equal to the mass of the fluid displaced multiplied by g.
If the object is denser than the fluid, gravity wins and it goes down, but its weight is still reduced by the fluid.
If the object is less dense than the fluid, the pressure wins and it is pushed up.

If you take an object and evacuate the air from it, you increase the volume of air displaced and thus increase the buoyant force, reducing its weight.

If you try to move through the air the air resists that due to its inertia and thus it applies a force to try to stop that relative motion, and this is based at least somewhat on area. This allows a parachute to safely have an object fall from a considerable height.

The FE:
Air simply has a pressure gradient, for no reason at all. (So far the only attempt at an explanation has implicitly appealed to gravity).
But the air then acts in complete defiance of this pressure gradient and magically pushes things down.
Except, when it decides to push objects up, for no apparent reason, as it is observed to do plenty of times.
There is no explanation at all for why the air defies this pressure gradient.

Even more nonsensical, when falling, the air pushes you down, yet somehow it also resists you being moved down through it. The force pushing you down is somehow magically related to your mass, but the force resisting you moving down is then completlely unconnected to your mass and instead is based upon your area.

The RE sure seems much simpler.
So no, when looked at in its simplest terms, the globe makes sense.
The FE appears to be pure fantasy relying upon so much magic it isn't funny.

It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.
You are unable to show a single fault with it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 03:20:16 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 03:23:27 AM


Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 03:29:27 AM
It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.

No. It's not hatred. It's called waking up to the endless amount of bull crap I've realised we're all subjected to from cradle to present
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on March 01, 2021, 03:29:36 AM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 01, 2021, 04:36:20 AM


Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:48:33 AM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:50:44 AM


Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?
Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?

This is plumb, is it?


You people need to make your mind up.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 01, 2021, 05:02:46 AM


Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?
Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?

This is plumb, is it?

You people need to make your mind up.

I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 07:05:49 AM


I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.
The concept is just that. It's not a reality.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense. And you feel free to laugh because you're laughing at yourself. It has zero effect on me.


Don't ever use a trade that requires you to use a level. You're likely to deliberately bend it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: WISHTOLAUGH on March 01, 2021, 08:11:24 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 01, 2021, 08:26:42 AM


I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.
The concept is just that. It's not a reality.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense. And you feel free to laugh because you're laughing at yourself. It has zero effect on me.

Don't ever use a trade that requires you to use a level. You're likely to deliberately bend it.

Uh... your comments here show that no, you do not understand the concept.  Otherwise you wouldn't be confused as to why skyscrapers don't fall over in the round Earth model.

You seem simply incapable of grasping the basic concepts of the theory of gravity.  It's no wonder you are so confused by all of it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 01, 2021, 08:29:05 AM
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: WISHTOLAUGH on March 01, 2021, 09:13:18 AM
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 01, 2021, 09:28:43 AM
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.

You're the one who made the comment about trains running on a globe, showing you don't understand the theory of gravity.  You were responding to skepti who was confused about what level means on a globe, which is all about gravity.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention.  At least try and understand the basic concepts of a subject before making ignorant statements like your confused 'uphill' comment.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 01, 2021, 10:31:21 AM


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

Here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.

What is it about this from the Crossrail engineers makes you think they didn't factor in the curvature of the earth:

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

As well, the chart I shared that shows the parameters used is very specific.

Parameter: Spheroid
Value: WGS-84

WGS: "The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.[1]
The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563. The refined value of the WGS 84 gravitational constant (mass of Earth’s atmosphere included) is GM = 3986004.418×108 m³/s². The angular velocity of the Earth is defined to be ω = 72.92115×10−6 rad/s.


WGS-84 Oblate Spheroid:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg/2560px-WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg.png)

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 01, 2021, 01:02:36 PM
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.
You are totally correct about this.
So like I asked, you have a train that needs to go from a few m above sea level at a port.
It needs to go to an inland town at an elevation of 100 m.
Do you have the track level so it is ~100m above the ground at the port? Or 100 m below ground at the town?
Or do you not have it level?

Just what magic requires trains to run on a level track? Why can't they run on an inclined track?

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.
No, that is just the blatant lie repeatedly spouted by FEers to pretend there is a problem with the globe, based upon in intentional misrepresentation of how the globe actually works.

Following the level surface of the globe is not running uphill.

You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.
You should try reading the actual topic and understanding the model you hate so much.
If you did, you would understand the significant of gravity.
And there is nothing mythical about gravity, no matter how much you hate it and want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 01, 2021, 01:03:27 PM
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.
You ignoring it doesn't mean they aren't.
They are using a model which specifically has Earth being curved.
It even has the semi-major and semi-minor axis of Earth.

Again, remember this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png)
You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.

But it seems now that you want to pretend that level needs to be the same everywhere on Earth you pretend that it isn't level?

Again, this shows it isn't simply you not knowing any better. It is intentional deceit.

Go take that diagram, and draw a level line at the light house and at the ship.

It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.

No. It's not hatred. It's called waking up to the endless amount of bull crap I've realised we're all subjected to from cradle to present
It sure seems to be, with you reduced to repeatedly lying about it including with pathetic insults like calling it bull crap.
You have no actual argument against it.

Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?
This is plumb, is it?
You people need to make your mind up.
No, you just need to stop playing dumb and pretending to be such an idiot.
We aren't changing our minds. We aren't contradicting ourselves.
It has been explained to you repeatedly.
The towers ARE plumb. They "tilt away" because plumb lines ARE NOT PARALLEL!
They tilt away because the curvature of Earth means plumb lines will diverge as you go up away from Earth.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to understand this.
A complete imbecile would be capable of understanding it.

Again, this is the simple diagram that shows it:
(https://i.imgur.com/wLQHWle.png)
The lines which intersect the centre are plumb (i.e. they are aligned to the direction of down, i.e. towards the centre of Earth, perpendicular to the level surface). Notice how even though they are plumb, they are not parallel and if you pick any 2 they appear to tilt away from each other.

But you don't like, because it shows you are wrong, and it shows that your strawman against the RE is pure nonsense. There is no magical meeting of the towers in the middle.
If you go to any of the towers, they are still plumb, yet pick any 2 towers and the separation between the tops will be greater than the bottoms.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Only if they were designed by someone like you playing dumb and trying to have them point upwards at the north pole, rather than plumb for the location.

Or are you trying to appeal to the tiny difference in angle as you move across the comparatively tiny skyscraper?

Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense.
Stop just spouting the same ignorant crap and prove it.
Either prove that it is nonsense, clearly explaining why; or stop repeating the same lie.


And again, directly related to the OP, which you keep on dodging, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE ON A RE regardless of height and distance?
Do you have any justification at all, or is just another blatant lie from you?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on March 01, 2021, 01:25:58 PM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 01:50:30 AM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 02:02:00 AM

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.


They would be a level sight from the boat if it was on your silly global Earth set up. Look at the tilt and get your head around it.

The person on the boat would be looking level in normal reality but you people are the one's that think the sight has to dip below level to see opposite objects.
The nonsense is laughable.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 02:05:16 AM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 02, 2021, 02:45:33 AM

This is the amount of tilt you get over a 20 mile length, close up and then encompassing the span, it's hardly discernible so your appalling drawing is redundant.

The 0.02 (mile) equals just over 100 feet, and the pink line links the tops of the two lines 20 miles apart, looks level doesn't it? Well within real viewing limits of seemingly level.
This is why scale matters.

(https://i.imgur.com/TI2zmTN.jpg)

Click to expand

(https://i.imgur.com/mfFYv1A.jpg)

Drawn to scale in Rhino.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 03:21:02 AM

This is the amount of tilt you get over a 20 mile length, close up and then encompassing the span, it's hardly discernible so your appalling drawing is redundant.

The 0.02 (mile) equals just over 100 feet, and the pink line links the tops of the two lines 20 miles apart, looks level doesn't it? Well within real viewing limits of seemingly level.
This is why scale matters.

(https://i.imgur.com/TI2zmTN.jpg)

Click to expand

(https://i.imgur.com/mfFYv1A.jpg)

Drawn to scale in Rhino.
Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Also don't forget to add in the opposite tilted object.

Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 02, 2021, 03:40:56 AM

Those two lines reaching up are radius lines from the centre of the earth (so plumb), so they both have tilt opposite to each other, but it hardly noticeable because of the size of the earth.

It is your argument that is absolutely nonsensical.


(https://i.imgur.com/s6TRPra.jpg)

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 04:08:56 AM

Those two lines reaching up are radius lines from the centre of the earth (so plumb), so they both have tilt opposite to each other, but it hardly noticeable because of the size of the earth.

It is your argument that is absolutely nonsensical.


(https://i.imgur.com/s6TRPra.jpg)
8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.

Have a word with yourself.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 02, 2021, 04:26:29 AM

The drawings, to scale shows the tilt, too little to notice over 20 miles, that shows you all you need to know.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 05:50:50 AM

The drawings, to scale shows the tilt, too little to notice over 20 miles, that shows you all you need to know.
8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 02, 2021, 05:55:19 AM

I'm sure you've ignored this before but for those that care.

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/8-inches-per-mile.jpg)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 06:02:47 AM

I'm sure you've ignored this before but for those that care.

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/8-inches-per-mile.jpg)
Ahhhh, right, so you're bending the vision over a curve now, are you.

One minute you tell us that ships are going over the curve and that's why we don't see them fully and the next our sight curves around.You people need to make up your mind.
That diagram is absolute utter utter utter nonsense, in the absolute extreme.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 02, 2021, 06:10:47 AM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.


So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 08:16:25 AM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.


So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?


They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
But people still sit there in awe. Too much star trek and star wars and such, in my opinion.

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 02, 2021, 08:25:52 AM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.


So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?


They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
But people still sit there in awe. Too much star trek and star wars and such, in my opinion.

I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 08:31:26 AM
I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?
You can think what you like about they.
If I mention those engineers you talk about I'll mention them.
Otherwise, they mean others. Which you obviously know, of course but you feel free to act like you want and you can pat yourself on the back.


Quote from: Stash

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?
Do you know if they're telling the truth?
Do you have any proof they're telling the truth?
Proof.
I want proof from you. Do you have it?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 02, 2021, 09:24:56 AM
I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?

You can think what you like about they.
If I mention those engineers you talk about I'll mention them.
Otherwise, they mean others. Which you obviously know, of course but you feel free to act like you want and you can pat yourself on the back.

It's weird that you apply aerospace "they" and your distrust in them all the way over to Subway engineers. Like I asked, do you always apply the aerospace "they" to things you don't believe in?

Quote from: Stash

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?

Do you know if they're telling the truth?
Do you have any proof they're telling the truth?
Proof.
I want proof from you. Do you have it?

Yes, the proof is that the Crossrail project was a success and it was engineered and built based upon amazing pre-planning and very carefully monitored construction with extremely tight tolerances that is full documented. And there is no evidence that the approach documented and executed was a lie.

Do you have any proof that there is a breathing dome with a carbonite crystal emanating holographic Sun, Moon and stars projected on it?

I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 02, 2021, 12:25:24 PM
Simple logic is what I'm using.
You might think you are, but to any sane person you are just repeatedly throwing logic out the window.

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.
They would be a level sight from the boat
Thanks for admitting you are just being extremely dishonest.
This shows you KNOW that on a RE, level is not the same direction everywhere. Instead it is based upon location on Earth.
That means a level line, which is level everywhere along it on the RE WILL CURVE!

That isn't difficult to understand.
So why do you need to continually pretend to not understand?

And no need to dishonestly pretend you are getting confused over level in your fantasy, vs level in reality/the RE, as you were clearly trying to describe level for the RE.

And the same kind of reasoning applies to plumb lines.


Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.
And as your previous admission has shown, this is just more dishonesty from you.
You know the globe makes sense.
You know that level tilts as you move around the globe.

This means 2 level objects in different locations will have that level tilted w.r.t. each other.
Likewise, it means any 2 plumb lines in different locations will be tilted w.r.t. each other.

There is no contradiction or problem for the globe.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is the case for anyone honest enough to actually think about it.

The tilt discussed regarding the towers is purely due to the curvature of Earth making the 2 plumb lines tilt w.r.t. each other.

It seems to make sense for anyone, except those with an irrational hatred against it, who decide to repeatedly lie to pretend it doesn't make sense, even though they cannot show any fault with it.

The RE not being the FE, and not following the incorrect claims of the FE does not mean it doesn't make sense.
For a RE it is quite clear what level and plumb mean, and the simple fact is that their orientation depends upon your location.

8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.
Yes. A mile is 63 360 inches.
So for 1 mile, that drop is 8 parts in 63360, or 0.01%, practically nothing.
For a shorter distance like you suggested before, 1/32 of a mile, then that is 1980 inches for the distance and 1/128 inches.
That is 0.0004 %, even less, and practically nothing.

So yes, as a measurable drop, it is hardly noticeable.

If you would prefer it as an angle, then for 1 mile, you have 8 parts in 63360 which equates to an angle of 26 arc seconds, again, hardly noticeable.

So perhaps you should go away and have a word with yourself.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2021, 12:36:38 PM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.


So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?

Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/gSQmlVZ.png)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 02, 2021, 12:47:04 PM
They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
[/quote]

So... because you can't understand how any of that works, it must be all lies.

It can't be that maybe, you simply can't understand it?

What's more likely, the entire world is out to get you, lies and conspiracies everywhere just to fool you... or maybe... you just could be wrong?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 02, 2021, 01:58:54 PM


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.


So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?

Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

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

Umm, "demonstrate"? It's demonstrated right in the link paper you posted. They created a new survey called "The London Survey Grid" and right in your paper they describe the datum used and the parameters set. You already posted the description of it.

In the description you took from the paper just what do you think is a "Transverse Mercator Projection" they referenced? Well it's a projection from a globe, which is what they used:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Usgs_map_traverse_mercator.PNG)

Again, right there in the paper, they define the London Survey Grid parameters:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Why did they use something like WGS-84?

The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations


All demonstrated right there in the paper you provided.

And ultimately, you debunked yourself: "...large portions could be ignored..." What about the other "portions" that couldn't be ignored?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2021, 04:56:46 PM
If surveyors are told that they can just ignore it, it is not evidence that it was used.

We can all see how desperate you are to turn a sentence you google searched about something that "could result in distortions" into "surveyors accounted for curvature" or "surveyors needed to account for curvature", when none of that is expressly stated.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 02, 2021, 05:08:17 PM
If surveyors are told that they can just ignore it, it is not evidence that it was used.

Ummm, using the quote you referenced, "The distortion is such that for large portions of the area projection corrections can be ignored.", "large portions" is not "all". Meaning there were "portions" that did require projection corrections. Reading comprehension 101.

We can all see how desperate you are to turn a sentence you google searched about something that "could result in distortions" into "surveyors accounted for curvature" or "surveyors needed to account for curvature", when none of that is expressly stated.

Desperate? Hilarious. The entire document references using WGS-84 and a Spheroid with a Transverse Mercator Projection, all Globe specific, as the foundation for the London Survey Grid, the creation of which is what the whole paper is about. That's not "googling" to find keywords. It's the whole bloody paper that YOU referenced. Talk about desperate, you're trying to deny what's written in black & white in a paper you posted. Amazing the lengths you'll go to.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 11:03:28 PM


I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?
Don't you also have documentation about men on the moon and probes passing by pluto and billions of miles into space and what not?
You're sitting there on your arse and you are reliant on stories that you accept as truth in every way shape and form. That's fair enough but don't go and try to tell me that you know this as fact, because you don't. You accept it as fact.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 11:06:12 PM
Simple logic is what I'm using.
You might think you are, but to any sane person you are just repeatedly throwing logic out the window.

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.
They would be a level sight from the boat
Thanks for admitting you are just being extremely dishonest.
This shows you KNOW that on a RE, level is not the same direction everywhere. Instead it is based upon location on Earth.
That means a level line, which is level everywhere along it on the RE WILL CURVE!

That isn't difficult to understand.
So why do you need to continually pretend to not understand?

And no need to dishonestly pretend you are getting confused over level in your fantasy, vs level in reality/the RE, as you were clearly trying to describe level for the RE.

And the same kind of reasoning applies to plumb lines.


Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.
And as your previous admission has shown, this is just more dishonesty from you.
You know the globe makes sense.
You know that level tilts as you move around the globe.

This means 2 level objects in different locations will have that level tilted w.r.t. each other.
Likewise, it means any 2 plumb lines in different locations will be tilted w.r.t. each other.

There is no contradiction or problem for the globe.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is the case for anyone honest enough to actually think about it.

The tilt discussed regarding the towers is purely due to the curvature of Earth making the 2 plumb lines tilt w.r.t. each other.

It seems to make sense for anyone, except those with an irrational hatred against it, who decide to repeatedly lie to pretend it doesn't make sense, even though they cannot show any fault with it.

The RE not being the FE, and not following the incorrect claims of the FE does not mean it doesn't make sense.
For a RE it is quite clear what level and plumb mean, and the simple fact is that their orientation depends upon your location.

8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.
Yes. A mile is 63 360 inches.
So for 1 mile, that drop is 8 parts in 63360, or 0.01%, practically nothing.
For a shorter distance like you suggested before, 1/32 of a mile, then that is 1980 inches for the distance and 1/128 inches.
That is 0.0004 %, even less, and practically nothing.

So yes, as a measurable drop, it is hardly noticeable.

If you would prefer it as an angle, then for 1 mile, you have 8 parts in 63360 which equates to an angle of 26 arc seconds, again, hardly noticeable.

So perhaps you should go away and have a word with yourself.
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
The first mile is 8 inches drop. After that it becomes massively worse for you lot. And you know it, which is why you attempt to diminish it by using the figures like you have. Laughable inthe extreme.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 02, 2021, 11:08:36 PM


So... because you can't understand how any of that works, it must be all lies.

It can't be that maybe, you simply can't understand it?

What's more likely, the entire world is out to get you, lies and conspiracies everywhere just to fool you... or maybe... you just could be wrong?
You don't understand how it works. You are totally reliant on fictional set ups and go with them.
All the data is there for the starship enterprise. Is that real?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 02, 2021, 11:35:28 PM
Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/gSQmlVZ.png)
I see you ignored the part which clearly highlights that they chose a projection specifically to minimise the distortions in this location.
The fact that they need to pick a specific projection to do that is how they are accounting for the curvature.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 02, 2021, 11:39:58 PM
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

If you want it to be significant, you need quite a long distance, like those in long distance photos where you see the bottom of these distant objects obscured, as if they have dropped below the horizon. I wonder why....

You not liking that wont change that fact.
Just like you not liking what level and plumb means won't magically change it.

Again, the towers you continually lie about are pumb and that means that the curvature of Earth means the tops are further apart than the bottom.

You don't understand how it works.
Just because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant doesn't mean everyone does.
Just because you choose to not understand how anything works doesn't mean everyone doesn't understand.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 03, 2021, 12:26:22 AM
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

You showed a complete and utter con job by changing the reality of vision.
You certainly don't stand on Earth like you are portraying it.



Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 03, 2021, 01:17:31 AM
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

You showed a complete and utter con job by changing the reality of vision.
You certainly don't stand on Earth like you are portraying it.
Just where was the con?
Did I lie about the numbers?
Or do you think it is a con job to show just how small it is.
Right now I'm sitting not standing, but it certainly is on a RE, not the flat fantasy you cling to.

Again, care to explain why plumb towers shouldn't tilt away from each other on a RE, given the fact you have already admitted levels tilts away on a RE?

If not, care to explain what magic hides the lightouse?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 03, 2021, 02:11:46 AM


I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?

Don't you also have documentation about men on the moon and probes passing by pluto and billions of miles into space and what not?

No, I don't have that documentation. But how would that even be remotely relevant? What do the Apollo missions and some Pluto bound probe have to do with a London Tube expansion project? Strawman much? I mean you can literally ride in the completed Crossrail project. It literally exists, right there in London. No rocket, moon or pluto required.

You're sitting there on your arse and you are reliant on stories that you accept as truth in every way shape and form. That's fair enough but don't go and try to tell me that you know this as fact, because you don't. You accept it as fact.

Why wouldn't it be the truth? What evidence do you have that it's a "story"? Why would subway engineers lie about how they planned, designed, and constructed a subway? What's to be gained by anyone? They publish a ton of documentation, maps, plans, architecture, routes, schedules, budgets, etc., the output of which is The London Survey Grid that then goes to all the Tunnel Boring engineers and everyone else involved in the project saying, "follow this plan". So they just passed off a fake set of plans and somehow the project got successfully completed?

The only reason why you believe it's not factual is because of your belief system. So without any evidence, you straight up claim the engineers are lying. That the whole Crossrail project is a lie. You think they created The London Survey Grid just to drive flat earthers like you nuts? Yet there it is - The truth, the proof, is that it was successfully constructed based upon globe earth parameters and you can literally ride the proof.

You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system. That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 03, 2021, 03:59:47 AM
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?
And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.


Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on March 03, 2021, 06:17:46 AM

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.  Curvature is a warping away from a direct vector, stretching  or compressing away from a equilibrium state.  Mass affects spacetime, spacetime is where matter exists,, matter has mass.  More matter more mass, more mass concentrated in spacetime, more affect or curvature of spacetime.  Now go do your chores.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 03, 2021, 08:17:15 AM

Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.

Quote from: Mikey T
  Curvature is a warping away from a direct vector, stretching  or compressing away from a equilibrium state.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
Mass affects spacetime, spacetime is where matter exists,, matter has mass.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
  More matter more mass, more mass concentrated in spacetime, more affect or curvature of spacetime.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
  Now go do your chores.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 03, 2021, 10:27:13 AM
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:

(https://i.imgur.com/DNLqPs9.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/3iZsBWq.png)

Notice the inset on the plans:

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

2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 03, 2021, 01:30:13 PM
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.
He clearly gave you conditions for that. You have not fulfilled those conditions so he isn't playing your game.

You need to stop dodging and answer me.
Exactly which questions I'm not sure about.

What is the one directly above it where I asked you just what the conjob was?
How my providing simple math to show how insignificant the 8 inches per mile squared is is somehow a conjob because it shows you are wrong?

Or was it the earlier one about plumb and level, and how even you have admitted that on a globe level (and thus plumb) will "tilt", such that level in 2 locations on Earth are not aligned and that means that 2 vertical, plumb towers, at different locations on Earth, will "tilt" away from each other and thus the tops will be further apart than their base, even though they are plumb, which makes perfect sense and follows quite simply and clearly using very simple logic, and goes directly against your attempt to pretend the RE is wrong by falsely claiming that the RE would require the towers to magically point towards each other in the middle. And how I asked just what doesn't make sense for the globe?

Or the earlier one, directly related to the topic of the OP, of just what magic results in the lighthouse magically being invisible on a RE, regardless of distance and height, in direct contrast to what plain and simple logic clearly shows where the ability to see a distant object is dependent on your distance to the object, the height of the object and your eye-height? Where instead of addressing the issue you instead continually appealed to a level sight with a FOV of 0?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
So you think they are just lying and pretending?

Because so far all that has been provided clearly shows they are using a global mindset.
The only way to claim otherwise is to claim that is all just being faked, that they are blatantly lying about what they are doing.

No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm.
No it doesn't.
It sounds like an outright lie.
Again, so far all you have for that is that you can't detect the curve in a sink.
But a sink is far too small to detect the curve because you simply do not have tools accurate enough to detect that completely insignificant curve.

You need to go to much larger distances, like looking at an object over a lake, where the water obstructs the view to the bottom, clearly showing the water is curved.

So no, what you are spouting does not sound like clear logic at all.

If you want it in the actual "logical" form:
Quote
The RE predicts the curvature over this tiny region should be insignificant and immeasurable without extremely precise tools.
I can't measure any curvature over this tiny region.
Therefore there is no curve.

In reality, your conclusion should be "This observation is consistent with a RE, with curvature which is too small to detect over this tiny region".

And the other part related to that:
Quote
I am standing in one location entirely above water level.
I am looking towards a distant object, also entirely above water level.
I can see the top of the object.
I can compare this view with a view of the object from much closer, which shows the bottom should clearly be resolved and from this position appears to be significant below the horizon, below water level.
But I know Earth and thus water level must be flat and thus it must be some other convoluted BS which results in the bottom magically being obscured and what is visible magically appearing lower.
That "conclusion" quite clearly isn't logic. It is religion, where you have already have your conclusions and invent whatever BS you need to try to prop it up.
The actual conclusion, based upon actual logic, is that the water clearly curves to obstruct the view to the bottom of the object.

So no, simple logic clearly shows that level water curves, that this curvature is insignificant over a short distance and thus cannot easily be measured in a sink; but over a long enough distance the curvature is so great that it obstructs the view to the bottom of objects and makes them appear lower as if they have sunk into the water.

So no, it sounds clearly like religion, not clear logic.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to "correct" the actual logical conclusion, making sure you take note that in a sink, the absence of you being able to measure curvature in your sink is entirely consistent with the negligible curvature expected for a RE, and that over very large distances, objects appear to sink below the horizon, with the water appearing to obscure the view to the bottom, even though both the observer and object are above water level.
If you need to ignore that, then what you are doing is religion, not logic.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on March 03, 2021, 08:26:10 PM
Still waiting for Scepti to be a good little boy and do the task.  I even gave in a little but you just refuse.  I understand what you are failing at attempting to do scepti, Dr Feynman described the neverending nature of the why/how line of questioning.
Now, respond in an adequate manner to the questions Jack has posed about your assertions or no more crayons for you. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 01:48:43 AM
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:

(https://i.imgur.com/DNLqPs9.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/3iZsBWq.png)

Notice the inset on the plans:

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

2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.
If you want to believe they take into account a curvature of a globe, then go right ahead.
I am under no illusions about your mindset and your mindset is firmly on a spinning globe. That's down to you to go on in life with and maybe expire with that thought.
Not a cat in hells chance will you ever get me conforming to your global model by using stuff like this.
You might as well tell me molten dinosaurs prove you have a super hot iron core in the centre of your Earth.

Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

Your mind would be better suited to questioning this stuff.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 01:52:31 AM


You need to stop dodging and answer me.

When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time, I'll consider re-engaging with you.
You spend too much time wanting a fight. Wanting to argue. Trying to intimidate and insult then claim to be the victim of it.


Clear out your mind and get with it.
If you carry on posting the stuff I've just edited, go ahead but you will receive little in response.

Your choice Mr nasty twister.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 01:57:25 AM
Still waiting for Scepti to be a good little boy and do the task.  I even gave in a little but you just refuse.  I understand what you are failing at attempting to do scepti, Dr Feynman described the neverending nature of the why/how line of questioning.
Now, respond in an adequate manner to the questions Jack has posed about your assertions or no more crayons for you.
Playing the tag team and attempted ridicule card will do you no favours and only strengthens my hand.
Feel free to do whatever you think you can achieve by holding each others internet hands like playground bullies but you gain nothing.


Did you decide to come in because you didn't think the posse was big enough?

If you want to engage then let's see what you have. In crayons if you have them.

Or just spend your time trying to play the ridicule card and giving yourself a round of applause.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 04, 2021, 01:59:35 AM
You need to stop dodging and answer me.
When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time
I have asked specifics and you just keep ignoring them because you can't answer.
Like the specific case of 2 of your magnets, with the attractive vortexes alligned which should be repelling to match reality but your model indicates they should attract one another.

But instead of addressing that, you dodge and instead want to focus on the repulsive vortexes to pretend that it works fine.

Likewise, the specifics of why towers can't be plumb yet still tilt away from each other on a RE, when plumb lines tilt.

Likewise, the specifics of what obscured the lighthouse on a RE, regardless of height and distance (so it can't be the curvature), without ignoring the FOV.

You seem to have no interest at all on engaging with the specifics when you can't answer them and instead just deflect with whatever nonsense you can.


You spend too much time wanting a fight. Wanting to argue. Trying to intimidate and insult then claim to be the victim of it.
That would be, such as with yet another insult and dodge.
I spend too much time caring about the truth and explaining why you are wrong.
Grow up, stop with the insults and dodging and start with the explanations.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 02:01:55 AM
You need to stop dodging and answer me.
When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time
I have asked specifics and you just keep ignoring them because you can't answer.

If that's your stance then cease posting anything to me. I'm happy to overlook you because this just becomes tedious.

Either put some effort in and deal with one thing and accept that I do answer, or go and find something else to occupy your time.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 04, 2021, 03:03:48 AM
If that's your stance then cease posting anything to me.
I will stop posting to you when you either address the issues or stop spouting the same refuted BS.

I have put in plenty of effort clearly explaining why you are wrong, even being nice and producing diagrams.
Meanwhile you just competley ignore/dismiss it all and repeat the same pathetic lies.

It is YOUR TURN to put in effort.

Now again, can you explain why the light house is not visible simply because Earth is curved completely independent of the height of the observer and the distance to the light house, in direct contrast to what is expected from simple logic including the diagrams I have provided?

Can you explain how the simple math I provided showing just how insignificant those 8 inches per mile squared is is a conjob?

Can you explain why towers on the RE should magically point towards each other? And why the explanations I have provided you with are nonsense?
Why 2 plumb towers shouldn't be pointing away from each other merely due to the RE and instead why they should need to magically be tilted away from plumb to tilt away from one another, yet again in direct defiance of simple logic and the diagrams provided?

Can you put in any effort at all, or can you just repeatedly dodge?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 03:51:02 AM

I will stop posting to you when you either address the issues or stop spouting the same refuted BS.
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 04, 2021, 04:57:33 AM
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 08:00:20 AM
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.
You can't even understand your own fictional gravity. You're basically describing magical unicorns, so don't be giving it the old " you can't understand gravity" nonsense.



You read the story of fiction and you bought the book thinking it was fact, for which you know there is no proof.


The only way your globe can work is by using magical mysteries such as gravity and what not.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 04, 2021, 08:10:31 AM
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.
You can't even understand your own fictional gravity. You're basically describing magical unicorns, so don't be giving it the old " you can't understand gravity" nonsense.

You read the story of fiction and you bought the book thinking it was fact, for which you know there is no proof.

The only way your globe can work is by using magical mysteries such as gravity and what not.

I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 04, 2021, 10:08:37 AM


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 04, 2021, 10:12:00 AM


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 04, 2021, 11:13:13 AM
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:

(https://i.imgur.com/DNLqPs9.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/3iZsBWq.png)

Notice the inset on the plans:

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

2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.

If you want to believe they take into account a curvature of a globe, then go right ahead.

It's not about what I believe. It's about facts and evidence. All of the documentation, site/construction plans, etc., for every aspect of the engineering and building of the Crossrail project reference a globe. So you can say they are lying, but you're just saying that because of YOUR belief system, no facts or evidence. That is referred to as "blind faith".

I am under no illusions about your mindset and your mindset is firmly on a spinning globe. That's down to you to go on in life with and maybe expire with that thought.
Not a cat in hells chance will you ever get me conforming to your global model by using stuff like this.
You might as well tell me molten dinosaurs prove you have a super hot iron core in the centre of your Earth.

Oh, you misunderstand. No one is trying or even thinks you would ever alter your belief system. All that's being done is showing that you are wrong with facts and evidence. All you present is your belief, no facts, no evidence. Which is plain for everyone to see.

Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

Your mind would be better suited to questioning this stuff.

I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):

(https://i.imgur.com/XiINaY8.jpg)

Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 04, 2021, 12:12:35 PM
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.
It truly is pathetic.
Why not just admit you will not answer when you know the answers show you are wrong?

Like I said, I will stop repeating the same questions when you start answering them.

Have you thought of answers yet? Or do you still need to keep on dodging however you can?

When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
When you keep needing to just claim it is silly or ignorant or indoctrinated or the like, it just shows how pathetic your position is.
Why don't you stop with the ridicule and try to actually find a fault with it?
And by "fault" I don't mean a blatant misrepresentation of what is expected on a RE, but an actual fault with the RE model.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 12:46:01 AM


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.
You don't know how gravity works and you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
So don't try and tell me I don't understand.
It's you that doesn't understand, except to go along with gobbledygook.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 12:50:23 AM
I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):

(https://i.imgur.com/XiINaY8.jpg)

Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
You need to pay more attention.

I have no issue with avoiding obstacles and I've alrteady mentioned about digging down and such.
My argument is in you saying they're using the curve of the Earth to do what they do in avoiding stuff.

You know this because you read something and accept it as the truth.
You have no clue, so why don't you admit it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 12:52:47 AM
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.

That's what you consistently do.
You saturate everything with copy and paste and I end up trying to read a plethora of stuff you've cherry picked for copy/paste.
Keep it simple and keep it to a point at a time and stop going off on a tangent. If you can do that I'll re-engage.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 05, 2021, 03:33:31 AM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.

I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.
That's what you consistently do.
No, I rarely copy and paste.

But again, the reason I consistently do this, is because you consistently refuse to address these issues.
If you addressed them when they were first brought up, I wouldn't need to consistently bring them up.

Keep it simple and keep it to a point at a time and stop going off on a tangent. If you can do that I'll re-engage.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
I have tried that with you several times, and YOU run off onto a tangent because YOU can't explain your nonsense.
You are the problem here, not me.
If YOU want to try a single topic at a time, then pick that topic and stick to it, and make it one of the issues you are continually dodging.

Now again, can you explain why the RE should magically result in the lighthouse being invisible, regardless of height or distance?
Can you explain why on a RE plumb towers shouldn't be tilting away from each other?
Can you explain why the math I provided, clearly showing how insignificant the 8 inches per mile squared is over a short distance is somehow a con-job?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 05, 2021, 03:37:55 AM


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.
You don't know how gravity works and you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
So don't try and tell me I don't understand.
It's you that doesn't understand, except to go along with gobbledygook.

Way to miss the point again, where did I say I don't understand gravity?  That's your issue.

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 04:01:40 AM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.

Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 04:05:36 AM
Way to miss the point again, where did I say I don't understand gravity?  That's your issue.

It's your issue because you don't understand it and can't even use it to back yourself up in any realistic fashion.


Quote from: JJA

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.
I agree I can't wrap my mind around it. There's a good reason for that. A similar reason why I can't wrap my head around ghosts being dead people or gods being superpowered dead people.

And, nobody has ever explain what it is. Including you.


Quote from: JJA

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.
That doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 05, 2021, 04:31:21 AM
I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):

(https://i.imgur.com/XiINaY8.jpg)

Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
You need to pay more attention.

I have no issue with avoiding obstacles and I've alrteady mentioned about digging down and such.
My argument is in you saying they're using the curve of the Earth to do what they do in avoiding stuff.

You know this because you read something and accept it as the truth.
You have no clue, so why don't you admit it.

Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 05, 2021, 04:33:37 AM
Quote from: JJA

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.
I agree I can't wrap my mind around it. There's a good reason for that. A similar reason why I can't wrap my head around ghosts being dead people or gods being superpowered dead people.

And, nobody has ever explain what it is. Including you.

There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

Quote from: JJA

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.
That doesn't make any sense.

It's ok.  Just go back to bed.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 05:37:13 AM
Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.
You read a few books and such and that's your evidence.
Have you read Harry Potter?
Has anyone you know?
Is that evidence that it's all a reality or do you know it's not a reality because the book says so....or does it...and do you know for sure it is not factual even though it may be sold as fictional?


You only know what you are told. If you cannot verify the facts then you have to accept that the evidence is circumstantial to you and you choose to believe on that premise.
You could not take any of it to a court of law and submit it as evidence and expect it to be accepted.


Just admit that and we can move on.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 05, 2021, 05:38:42 AM
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 05, 2021, 06:17:15 AM
Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.
You read a few books and such and that's your evidence.
Have you read Harry Potter?
Has anyone you know?
Is that evidence that it's all a reality or do you know it's not a reality because the book says so....or does it...and do you know for sure it is not factual even though it may be sold as fictional?


You only know what you are told. If you cannot verify the facts then you have to accept that the evidence is circumstantial to you and you choose to believe on that premise.
You could not take any of it to a court of law and submit it as evidence and expect it to be accepted.


Just admit that and we can move on.

I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 05, 2021, 06:29:17 AM
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 05, 2021, 02:03:49 PM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 12:56:28 AM
I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.
Taking that to a court of law to give out as proof of a globe would get you nowhere.
You're hanging onto this like a tired monkey hanging onto a tree branch over a pool full of crocodiles that haven't eaten in 24.5 days and who just happen to love tired hanging monkeys as their dessert after having just eaten an old dead hippo that fell into the pool and expired.  ;)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 12:58:46 AM
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.
I'll leave it at that with you. You can't explain because you do not know.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 12:59:53 AM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 06, 2021, 01:47:31 AM
I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.
Taking that to a court of law to give out as proof of a globe would get you nowhere.
You're hanging onto this like a tired monkey hanging onto a tree branch over a pool full of crocodiles that haven't eaten in 24.5 days and who just happen to love tired hanging monkeys as their dessert after having just eaten an old dead hippo that fell into the pool and expired.  ;)

I do appreciate your effort in attempting to describe my state of being.

But you misunderstand. I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 02:27:48 AM

8 inches per mile squared.
A simple formula that you really don't appear to understand. Because you don't understand you misinterpret what you expect to see.
I don't expect to see it. I can't see it because I do not live on a globe.
8 inches per mile squared seems to be the accepted drop as far as globalists go...or do you want to change it?
Or you can explain the drop over each mile if you think it's wrong.

Enlighten me or you can go into a frenzy and have a pop. It's up to you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 02:30:55 AM
I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

Basically you obviously, are.


Quote from: Stash
However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.
It conclusively proves nothing.
It proves tunnels were dug to avoid obstacles. That's it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 06, 2021, 02:36:35 AM
I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

Basically you obviously, are.

Quote from: Stash
However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.
It conclusively proves nothing.
It proves tunnels were dug to avoid obstacles. That's it.

Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 06, 2021, 02:50:34 AM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.

So again, can you explain why Earth being round renders the light house invisible, rather than simply having Earth obstruct the view if you are far enough away?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 06, 2021, 04:13:26 AM
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.
I'll leave it at that with you. You can't explain because you do not know.

I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 05:26:37 AM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 05:30:55 AM
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.

No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2021, 05:32:17 AM


I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.
Then calm down and stop trying to engage me if you think it's futile. Or carry on in this vein.

You need to stop whining like a bairn.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 06, 2021, 11:03:01 AM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 06, 2021, 01:07:16 PM
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.
No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.
Yes you did, repeatedly.

For example, here:
So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.
And there are plenty more examples in this thread.

So are you going to defend your claim?
Or will you now change your claim to what we have been saying all along, that your ability to view a distant object on a RE depends upon its height, your distance to it and your elevation?
Noting that the latter matches the observations of the OP.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 07, 2021, 04:40:32 AM


I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.
Then calm down and stop trying to engage me if you think it's futile. Or carry on in this vein.

You need to stop whining like a bairn.

You are the one who keeps demanding everyone explain things to you here. 

I'm just reminding you that you can learn on your own, but you have to be willing to try.  You complain that nobody here can explain gravity to you, well that's not out job.  If you can't figure it out on your own, that's entirely your problem.



Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2021, 08:05:00 AM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/gSQmlVZ.png)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2021, 08:24:49 AM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.
They dug tunnels. They negotiated obstacles in their way. So what. It does not prove a globe so don't waste your time with it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2021, 08:27:17 AM
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.
No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.
Yes you did, repeatedly.

For example, here:
So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.
And there are plenty more examples in this thread.


Stop wasting my time with this utter garbage.
That's no example of what I said.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2021, 08:28:58 AM
You are the one who keeps demanding everyone explain things to you here. 
I'm convinced about you now.
The fact you cannot understand what I told you last time and have to repeat it.....hmmmmm.
I knew it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 07, 2021, 11:03:12 AM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

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

We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2021, 01:33:10 PM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

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

We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.

You are not a surveyor on the project and have not quoted any. So we can take your assumptions and toss them in the garbage.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 07, 2021, 01:59:24 PM


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

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

We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.

You are not a surveyor on the project and have not quoted any. So we can take your assumptions and tops them in the garbage.

That's funny, you're not a surveyor either yet you state this assumption just above here:

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

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

Why is it that you as a non-surveyor quote a surveying document, but I can't? Not to mention, your quote just mentions "large portions". Not ALL. Again, reading comprehension 101.

Also not to mention, in the same document you cite as a non-surveyor, it clearly states that the London Survey Grid created for the Crossrail effort uses the WGS-84 spheroid model with a Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., a Globe:

(https://i.imgur.com/1rQuQnV.png)

Your weak attempt at "Large portions" and making up rules as to who is qualified to cite a source and who is not and not applying said made up rules to yourself, well, all of that is tossed in the garbage. Try harder.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 07, 2021, 02:27:29 PM
Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.
Due to the specific projection used to make that curvature insignificant.
If the curvature didn't need to be accounted for, they could use any map.

But that is just for main surveying, not not specific projects that require highly accurate measurements.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 07, 2021, 02:31:48 PM
Stop wasting my time with this utter garbage.
That's no example of what I said.
It is a direct quote of what you said.
I even gave you an example showing how it depends on distance and elevation and you dismissed it as wrong.
That means you are the one wasting time here, like you always do.

So again, do you now change your claim such that your ability to see a distant object on the RE is dependent upon the height of the object, the distance to the object, and the observer elevation?
Thus the fact that you can see the lighthouse does not disprove the RE?
Thus the observation of the OP are consistent with what is expected for the RE?

If not, care to explain why not?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 08, 2021, 02:40:30 AM
Stop wasting my time with this utter garbage.
That's no example of what I said.
It is a direct quote of what you said.
I even gave you an example showing how it depends on distance and elevation and you dismissed it as wrong.
That means you are the one wasting time here, like you always do.

So again, do you now change your claim such that your ability to see a distant object on the RE is dependent upon the height of the object, the distance to the object, and the observer elevation?
Thus the fact that you can see the lighthouse does not disprove the RE?
Thus the observation of the OP are consistent with what is expected for the RE?

If not, care to explain why not?
Come back when you can stop twisting things to suit.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 08, 2021, 02:43:42 AM
Stop wasting my time with this utter garbage.
That's no example of what I said.
It is a direct quote of what you said.
I even gave you an example showing how it depends on distance and elevation and you dismissed it as wrong.
That means you are the one wasting time here, like you always do.

So again, do you now change your claim such that your ability to see a distant object on the RE is dependent upon the height of the object, the distance to the object, and the observer elevation?
Thus the fact that you can see the lighthouse does not disprove the RE?
Thus the observation of the OP are consistent with what is expected for the RE?

If not, care to explain why not?
Come back when you can stop twisting things to suit.
I'm not the one twisting things.
Perhaps you should come back when you can answer simple questions.

Is this easy enough:
On a RE, does the ability to see a distant object like a lighthouse depend upon your distance to it and your elevation; or does Earth merely being round prevent you from seeing it regardless of distance and height?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 08, 2021, 03:40:26 AM

I'm not the one twisting things.
Perhaps you should come back when you can answer simple questions.

Is this easy enough:
On a RE, does the ability to see a distant object like a lighthouse depend upon your distance to it and your elevation; or does Earth merely being round prevent you from seeing it regardless of distance and height?
I've never been on a global Earth to find that out.
I've told you how and why it works from a flat Earth (in terms of sea) outlook. It makes absolute sense and using a globe absolutely, does not.


I gave you the reasons why your globe would not show what you see and you disagree. Fair enough.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 08, 2021, 01:18:27 PM
You are not a surveyor on the project and have not quoted any. So we can take your assumptions and toss them in the garbage.

LOL.

Tom, you keep being you. 

All of your posts are you cherry picking some quote and making an ignorant statement about it, then whining that other people pointing out your mistakes are not experts and should just shut up. 

This is literally every argument you have ever made.

You really have no self awareness at all, do you?  You don't see the irony in what you are doing here?  Amazing.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 08, 2021, 01:48:42 PM

I'm not the one twisting things.
Perhaps you should come back when you can answer simple questions.

Is this easy enough:
On a RE, does the ability to see a distant object like a lighthouse depend upon your distance to it and your elevation; or does Earth merely being round prevent you from seeing it regardless of distance and height?
I've never been on a global Earth to find that out.
I've told you how and why it works from a flat Earth (in terms of sea) outlook. It makes absolute sense and using a globe absolutely, does not.

I gave you the reasons why your globe would not show what you see and you disagree. Fair enough.
And there you go with more dodging.
You clearly think you know how a globe should work.
So answer the question based upon that understanding.
Do you think that on a RE that the mere fact the Earth is curved will render the lighthouse invisible (or otherwise not able to be seen at all), regardless of its height, the elevation of the observer and the distance between them; or do you think that on a RE the ability to see a distant object will depend upon its height, the distance to it and the elevation of the observer? (Or something else?)

This is an extremely simple question which you should be able to answer.
It is based upon how you think a RE should work, not necessarily how a RE works in reality.

This is a key part of your claim of a RE not making any sense.

So can you make your position clear.
Because until you do, all it will end up with you doing is continually accusing others of twisting things because YOU don't make your point clear and appear to switch back and forth between contradictory claims.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 09, 2021, 03:58:35 AM

I'm not the one twisting things.
Perhaps you should come back when you can answer simple questions.

Is this easy enough:
On a RE, does the ability to see a distant object like a lighthouse depend upon your distance to it and your elevation; or does Earth merely being round prevent you from seeing it regardless of distance and height?
I've never been on a global Earth to find that out.
I've told you how and why it works from a flat Earth (in terms of sea) outlook. It makes absolute sense and using a globe absolutely, does not.

I gave you the reasons why your globe would not show what you see and you disagree. Fair enough.
And there you go with more dodging.
You clearly think you know how a globe should work.
So answer the question based upon that understanding.
Do you think that on a RE that the mere fact the Earth is curved will render the lighthouse invisible (or otherwise not able to be seen at all), regardless of its height, the elevation of the observer and the distance between them; or do you think that on a RE the ability to see a distant object will depend upon its height, the distance to it and the elevation of the observer? (Or something else?)

This is an extremely simple question which you should be able to answer.
It is based upon how you think a RE should work, not necessarily how a RE works in reality.

This is a key part of your claim of a RE not making any sense.

So can you make your position clear.
Because until you do, all it will end up with you doing is continually accusing others of twisting things because YOU don't make your point clear and appear to switch back and forth between contradictory claims.
I'm more than content with what I've said.
I think the globe is becoming more and more ridiculous the more it is looked at.
There's no dodging from me. There's no need to.

Clear logic will show any rational thinking person who cares to take the time to see it, will know how nonsensical the globe model is.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sokarul on March 09, 2021, 04:01:09 AM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 09, 2021, 12:27:39 PM

I'm not the one twisting things.
Perhaps you should come back when you can answer simple questions.

Is this easy enough:
On a RE, does the ability to see a distant object like a lighthouse depend upon your distance to it and your elevation; or does Earth merely being round prevent you from seeing it regardless of distance and height?
I've never been on a global Earth to find that out.
I've told you how and why it works from a flat Earth (in terms of sea) outlook. It makes absolute sense and using a globe absolutely, does not.

I gave you the reasons why your globe would not show what you see and you disagree. Fair enough.
And there you go with more dodging.
You clearly think you know how a globe should work.
So answer the question based upon that understanding.
Do you think that on a RE that the mere fact the Earth is curved will render the lighthouse invisible (or otherwise not able to be seen at all), regardless of its height, the elevation of the observer and the distance between them; or do you think that on a RE the ability to see a distant object will depend upon its height, the distance to it and the elevation of the observer? (Or something else?)

This is an extremely simple question which you should be able to answer.
It is based upon how you think a RE should work, not necessarily how a RE works in reality.

This is a key part of your claim of a RE not making any sense.

So can you make your position clear.
Because until you do, all it will end up with you doing is continually accusing others of twisting things because YOU don't make your point clear and appear to switch back and forth between contradictory claims.
I'm more than content with what I've said.
I think the globe is becoming more and more ridiculous the more it is looked at.
There's no dodging from me. There's no need to.

Clear logic will show any rational thinking person who cares to take the time to see it, will know how nonsensical the globe model is.
Clear logic shows you are repeatedly dodging simple issues, switching back and forth between your claims to pretend the RE has a problem.

You are the one becoming more and more ridiculous, not the globe. The globe is still unscathed by your pathetic attacks, because you can't even remain consistent and you renders attack pure nonsense due to this lack of consistency.

Again, in reality, as supported by simple logic that you hate, your ability to see a distant object on the RE depends upon its height, the distance to it and your elevation.
This is entirely consistent with what the OP observed.
There is no problem with the RE here.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 09, 2021, 12:53:23 PM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

You mean mention of this laser experiment going way back:

Still waiting for the laser experiment you did.
Give me your email address and I'll send you all the info on it.

I've done all the experiments that prove you wrong.
Which experiments?  Why don't you post some pictures, details, and results, etc.  I'm sure cikljamas and saros would love to see your frozen lake/laser experiment.

Then there was this mega thread from back in 2014:

Sceptimatic's experiment - 100% proof the earth is flat
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61110.0

Looks like there never was an experiment.

And it looks like the issue is that we are dealing with genius:

I realised I was different in thought when I inherited my fathers genius for inventions. My father started his career as a scientist and inventor, often troubleshooting many things.
A local knitwear factory was having trouble making a certain garment and the brains on the machine that was to be used, could not solve one major issue. They used to say, we need Dong (my fathers name and mine).
That factory basically wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dong.

I got my genius from my father and uncle. The family of Dongs was quite large and even to this day you will not go into any workplace or very few and not find at least one Dong in there.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 09, 2021, 11:22:17 PM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

You mean mention of this laser experiment going way back:

Still waiting for the laser experiment you did.
Give me your email address and I'll send you all the info on it.

I've done all the experiments that prove you wrong.
Which experiments?  Why don't you post some pictures, details, and results, etc.  I'm sure cikljamas and saros would love to see your frozen lake/laser experiment.

Then there was this mega thread from back in 2014:

Sceptimatic's experiment - 100% proof the earth is flat
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61110.0

Looks like there never was an experiment.

And it looks like the issue is that we are dealing with genius:

I realised I was different in thought when I inherited my fathers genius for inventions. My father started his career as a scientist and inventor, often troubleshooting many things.
A local knitwear factory was having trouble making a certain garment and the brains on the machine that was to be used, could not solve one major issue. They used to say, we need Dong (my fathers name and mine).
That factory basically wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dong.

I got my genius from my father and uncle. The family of Dongs was quite large and even to this day you will not go into any workplace or very few and not find at least one Dong in there.
Getting absolutely desperate now, aren't you.
To think you need to trawl back to bring up stuff because your own regurgitated parroting is failing and becoming more clear as time goes on, as to how nonsensical the stories are.
Even you must be aware of it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 09, 2021, 11:52:09 PM
Getting absolutely desperate now, aren't you.
The only desperate one here is you.
You still seem to need to avoid simple questions.

And you are even projecting your own inadequacies, where your failing is becoming more clear as time goes on, especially with how nonsensical your objections to the RE are.
Even you must be aware of it.

Now again, can you make your claim clear?
Do you think (i.e. based upon your understanding/belief of how it should work) the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon its height, your distance to it, and your elevation; or do you think that Earth being round is enough to make it so you cannot see it at all; or do you think something else?

This is a nice simple question, related to what should be a simple claim you continually twist so you can continue to pretend there is a problem for the RE, while objecting to any refutation as "twisting"
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 10, 2021, 12:06:29 AM

The only desperate one here is you.

I can see who the desperado's are. You included.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 10, 2021, 12:18:16 AM
The only desperate one here is you.
I can see who the desperado's are. You included.
You don't seem to be able to see anything at all, except your delusional fantasies.
Again, the fact you continually refuse to answer simple questions to pin down your claims show just desperate you are.

Again, decide just what you are claiming about the RE, making it abundantly clear, so you cannot then later claim twisting for accurately showing why your claim is wrong.
Do you think (i.e. based upon your understanding/belief of how it should work) the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon its height, your distance to it, and your elevation; or do you think that Earth being round is enough to make it so you cannot see it at all; or do you think something else?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 10, 2021, 12:25:57 AM

You don't seem to be able to see anything at all, except your delusional fantasies.

Don't you worry yourself about it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 10, 2021, 01:40:47 AM
You don't seem to be able to see anything at all, except your delusional fantasies.
Don't you worry yourself about it.
I won't, but I will continue to call you out on it.

Again, it isn't hard, how do you think it should work on a RE?
Is it being round enough to make the lighthouse invisible, or does it depend upon distance, height and elevation?

Why do you need to keep on avoiding such a simple question?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 10, 2021, 02:57:49 AM

I won't, but I will continue to call you out on it.


You feel free to do as you wish.
I told you how I'd deal with you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 10, 2021, 10:51:34 AM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

You mean mention of this laser experiment going way back:

Still waiting for the laser experiment you did.
Give me your email address and I'll send you all the info on it.

I've done all the experiments that prove you wrong.
Which experiments?  Why don't you post some pictures, details, and results, etc.  I'm sure cikljamas and saros would love to see your frozen lake/laser experiment.

Then there was this mega thread from back in 2014:

Sceptimatic's experiment - 100% proof the earth is flat
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61110.0

Looks like there never was an experiment.

And it looks like the issue is that we are dealing with genius:

I realised I was different in thought when I inherited my fathers genius for inventions. My father started his career as a scientist and inventor, often troubleshooting many things.
A local knitwear factory was having trouble making a certain garment and the brains on the machine that was to be used, could not solve one major issue. They used to say, we need Dong (my fathers name and mine).
That factory basically wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dong.

I got my genius from my father and uncle. The family of Dongs was quite large and even to this day you will not go into any workplace or very few and not find at least one Dong in there.
Getting absolutely desperate now, aren't you.
To think you need to trawl back to bring up stuff because your own regurgitated parroting is failing and becoming more clear as time goes on, as to how nonsensical the stories are.
Even you must be aware of it.

Desperation, that's funny and extremely ironic. I just found it interesting that there has been this super long-standing systemic issue with you claiming experiments and never producing the results. I mean going back at least 3/4 of a decade and still nothing. Seeing that helps to further frame why you won't back anything up. Which is totally your right. It's just weird that your claims are solely based upon your belief system and nothing else. No evidence, no experiments, no demonstrations, no examinations, just what's in your head and what you believe. And then on top of that, you claim experimentation, but that appears to be a straight-up lie. Fakery, if you will.

The self-proclaimed genius bit is all on you. You wrote it, not me. It too explains a lot about the your narcissism in that you and only you hold the keys to unlocking the mysteries of the cosmos. It's all starting to make sense now.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 10, 2021, 12:07:30 PM
You feel free to do as you wish.
I told you how I'd deal with you.
Yes, just like you deal with everyone who conclusively shows you are wrong and doesn't give up; by repeatedly insulting them and ignoring them or deflecting from any argument they present.
This shows how desperate you are, and how pathetic your position is.

You claim the RE is nonsense, but you refuse to even clarify your position, all so you can switch back and forth between 2 contradictory points to pretend the RE has a massive problem but then pretend you didn't actually say it when this "problem" is shown to be pure nonsense.

You have been acting like the mere fact Earth is round will make the lighthouse invisible.
You rejected my diagram showing how it depends on the height and distance.
But the only attempt at justification has been appealing to how Earth blocks the view, just like shown in my diagram that shows it depends on height and distance.
But that would then match the OP, and there is no problem for the RE.

So again, care to clarify your position? Or do you want it to remain as clear as mud so you can continue to dishonestly pretend there is a problem for the RE and dismiss any refutation as "twisting"?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Mikey T. on March 10, 2021, 01:59:27 PM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

Bro...  lmao. 
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 11, 2021, 01:35:46 AM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

You mean mention of this laser experiment going way back:

Still waiting for the laser experiment you did.
Give me your email address and I'll send you all the info on it.

I've done all the experiments that prove you wrong.
Which experiments?  Why don't you post some pictures, details, and results, etc.  I'm sure cikljamas and saros would love to see your frozen lake/laser experiment.

Then there was this mega thread from back in 2014:

Sceptimatic's experiment - 100% proof the earth is flat
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61110.0

Looks like there never was an experiment.

And it looks like the issue is that we are dealing with genius:

I realised I was different in thought when I inherited my fathers genius for inventions. My father started his career as a scientist and inventor, often troubleshooting many things.
A local knitwear factory was having trouble making a certain garment and the brains on the machine that was to be used, could not solve one major issue. They used to say, we need Dong (my fathers name and mine).
That factory basically wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dong.

I got my genius from my father and uncle. The family of Dongs was quite large and even to this day you will not go into any workplace or very few and not find at least one Dong in there.
Getting absolutely desperate now, aren't you.
To think you need to trawl back to bring up stuff because your own regurgitated parroting is failing and becoming more clear as time goes on, as to how nonsensical the stories are.
Even you must be aware of it.

Desperation, that's funny and extremely ironic. I just found it interesting that there has been this super long-standing systemic issue with you claiming experiments and never producing the results. I mean going back at least 3/4 of a decade and still nothing. Seeing that helps to further frame why you won't back anything up. Which is totally your right. It's just weird that your claims are solely based upon your belief system and nothing else. No evidence, no experiments, no demonstrations, no examinations, just what's in your head and what you believe. And then on top of that, you claim experimentation, but that appears to be a straight-up lie. Fakery, if you will.

The self-proclaimed genius bit is all on you. You wrote it, not me. It too explains a lot about the your narcissism in that you and only you hold the keys to unlocking the mysteries of the cosmos. It's all starting to make sense now.
If it bothers you then follow the instructions and do the experiments for yourself.
The beauty about what I do is, I do them in simple ways. I take out the complications that are deliberately kept there.

People like you are happy to accept the stories and argue black and blue for them.
I have no issue with that but it does not test your thinking skills.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 11, 2021, 01:37:25 AM
You feel free to do as you wish.
I told you how I'd deal with you.
Yes, just like you deal with everyone who conclusively shows you are wrong and doesn't give up; by repeatedly insulting them and ignoring them or deflecting from any argument they present.
This shows how desperate you are, and how pathetic your position is.

Don't bother trying that old, insulting stuff on me.
I'm in the middle of a playground attack of it with you lot so forgive me if I kick a little bit of dirt right back at you lot.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2021, 01:55:04 AM
You feel free to do as you wish.
I told you how I'd deal with you.
Yes, just like you deal with everyone who conclusively shows you are wrong and doesn't give up; by repeatedly insulting them and ignoring them or deflecting from any argument they present.
This shows how desperate you are, and how pathetic your position is.

Don't bother trying that old, insulting stuff on me.
I'm in the middle of a playground attack of it with you lot so forgive me if I kick a little bit of dirt right back at you lot.
No, you aren't in the middle of a playground attack, you continually trying to start one to avoid admitting your claims are pure BS.
Stop playing the victim.
You are the one who starts all these "fights".

So how about you grow up and act like an adult for once and start dealing with issues rather than continually deflecting.

Again, are you claiming that Earth being round will render the light house invisible regardless of height and distance; or are you claiming that it would merely be Earth blocking the view which means that it will depend on height and distance; or are you claiming something completely different?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 11, 2021, 04:38:16 AM
It’s 2021, are you going to post your laser experiment?

You mean mention of this laser experiment going way back:

Still waiting for the laser experiment you did.
Give me your email address and I'll send you all the info on it.

I've done all the experiments that prove you wrong.
Which experiments?  Why don't you post some pictures, details, and results, etc.  I'm sure cikljamas and saros would love to see your frozen lake/laser experiment.

Then there was this mega thread from back in 2014:

Sceptimatic's experiment - 100% proof the earth is flat
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61110.0

Looks like there never was an experiment.

And it looks like the issue is that we are dealing with genius:

I realised I was different in thought when I inherited my fathers genius for inventions. My father started his career as a scientist and inventor, often troubleshooting many things.
A local knitwear factory was having trouble making a certain garment and the brains on the machine that was to be used, could not solve one major issue. They used to say, we need Dong (my fathers name and mine).
That factory basically wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dong.

I got my genius from my father and uncle. The family of Dongs was quite large and even to this day you will not go into any workplace or very few and not find at least one Dong in there.
Getting absolutely desperate now, aren't you.
To think you need to trawl back to bring up stuff because your own regurgitated parroting is failing and becoming more clear as time goes on, as to how nonsensical the stories are.
Even you must be aware of it.

Desperation, that's funny and extremely ironic. I just found it interesting that there has been this super long-standing systemic issue with you claiming experiments and never producing the results. I mean going back at least 3/4 of a decade and still nothing. Seeing that helps to further frame why you won't back anything up. Which is totally your right. It's just weird that your claims are solely based upon your belief system and nothing else. No evidence, no experiments, no demonstrations, no examinations, just what's in your head and what you believe. And then on top of that, you claim experimentation, but that appears to be a straight-up lie. Fakery, if you will.

The self-proclaimed genius bit is all on you. You wrote it, not me. It too explains a lot about the your narcissism in that you and only you hold the keys to unlocking the mysteries of the cosmos. It's all starting to make sense now.

If it bothers you then follow the instructions and do the experiments for yourself.
The beauty about what I do is, I do them in simple ways. I take out the complications that are deliberately kept there.

People like you are happy to accept the stories and argue black and blue for them.
I have no issue with that but it does not test your thinking skills.

Great. Then show us the results of your beautiful, simple, and uncomplicated experiments. That would immediately clear up a lot here. What's stopping you from doing that?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 11, 2021, 04:53:37 AM

No, you aren't in the middle of a playground attack, you continually trying to start one to avoid admitting your claims are pure BS.
Stop playing the victim.
You are the one who starts all these "fights".


Seriously?
You people go into attack mode when my answers do not suit you.
I have no need to play any victime. It's you lot that requires pity because you lot go into posse mode and play tag team and still end up crying and whining, against little me.


I'm just telling you how it is.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 11, 2021, 05:00:10 AM
Great. Then show us the results of your beautiful, simple, and uncomplicated experiments. That would immediately clear up a lot here. What's stopping you from doing that?
You know what?
Do you realise that you and anyone else can perform them. Nothing I give out is complicated to set up or costs much, if at all.
You see, this is the beauty about what I do. I do not need to prove anything. I can show people simplicity. Simple little things that give massive food for thought in terms of what Earth is...etc.


You people are in massive denial of anything outside of the comfort zone of indoctrinated, almost unconditional acceptance of any and almost all, official lines.


I offer up experiments for people to do. Most do not attempt and those that do are so dishonest it makes me sit back and smirk in bemusement.


The reason you people are here is to ensure nobody thinks outside the box;. That's what I believe.
I'm not saying you're paid to do it or anything...I just don't understand why people like you would constantly argue against people you think are nuts. It beggars belief.


So here's the deal. You go and do the experiments I set out and let's see you shout the odds about them.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 11, 2021, 11:08:19 AM
Great. Then show us the results of your beautiful, simple, and uncomplicated experiments. That would immediately clear up a lot here. What's stopping you from doing that?
You know what?
Do you realise that you and anyone else can perform them. Nothing I give out is complicated to set up or costs much, if at all.
You see, this is the beauty about what I do. I do not need to prove anything. I can show people simplicity. Simple little things that give massive food for thought in terms of what Earth is...etc.


You people are in massive denial of anything outside of the comfort zone of indoctrinated, almost unconditional acceptance of any and almost all, official lines.


I offer up experiments for people to do. Most do not attempt and those that do are so dishonest it makes me sit back and smirk in bemusement.


The reason you people are here is to ensure nobody thinks outside the box;. That's what I believe.
I'm not saying you're paid to do it or anything...I just don't understand why people like you would constantly argue against people you think are nuts. It beggars belief.


So here's the deal. You go and do the experiments I set out and let's see you shout the odds about them.

So that's a "No", you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 11, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. You go into insult mode when you cannot justify your blatantly false claims.
Once they are refuted you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid reality, including repeatedly insulting anyone who dares to show you are wrong.
Like I said, stop playing the victim and address the issues raised.

You wont even do a simple honest thing of clarifying what your position is.
And it is quite clear why.
If you say your claim is only that the ability to see a distant object is dependent upon height, elevation and distance, then you agree with the RE model and there is no problem at all with the OPs observations or reality, so admitting that is admitting defeat.
If instead you do as you acted like before and claim Earth merely being round is enough to obscure the lighthouse regardless of distance, height and elevation, then you can't complain that people are twisting your claims, and have no way to justify such insanity. So that is also effectively admitting defeat.
The only way you can pretend to not be defeated is if you keep going with your claims being as clear as mud, so you can use the curvature to try to justify why things should be hidden, but pretend it means that it should be hidden regardless of distance to pretend there is a problem for the RE, and when you are refuted you just claim people are twisting your claims.

You should really grow up some time.

Now again, care to stop trying to start fights and instead make your position clear?

Do you want to claim that the RE, merely because it is round, will result in objects being invisible regardless of height and distance; or do you want to claim that it will depend on height and distance, such that if you are far enough away and low enough down it will be obscured; or do you want to claim something else?


Do you realise that you and anyone else can perform them. Nothing I give out is complicated to set up or costs much, if at all.
And when the results show you are wrong, you just dismiss it as fake.

I offer up experiments for people to do. Most do not attempt and those that do are so dishonest it makes me sit back and smirk in bemusement.
And make assumptions about what the results will show, with those assumptions not matching reality.

The reason you people are here is to ensure nobody thinks outside the box;. That's what I believe.
And as repeatedly shown, what you believe is typically garbage.
I am here because I care about the truth, and will object when I see people like you spout pure garbage and continually refuse to justify it.
All it takes for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.

So while you continue to spout your garbage, I will continue to object.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 11, 2021, 11:54:51 PM


So that's a "No", you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
The experiments are there for people like you to do but you refuse or deliberately skew them and refuse to follow adjusted failsafes I have to put in..
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 12, 2021, 12:15:50 AM


So that's a "No", you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
The experiments are there for people like you to do but you refuse or deliberately skew them and refuse to follow adjusted failsafes I have to put in..

So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2021, 01:28:20 AM
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. You go into insult mode when you cannot justify your blatantly false claims.
Once they are refuted you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid reality, including repeatedly insulting anyone who dares to show you are wrong.

Nsahhh, I don't insult people. I may fire a few things back at digs I receive but I believe I'm entitled to that.
You see, I do ridicule the global Earth and all the nonsense to go with it and if you take that personal then you need to have a quite word with yourself.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2021, 01:32:16 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

The only major thing anyone would need if they want to do evacuation experiments is to buy a cheap bell jar and pump.
All the rest is minimal outlay to basically, nothing other than household goods that are readily available.


Obviously this isn't for people like yourself. This is for people that actually want to do real experiments to try and question the global nonsense. You are fixated on the globe so none of it applies to you.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 12, 2021, 08:07:36 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

The only major thing anyone would need if they want to do evacuation experiments is to buy a cheap bell jar and pump.
All the rest is minimal outlay to basically, nothing other than household goods that are readily available.


Obviously this isn't for people like yourself. This is for people that actually want to do real experiments to try and question the global nonsense. You are fixated on the globe so none of it applies to you.

You actually do need to do them. Because whenever anyone else does them, you just say they are faked.

You started out with this:

You simply level the tube horizontally towards the sea and sky.
Make sure you have a crosshair exactly over the front of the tube and ensure it is horizontally and vertically levelled and plumb.
The plumb part is not essential but the horizontally level line must be accurate.

Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.

People do the experiment, it doesn't offer the result you want, so you just say it was faked. Any result that is not what you claim, no matter how precise, you will just say it's fake. That's just the way you roll.

But if you did the experiment and showed your results, that would answer everything. I doubt you would claim that your experiment was faked.

In all these years, have you ever posted a result from one of your experiments that backs up one of your claims? Ever? If so, which one and where?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 12, 2021, 08:11:01 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

That's not true.

If anyone could do them, you would have.

So clearly you being unable to perform your own experiment show your statement to be false.

For whatever reason, it's too hard for you.

Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 12, 2021, 03:35:52 PM
So that's a "No", you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
The experiments are there for people like you to do but you refuse or deliberately skew them and refuse to follow adjusted failsafes I have to put in..
Or to express that more honestly, we do them and show they don't produce the results you claim, so you dismiss them as fake.
You will never do them yourself and post the results, because you can hardly accuse yourself of deliberately skewing the results to show you are wrong and dismiss your own evidence as fake.

Nsahhh, I don't insult people.
You do, repeatedly, like all the times you call people indoctrinated or brainwashed or the like.

Now again, can you make your position clear?
Or do you need to dishonestly keep it as clear as mud so you can pretend there is a problem when there is none?

Are you saying Earth being round is enough to make the lighthouse invisible regardless of distance, or are you saying it depends on height and distance?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 03:56:49 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

The only major thing anyone would need if they want to do evacuation experiments is to buy a cheap bell jar and pump.
All the rest is minimal outlay to basically, nothing other than household goods that are readily available.


Obviously this isn't for people like yourself. This is for people that actually want to do real experiments to try and question the global nonsense. You are fixated on the globe so none of it applies to you.

You actually do need to do them. Because whenever anyone else does them, you just say they are faked.

You started out with this:

You simply level the tube horizontally towards the sea and sky.
Make sure you have a crosshair exactly over the front of the tube and ensure it is horizontally and vertically levelled and plumb.
The plumb part is not essential but the horizontally level line must be accurate.

Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.

People do the experiment, it doesn't offer the result you want, so you just say it was faked. Any result that is not what you claim, no matter how precise, you will just say it's fake. That's just the way you roll.

But if you did the experiment and showed your results, that would answer everything. I doubt you would claim that your experiment was faked.

In all these years, have you ever posted a result from one of your experiments that backs up one of your claims? Ever? If so, which one and where?
You seem to get mixed up.
You can do a million experiments and show me and I won't believe a word you say. You've proved what you are.
I'm talking about genuine people.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 03:58:40 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

That's not true.

If anyone could do them, you would have.

So clearly you being unable to perform your own experiment show your statement to be false.

For whatever reason, it's too hard for you.
They're not too hard for you but you refuse to do legitimate experiments.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 03:59:24 AM

Or to express that more honestly, we do them and show they don't produce the results you claim, so you dismiss them as fake.

Actually, you don't.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 13, 2021, 04:57:37 AM


So I take it that's a definite "No" that you will never show the results of any of your experiments?
I don't need to.
Anyone can do the experiments. Can't you get this into your head?

Anyone can do my experiments. They do not need big laboratory set ups or expense.

That's not true.

If anyone could do them, you would have.

So clearly you being unable to perform your own experiment show your statement to be false.

For whatever reason, it's too hard for you.
They're not too hard for you but you refuse to do legitimate experiments.

Until you do them yourself and actually show what your think is wrong, you've got zero credibility here.

The fact you refuse to perform and publish your own results shows that you know they won't back you up, which is why you constantly avoid doing them.  I mean, how hard is it to look through a tube?   ::)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 05:07:14 AM
Until you do them yourself and actually show what your think is wrong, you've got zero credibility here.

Luckily I do not require anything from people like you so my credibility is firmly intact with those who understand what I'm about.
You carry on trying whatever way you see fit to have a pop and I'll just smile.


Quote from: JJA

The fact you refuse to perform and publish your own results shows that you know they won't back you up, which is why you constantly avoid doing them.  I mean, how hard is it to look through a tube?   ::)
You're free to think what you want and I'm absolutely ok with it.

If you can't understand or perform legitimate experiments then that's on you, not me.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 13, 2021, 05:16:10 AM
Until you do them yourself and actually show what your think is wrong, you've got zero credibility here.

Luckily I do not require anything from people like you so my credibility is firmly intact with those who understand what I'm about.
You carry on trying whatever way you see fit to have a pop and I'll just smile.

The smile of the blissfully ignorant. 

If you don't require anything from us, why do you constantly keep demanding explanations and trying so hard to claim everything we do is lies and trickery?

When you could just do the experiment yourself and show is.

You have spent MONTHS arguing about this when you could just show your work.

Quote from: JJA

The fact you refuse to perform and publish your own results shows that you know they won't back you up, which is why you constantly avoid doing them.  I mean, how hard is it to look through a tube?   ::)
You're free to think what you want and I'm absolutely ok with it.

If you can't understand or perform legitimate experiments then that's on you, not me.

If you can't understand or perform experiments then that's on you, not me.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 06:21:29 AM


If you don't require anything from us, why do you constantly keep demanding explanations and trying so hard to claim everything we do is lies and trickery?

Try this....
Back out and never bother with me and see if I require anything from you.
Or stop whining like a nasty little boy.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Platonius21 on March 13, 2021, 07:20:34 AM
Luckily I do not require anything from people like you so my credibility is firmly intact with those who understand what I'm about.

Ummm, so who is it that your credibility is firmly intact with? No one here seems to be supporting what you say, in case you had not noticed.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sokarul on March 13, 2021, 07:28:28 AM
Toronto is flooding.


(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3MA-VRdnM8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 13, 2021, 07:53:48 AM


If you don't require anything from us, why do you constantly keep demanding explanations and trying so hard to claim everything we do is lies and trickery?

Try this....
Back out and never bother with me and see if I require anything from you.
Or stop whining like a nasty little boy.

Is this what you have been reduced too?

If you can't handle your ideas being challenged, maybe the solution isn't telling everyone to 'back out' but stop making crazy assertions in the first place.  Or at the very least, back them up with some facts or evidence.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 09:32:55 AM
Luckily I do not require anything from people like you so my credibility is firmly intact with those who understand what I'm about.

Ummm, so who is it that your credibility is firmly intact with? No one here seems to be supporting what you say, in case you had not noticed.
You are a few people on a forum going against me. Are you serious?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 09:35:36 AM


If you don't require anything from us, why do you constantly keep demanding explanations and trying so hard to claim everything we do is lies and trickery?

Try this....
Back out and never bother with me and see if I require anything from you.
Or stop whining like a nasty little boy.

Is this what you have been reduced too?

If you can't handle your ideas being challenged, maybe the solution isn't telling everyone to 'back out' but stop making crazy assertions in the first place.  Or at the very least, back them up with some facts or evidence.
I'm fine and happy with my lot.
You decide what you want.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 13, 2021, 12:22:24 PM


If you don't require anything from us, why do you constantly keep demanding explanations and trying so hard to claim everything we do is lies and trickery?

Try this....
Back out and never bother with me and see if I require anything from you.
Or stop whining like a nasty little boy.

Is this what you have been reduced too?

If you can't handle your ideas being challenged, maybe the solution isn't telling everyone to 'back out' but stop making crazy assertions in the first place.  Or at the very least, back them up with some facts or evidence.
I'm fine and happy with my lot.
You decide what you want.

So you don't know what the edge of a ball is, so to you it just doesn't exists?  That's what you're happy with?

What happens in your head when you look at the edge of a ball like in my photo below?  Do you say...

"It doesn't look like anything to me."

(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Platonius21 on March 13, 2021, 02:03:26 PM
Luckily I do not require anything from people like you so my credibility is firmly intact with those who understand what I'm about.

Ummm, so who is it that your credibility is firmly intact with? No one here seems to be supporting what you say, in case you had not noticed.
You are a few people on a forum going against me. Are you serious?

The point is, there is no one supporting your position.  Why do you imagine that is?  It seems like a lonely place to be.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 04:11:56 PM


So you don't know what the edge of a ball is, so to you it just doesn't exists?  That's what you're happy with?

What happens in your head when you look at the edge of a ball like in my photo below?  Do you say...

"It doesn't look like anything to me."

(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
There is no edge to a ball. How many times do you need to get this?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 04:16:49 PM


The point is, there is no one supporting your position.  Why do you imagine that is?  It seems like a lonely place to be.
First of all I don't need anyone to support my position.
Secondly, I'm up against global minded people, so I'm under no illusions about no support.

I leave it up to each individual to make their own assumptions/judgements and I do not require them to back me up.
I think most people are well rehearsed in the art of being attacked if they ever go against any global model and trimmings.

I have my thoughts and people can silently nod in agreement or they can silently disagree. And then there's the typing posse who like to spend much of their time trying psychological warfare.

It's the nature of the beast and I'm ok with all of it.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2021, 04:27:46 PM
You can do a million experiments and show me and I won't believe a word you say.
And that is the problem. If an experiment shows you are wrong, you reject it as fake.

Or to express that more honestly, we do them and show they don't produce the results you claim, so you dismiss them as fake.
Actually, you don't.
Actually, WE do.
You are the one who doesn't seem to want to do any experiments, at least not with posting the results.
And again, we all know why. You can't dismiss results you post as fake.

And you know the experiments so easily show you are wrong.

There is no edge to a ball. How many times do you need to get this?
It isn't an issue of us needing to "get it".
It is a case of you continually spouting obvious BS.
The simple fact that you can look at a ball and see a region that is the ball and a region that is not the ball, without anything getting in the way, shows beyond any doubt, that it DOES have an edge.

But you need to keep on lying and pretending it doesn't, or your risk your entire house of cards to come crashing down.

That's the problem when you build a model based upon lies rather than evidence.
It is also why you need to keep on dodging simple questions and continually refuse to make your position clear.

Now again, are you saying the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon your distance to it, its height and your elevation, in 100% accordance with what is observed in reality, and thus there is no problem for the RE in this regards; or are you claiming that the RE, simply because it is round, will make it impossible to see the lighthouse, regardless of distance, height and elevation; or something else?

Quit deflecting and make your position clear.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 04:30:49 PM

 If an experiment shows you are wrong, you reject it as fake.

I think that applies to you people.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2021, 04:56:57 PM
If an experiment shows you are wrong, you reject it as fake.
I think that applies to you people.
How could it, when you refuse to provide any experimental results?

Now going to grow up and clarify your position?
Are you saying the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon your distance to it, its height and your elevation, in 100% accordance with what is observed in reality, and thus there is no problem for the RE in this regards; or are you claiming that the RE, simply because it is round, will make it impossible to see the lighthouse, regardless of distance, height and elevation; or something else?

Quit deflecting and make your position clear.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2021, 05:00:41 PM

How could it
How could what?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 13, 2021, 05:22:51 PM
If an experiment shows you are wrong, you reject it as fake.
I think that applies to you people.
How could it, when you refuse to provide any experimental results?

Now going to grow up and clarify your position?
Are you saying the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon your distance to it, its height and your elevation, in 100% accordance with what is observed in reality, and thus there is no problem for the RE in this regards; or are you claiming that the RE, simply because it is round, will make it impossible to see the lighthouse, regardless of distance, height and elevation; or something else?

Quit deflecting and make your position clear.
How could what?
Grow up, stop playing dumb and make your position clear. If you can't, this is not the place for you.

Are you saying the ability to see a lighthouse on a RE is dependent upon your distance to it, its height and your elevation, in 100% accordance with what is observed in reality, and thus there is no problem for the RE in this regards; or are you claiming that the RE, simply because it is round, will make it impossible to see the lighthouse, regardless of distance, height and elevation; or something else?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2021, 06:58:06 AM

Grow up, stop playing dumb and make your position clear. If you can't, this is not the place for you.

You don't get to decide what place is for me.
You have the ability to ignore me and cast me aside as a childish nutter, or whatever.
If you want to continue spending the majority of your time being nasty and having digs, then do so.
If you want to engage in questions and answers then learn to accept answers, even if they mean nothing to you...rather than spending all your time telling me I do not answer.

Your choice.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JJA on March 14, 2021, 07:46:46 AM


So you don't know what the edge of a ball is, so to you it just doesn't exists?  That's what you're happy with?

What happens in your head when you look at the edge of a ball like in my photo below?  Do you say...

"It doesn't look like anything to me."

(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
There is no edge to a ball. How many times do you need to get this?

How many times will you dodge the question?

What do you call the separation between the globe and the background in that picture?  What is that?  Do you have a word for it? If it's not an edge... it is a... what?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Stash on March 14, 2021, 07:50:48 AM


The point is, there is no one supporting your position.  Why do you imagine that is?  It seems like a lonely place to be.
First of all I don't need anyone to support my position.
Secondly, I'm up against global minded people, so I'm under no illusions about no support.

I leave it up to each individual to make their own assumptions/judgements and I do not require them to back me up.
I think most people are well rehearsed in the art of being attacked if they ever go against any global model and trimmings.

I have my thoughts and people can silently nod in agreement or they can silently disagree. And then there's the typing posse who like to spend much of their time trying psychological warfare.

It's the nature of the beast and I'm ok with all of it.

It's not just the angry globalists that don't support your position, even other FE/Alternative Earth Shape folks seem to scoff at your musings. Going all the way back to your short time spent at the cluesforum back in 2013 this was a response to your Denpressure from a member who I think was a concave earth believer:

"No offense intended to sceppy or others who truly believe the world we inhabit is a giant artificial construction, with precision functions like an enormous clock, but I don't think it meets the requirements of the forum to just spout off such wild assumptions and then pretend that the logic is hard to follow and that's why no reason or scientific examination can be given.

It makes it look like you just had an idea that you are trying to force the world to fit into. If you really stumbled on something true, you shouldn't have to be cheeky about it; you should be able to just carefully lay out, with as few wacky metaphors as possible, the principles by which your mechanistic/measurable results work. You should be able to point to the concepts and some repeated/repeatable tests and explain how you arrived at your thinking.
"
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641&hilit=denpressure&start=15

It's kinda funny that the same sentiment is still rattling around 8 years later. Seemingly, nothing has changed in all that time. And I can't find support for your musings from anyone regardless of whether they are non-indoctrinated alternative thinkers or not. Not saying you're wrong because no one supports your position, but just that you seem to be the only one who understands your position and finds it viable. At a minimum, you obviously have a hard time communicating your ideas.


Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 14, 2021, 02:32:26 PM
Grow up, stop playing dumb and make your position clear. If you can't, this is not the place for you.
You don't get to decide what place is for me.
I can judge if this place is for you or not. What I can't do is force you out.
You clearly have no interest in debating your claims, and instead want to keep your position as clear as mud so you can continue to dishonestly pretend there is a problem with the RE, when you know that making your position clear will show it is either an outright lie, with no justification at all, or that the RE is in accordance with what is observed in reality.
As you have no interest in honest debate, a debate forum is clearly not the place for you.

If you want to continue spending the majority of your time being nasty and having digs, then do so.
If you want to engage in questions and answers then learn to accept answers, even if they mean nothing to you...rather than spending all your time telling me I do not answer.

Your choice.
There you go projecting again.
You are the one who spends their time being nasty and insulting others, not me.

I have repeatedly tried to get you to actually focus on the topic and deal with what you have claimed.

As for accepting your answers, perhaps when you start actually answering the questions asked of you, rather than repeatedly deflecting from them, such as by this tactic of throwing out pathetic insults, or answering a DIFFERENT question, or provide a non-answer with a few words which do not address the issue, then I will stop stating the fact that you haven't answered them and instead accept that you have answered them.


Now again, are you going to make your position clear so you can actually attempt to debate?
Or will you continue with the childish insults and deflection?

Once more, are you claiming what the RE actually indicates, that your ability to see a distant object will depend upon its height, your elevation and the distance between you and the object, such that an observation of a distant lighthouse would match that stated by the OP?
Or are you claiming what the RE in no way indicates, where the mere fact that Earth is round will magically result in the lighthouse being invisible?
Or are you claiming something else?

Once you have stated just what you are claiming, you can deal with the logical consequences of that.
Until you do, the debate can't really progress at all.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2021, 02:46:03 AM


So you don't know what the edge of a ball is, so to you it just doesn't exists?  That's what you're happy with?

What happens in your head when you look at the edge of a ball like in my photo below?  Do you say...

"It doesn't look like anything to me."

(https://i.imgur.com/D1G1rVI.jpg)
There is no edge to a ball. How many times do you need to get this?

How many times will you dodge the question?

What do you call the separation between the globe and the background in that picture?  What is that?  Do you have a word for it? If it's not an edge... it is a... what?
Shaded curve?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2021, 02:48:08 AM


The point is, there is no one supporting your position.  Why do you imagine that is?  It seems like a lonely place to be.
First of all I don't need anyone to support my position.
Secondly, I'm up against global minded people, so I'm under no illusions about no support.

I leave it up to each individual to make their own assumptions/judgements and I do not require them to back me up.
I think most people are well rehearsed in the art of being attacked if they ever go against any global model and trimmings.

I have my thoughts and people can silently nod in agreement or they can silently disagree. And then there's the typing posse who like to spend much of their time trying psychological warfare.

It's the nature of the beast and I'm ok with all of it.

It's not just the angry globalists that don't support your position, even other FE/Alternative Earth Shape folks seem to scoff at your musings. Going all the way back to your short time spent at the cluesforum back in 2013 this was a response to your Denpressure from a member who I think was a concave earth believer:

"No offense intended to sceppy or others who truly believe the world we inhabit is a giant artificial construction, with precision functions like an enormous clock, but I don't think it meets the requirements of the forum to just spout off such wild assumptions and then pretend that the logic is hard to follow and that's why no reason or scientific examination can be given.

It makes it look like you just had an idea that you are trying to force the world to fit into. If you really stumbled on something true, you shouldn't have to be cheeky about it; you should be able to just carefully lay out, with as few wacky metaphors as possible, the principles by which your mechanistic/measurable results work. You should be able to point to the concepts and some repeated/repeatable tests and explain how you arrived at your thinking.
"
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641&hilit=denpressure&start=15

It's kinda funny that the same sentiment is still rattling around 8 years later. Seemingly, nothing has changed in all that time. And I can't find support for your musings from anyone regardless of whether they are non-indoctrinated alternative thinkers or not. Not saying you're wrong because no one supports your position, but just that you seem to be the only one who understands your position and finds it viable. At a minimum, you obviously have a hard time communicating your ideas.
You're getting massively desperate now.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2021, 02:49:26 AM
I can judge if this place is for you or not. What I can't do is force you out.

Judge all you want.
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: JackBlack on March 15, 2021, 02:52:47 AM
You're getting massively desperate now.
No, that is certainly still you, desperately avoiding the fact that round objects have an edge, and desperately avoiding making your position clear, because as soon as you do you either admit there is no problem for the RE, or you spout pure nonsense which you cannot substantiate at all.

Again, are you going to make your position clear?
If not, what is the point in you being here in a debate forum?

Once more, are you claiming what the RE actually indicates, that your ability to see a distant object will depend upon its height, your elevation and the distance between you and the object, such that an observation of a distant lighthouse would match that stated by the OP?
Or are you claiming what the RE in no way indicates, where the mere fact that Earth is round will magically result in the lighthouse being invisible?
Or are you claiming something else?
Title: Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
Post by: Platonius21 on March 15, 2021, 06:22:56 AM
If not, what is the point in you being here in a debate forum?
Why is Scepti here?  Where else is someone with his crazy positions going to find someone to talk to? He's probably without friends, conf