Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JackBlack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 455
1
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 01:55:52 PM »
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Plenty of people have asked for something.
And got it.
Stop lying.
We haven't got anything like that from you.
Instead you just ignore the requests, or deflect with some other ridiculous picture rather than what we asked for.

On the subject of diagrams, I have repeatedly asked you to show what you think it would look like for a RE.
But it seems you cannot provide that. Instead you just repeatedly dismiss what is provided to you with no justification at all.

So I'll ask again, just what do you think a 180 degree vertical FOV level view on a RE would look like?

i.e. if an observer/camera is standing on a RE, looking out level, with a 180 degree vertical FOV (i.e. their FOV extends from looking straight down (seeing ground), through looking straight out level, to looking straight up (seeing sky)) then what do they see?
Can you draw this?
I even provided you a template to start:

The ground is there at the bottom and the sky is there at the top.
All you needed to do was fill in the middle.

Likewise, I asked you to provide a substitute for this diagram:

And this one which is related to it:

As you seem to reject them accurately showing what would be expected on a RE.


Just where do you think you have provided a diagram that people have asked for?

And then there are the non-diagram based things, like the argument I have repeatedly provided and asked you to either accept it and accept that you are wrong and that the RE would have a horizon and that it could easily be seen through a level scope depending on the circumstances (i.e. height of observer, FOV of scope), or actually clearly explain which step you think is wrong and why:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.


And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 01:45:50 PM »
Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
I would say it is a line.
It exists in reality. It is made by the boundary between then 2 colours.

Quote from: Solarwind

I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.
You do and you have.
Stop just repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence that Earth is round.
It is quite clear we are not just accepting what we are told.
Instead we are accepting what the abundant evidence shows.

Nothing you do or see, tells you the Earth is what you're told
Again, stop repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence.
Just some related to this thread includes the fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level when you are at a high enough altitude.
Then there are the examples of the visual behaviour of objects near the horizon, where the bottom of the object is obscured, as it is hidden by Earth.

You have no explanation for how this happens on a FE.
You outright reject the first example, with no justification at all, and all the attempts at an explanation for the second have been refuted, with a clear explanation of why they are wrong, and no counter from you.


So no, what is clear is that you rely upon extremely dishonest and pathetic dismissal of all the evidence showing Earth is round so you can pretend Earth is flat, meanwhile you have literally nothing to back up that insane claim of yours other than outright lies.

Nothing scientific about that.


As long as legitimate questions are being asked of science by genuine scientists, then we get to debate as to whether one bunch of questions against another, reveals legitimate answers from one, or a mixture of answers from most.

And this is where we're at, with likely a lot of dishonesty in the middle of it all that does not come from genuine scientists.
That's right, all that dishonesty in the middle comes from you and others like you, with you dismissing evidence as fake and ignoring rational objections to your outright lies.

It's about distinguishing fact from the fiction or...at the very least looking for the best guess scenario, which becomes a genuine hypothesis/theory.
And that has been done.
Scientists have realised that Earth is round.
That was settled quite some time ago, and no actual challenge to it has ever been presented.

with this space and global nonsense, we are not dealing with real scientists...in my honest opinion.
There is nothing honest about your opinion.
You have had your lies exposed repeatedly, and you don't care and instead just keep on repeating them.

Quote from: Solarwind

 Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words.  Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs.
Have a look in your mirror.
Why?
The RE side has provided diagrams. Diagrams which clearly show your claims to be outright lies.
Yet rather than rationally engage with them, you just deflect/dismiss in whatever way you can.

When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual
You repeatedly spout your outright lies as facts.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that all the evidence that shows you are wrong are fake. You just outright dismiss them as a conjob.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the horizon always rises to eye level. You just outright state it as a fact, even though it is nothing more than a outright lie.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE would not have a horizon. You just outright lie and claim it would not.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE couldn't obstruct the view to distant objects. You just repeatedly assert it can't.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the bottom of distant objects being obscured by the Earth is impossible on a RE and instead is entirely consistent with a RE. Instead you state it as a fact.

And all these outright lies of yours have been torn to shreds.

Weirdly you cannot prove any of what you argue for and all your stuff is handed to you, on a plate.
And there you go projecting.
Again, we have provided plenty to support the reality of the RE. We are not just taking whatever is handed to us on a plate.
Meanwhile, you cannot prove or even defend any of the nonsense you spout.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: Today at 12:46:32 PM »
So why are you bothering?
I have explained that to you before.
Unlike you, I care about the truth.
When I see you (or anyone else post pure nonsense), I will object.
That includes REers making nonsense arguments for the FE.

Meanwhile, if you are happy to explain, and aren't struggling, why do you still not explain such a basic part of your model?
Why do you still refuse to address the massive contradiction in your model that shows it is pure nonsense?


Once more, we know there is a pressure gradient. This is directly observed.

We also know that if it is just air pushing each layer down, then the force and pressure remains the same all the way through the stack.
This has been explained repeatedly.
If there is no bulk motion, there is no net force. That means the force pushing down from above needs to be the same as the force pushing up from below.
And as they need an equal and opposite reactionary force, that means the force pushing down from above needs to be the same as the force pushing down to below.
The only way to have the force increase is by having an extra force act on each layer of air, that is a force in addition to the force from the air above.

This means you need something other than the air pushing down on air.
i.e. we KNOW that there is a force which acts on the air to push it down which is not simply the air.

And then the big issue for you is now that you have a force acting on each layer of air to move it down, why can't this force act on other objects as well? i.e. instead of air pushing objects down for no reason at all and with massive contradictions, this force acts on everything and pushes everything down.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 03:50:44 AM »
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.
What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.
Plenty of people have asked for something.
An example I asked for was what a 180 degree FOV would look like for someone looking out level on the RE, clearly showing how it changes from ground below to sky above.

As another, since you seem to hate my diagram so much, draw what you think it should look like.

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.
This still isn't a definition like was asked for.
And that also makes no sense. You are saying it is a theoretical line, but saying it is true.
That is a contradiction which would mean there is no horizon.

So care to try to provide an actual definition?

And of course, you still ignored the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

And you yet again ignored the picture clearly showing what one would expect on a RE; where the horizon exists, can still be in the FOV of someone looking looking out level, with a clear horizon, beyond which Earth is hidden, and the bottom of objects are hidden, just like reality.
Again, can you find any actual problem with it?

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: Today at 12:57:19 AM »
I'm far from struggling. I'm more than happy to explain to people who genuinely want to understand.
Really?
Because I am yet to see you explain anything.
You only seem to be willing to preach to those who are willing to accept whatever BS you say without thinking or quesitoning.

You do not fit into this category.
And more pathetic insults.
I have shown that I do fit into the category that you have actually described, those with a genuine interest in understanding.
I have done this by actually listening to your model, and asking for how it explains various things, and keeping those things in mind with later things which causes a conflict because you contradict yourself.

If you have a model which works to describe reality, I want to know and understand it.
But that doesn't mean I will just accept whatever nonsense you say.

The only reason you say I don't want to understand is because you cannot address the issues raised because your model simply doesn't work.

The category I don't fit into is the one you actually want, that described above, the fools who will just accept whatever you say.
I don't fit into that category because I actually care about the truth, unlike you.

So if you really are more than happy to explain and you aren't struggling at all, then answer one of the most basic issues of your model:
What makes air stack such that the pressure is greater the lower down in the stack you are?

Remember, it can't be the air. That is what you are trying to explain; and if we ignore what happens at the top, then if it was just each layer of air pushing down on the next, the pressure would be constant.
You need a force acting on each layer of air to cause the pressure to increase.

What is the source of this force?

Can you actually explain it? Or can you just insult and dismiss those who question your model?

It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to
No, it makes absolutely no sense because it directly contradicts itself as repeatedly explained.
You have no justification for why your air stacks.
This issue has been clearly shown to you repeatedly, and you just ignore it.
And that is just one of many issues.

We have raised numerous issues where your model contradicts reality or itself, and you have no answer and instead just ignore the issue entirely or find some way to deflect, or just insult us.

Once more, the issue is not us, it is you and your model.

because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?
See, this is also pure BS, and that has also been explained to you.

There is nothing in your nonsense which prevents it from working just as well on a globe.
You would have the RE as the foundation, with the air stacking by pure magic, just in spherical shells instead of flat layers, all the way out to the dome, which would be another spherical shell.

As you have provided no justification for what magic causes the air to stack, there is nothing stopping working just as well on the globe we live on.

So that clearly is not the reason.
The most likely reason so many people think it is nonsense is because it is nonsense, and you just refuse to admit it.

If it wasn't nonsense, you would have addressed the multitude of issues raised instead of ignoring them entirely or deflecting however you can.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 12:48:45 AM »
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
Of course we have a horizon. We just don't have one on what you believe, is your globe you supposedly walk upon.
We have the horizon because it is not a walking convex so called planet.
And again, you look for whatever pathetic BS you can to ignore the point.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon on the globe..
We have a horizon solely because Earth is round.
If Earth was flat we wouldn't have a horizon.

Once more, it has been repeatedly explained to you that we do, with a diagram like the one below, and with solid rational argument you cannot refute.
Here is the argument you refuse to engage with because you know it shows that you have been blatantly lying this entire time.
Are you going to admit there is nothing wrong with it yet? Or do the impossible and point out just what is wrong with it?
Or will you continue with the pathetic childish antics of repeatedly ignoring this argument that shows you are wrong and just asserting the same pathetic lies?

1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

Quote
You have no horizon on a globe

What is your definition of the word horizon then?  Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
So that's a no. You cannot answer a simple direct question.
All you can do is deflect.


You people use a hump to argue losing the bottom part of objects.
Stop lying.
You are the only one here pretending that.

The downwards curve of Earth is just fine at blocking the the more distant objects. We don't need it to rise up as a hump.

I've already told you where I'm at with your global efforts, in that
In that you are completely incapable of rationally defending any of your claims and instead you just repeat the same refuted lies and strawmen.

so why don't you explain your globe instead of making out I'm saying things that I'm clearly not.
Do you mean like we have done repeatedly, such as with the image you keep on ignoring because it so easily destroys your position?

Once more, we don't need a hump. Once more, look at this image:

The line in Red is the observer, with their level FOV indicated by the brown lines.

We clearly see Earth curving down from them.
We clearly see the purple line as well, this is a line tangent to Earth, and is the line of sight to the horizon.
We can clearly see that on the region of Earth between this purple line, and the brown line, Earth is visible.

But the region of Earth past where this purple line meets is hidden by Earth. Attempting to draw a line of sight to the observer from anywhere in the grey region below the purple line will have that line of sight intersect Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

An example is provided with the black line, the region of that black line below the purple line is shown in grey, as that is not visible by the observer.
We see that the downwards curve of Earth has obstructed the view to the bottom of the object, just like is observed in reality

Just what part of this extremely simple concept do you not understand?
Is it nothing at all and you actually understand it all and realise it clearly shows that you have been blatantly lying to us this entire time as you have no concern for the truth at all?

also ask him to show me which part of that drawing is looking horizontally level  and point out how that is.
I have done that repeatedly.
Yet you just continually look for whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss it and repeat the same lie.
The diagram above represents a person looking out level with a FOV of 90 degrees.

Yep,, I've already stated they converge many many times. Just not on a globe you think we walk upon.
Again, what magic stops convergence from working on a globe?
What magic prevents objects below you from appearing higher in your vision the further away they are?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Time dilation in horizontal light clock?
« on: November 28, 2020, 12:46:25 PM »
Doesnt a light clock move relative to the outside stationary observer and in his time frame t. This observer measures the velocity of the light clock in time t, not in dilated time t'. Anyway

No. That is what I have been repeatedly trying to explain.
t is the time in the reference frame.
That is the time measured for a clock cycle in that reference frame.

t' is that same time but as observed by an observer who sees the reference frame and clock moving.

That is why in that diagram you have the length being specified as s=vt'.

Quote
However, if we ignore that directionality?
I dont understand?
The directionality of the light along the path you have drawn.

As you have drawn it in Figure 1, you have light starting at the left side, moving up, reflecting and moving back down to hit the middle.
You then have more arrows showing it does from the right side downwards, reflecting off the bottom and then meeting in the middle.
It is the directionality of the light along this path I was talking about.

With this directionality, it is impossible as the light is teleporting.

However, if we ignore it and have it start on the left and just go to the right, then it is possible.

Option 2 is correct in all cases.
No it isn't.
I provided 2 examples, done with the correct relativistic calculations, where it is not.

And there are other justifications as well.

Your diagram allows the diamond to be squashed, giving us 2 extremes:
If theta1=0 and theta2=90 degrees, then this is the horizontal light cock, and will behave exactly like that.

If theta2=0 and theta1=90, then this is the vertical light clock and will behave exactly like that. This is inconsistent with option 2.
In fact, it is more consistent with figure 1, as with the length of the horizontal component being 0 there will be no asymmetry between the top and bottom. And as it needs to be on a sliding scale between them, there must be a case where it is like figure 2 as well.

And as shown above (in the figures I provided), when you take length contraction into it, you can even get it with a square. Without length contraction, this will only happen if v is equal to the speed of light for a square.

At high speed: Max distance a mirror A can cover in its round trip
Don't just focus on the round trip.
Focus on the trip from C to D to A.
Consider the following possibility.
The light, after reflecting of mirror C travels straight down, with only a vertical component to its velocity. It then reflects off mirror D and travels straight up to reach mirror A.
This is because during this time, mirror A has moved from its location, to the location where mirror C was.

Letting the distance from B to D = Lv, the light has travelled a distance of 2*(1/2)*Lv = Lv, and thus the time taken can be found by noting that c*t' = Lv.
Thus t'=Lv/c

Letting the distance from A to C = Lh', the mirror has travelled a distance of Lh', and thus v*t'=Lh
This means that v=Lh'/t' = Lh'/(Lv/c)=c*Lh'/Lv.

That means if we have a velocity of c*Lh'/Lv, we will get the light to bounce straight down and up.
Or to express it without fractions, we need:
v*Lv = c*Lh'

But before just jumping straight into that, we need to note that Lh is not the same as Lh'.
Lh is the clock frame, Lh' is the frame the outside observer is viewing it in.
Lh'=Lh*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Thus we need:
v*Lv = c*Lh*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

By squaring both sides we get:
v^2*Lv^2 = c^2*Lh^2*(1-v^2/c^2)
v^2*Lv^2 = c^2*Lh^2-c^2*Lh^2*v^2/c^2
v^2*Lv^2 = c^2*Lh^2-Lh^2*v^2
v^2*Lv^2 + Lh^2*v^2 = c^2*Lh^2
v^2*(Lv^2 + Lh^2) = c^2*Lh^2

Then taking the square root of both sides we get:
v*sqrt(Lv^2 + Lh^2) = c*Lh

i.e. we need v=c*Lh / sqrt(Lv^2 + Lh^2)

That is easily achievable and thus option 2 is not always correct.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« on: November 27, 2020, 08:14:54 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.
"And yet again" do you kiss your momma with that filthy keester.
Just what do you find wrong with what I have said?
This seems to be your MO.
You object to a RE and only provide a vague claim with 0 backing.

Whenever I put in the effort to try to verify those claims, I find that they have been grosly misstated and that there is no problem at all for the RE.
This was just another example of that.

You claim there is a video of seeing 1500 km from a plane. Yet the best I could find is that video. That video only has them seeing the tops of mountains 200 miles away.
As you have already pointed out, there is nothing wrong with that for RE.
(Also note that them being mountains means you could see them even further away, depending on their height, but that isn't needed here).

So do you have any evidence at all that you can see the ground 1500 km away from an airplane?
Or is it just wild speculation you use to pretend there is a problem for the RE?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Time dilation in horizontal light clock?
« on: November 27, 2020, 07:59:39 PM »
Quote
t is measured inside the frame moving with the clock.
In this frame, v makes no sense as it is measuring the velocity of this frame.
True but this is the same t in which a light clock moves with v in the right direction relative to an outside stationary observer whose clock was synchronized with the same light clock when it was stationary Right?
No, it isn't.
That is the point I am making.
The time t is only for the frame in which the clock is stationary. The clock is not moving in this frame.
The frame with the clock moving has t', not t.

Synchronising the clocks before motion doesn't help. This is because as soon as you accelerate the clock, that synchronisation is lost.
Due to time dilation, the clock will then appear to tick slower for the outside observer as it is now travelling at some velocity relative to it.
All that would do is introduce a third time, which while equal to t, doesn't describe the same thing.
That would be the purple dashed line in the graphs I presented. While the clock is stationary it matches the time taken. But when the clock is moving, for the outside observer that is just a portion of the cycle time.
Thus it is not the time taken for the light to bounce between the 2 mirrors.

So no, the only distance there is to calculate is s=v t'
The distance covered by the mirrors relative to the stationary observer, in the time it takes for the moving clock to complete a full cycle is s=v t'.
It is NOT v t. The only time it will ever be s=v t is when the clock is stationary and thus v=0 so s=0.

No idea if c can have components. Doesnt a pulse go under stress if it has unequal horizontal and vertical speed/velocities components?
That would require preferred directionality for the universe and would mean light could only ever propagate along those preferred directions.

All these components mean is that it is going in a particular direction. And you can happily rotate your reference.
For example, consider light propagating directly along the x axis. That has an x component of c and a y and z component of 0.
But you can rotate your reference, such that that X axis is along any direction, for example, at 30 degrees to the original x axis. Then the light will have a X component of c*cos(30deg) and a Y component of c*sin(30deg).

So there is nothing at all wrong with light having velocity components in orthogonal directions. All it means is that it isn't travelling aligned to the axes.
And there is no need for them to be equal, and not being equal would not induce stress.

Stress would only be induced by the velocity varying across the object. But as a photon is a point particle, that can't happen.

Similarly, there is no gravitational field underneath a moving light clock therefore what changes the components of the speed of a pulse or anything else (e.g. if a ball drops or it up and down motion)?
The only thing changing the speed is the mirrors causing it to reflect.
Otherwise it is just picking a different reference to measure the speed.

Even if it has a horizontal component then what path of a pulse (option 1 or option 2) would you choose for the light clock as shown below?
Option 2 is the closest.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 are fundamentally incorrect as it has the light teleporting.
The light path needs to be continuous, with the arrows indicating the direction continuing to point along the path of the light.

However, if we ignore that directionality, you will have either option 1 or option 2 depending on the speed.
For low speeds you will have something similar to option 2, for high speeds you will have something similar to option 1.
This is not a contradiction as the light isn't just moving horizontally, and the vertical speed allows it to continue moving forwards but down.
There is also a case where it actually bounces straight down and up. This is the crossover point between the previous 2 cases. This occurs when v=c*Lh'/Lv, where Lh' has had the relativistic contraction applied, i.e. Lh'=Lh*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
This means it occurs when v=c*Lh/sqrt(Lh^2+Lv^2), or v=c*Lh/Ld, where d is the diagonal length.
For a square rotated 45 degrees, this amounts to ~70% the speed of light. (c/sqrt(2))

There is also the issue of just how "no time dilation" would work.

The best case would be no special relativity and having the speed of light vary.
In which case it would be like having the system translate along.

Here are some GIFs for you, I'll just have a simple system which is a square rotated 45 degrees (note, the light travels at a constant speed in each gif, but differently between the gifs):
First, the stationary clock:

Now, a low speed one (50% the speed of light):

We notice that this matches option 2. But we can also hopefully realise that this needs to be on a spectrum between the stationary clock and some other end point.
So if we keep increasing the speed, the triangle at the bottom will shrink.
Here is the ~70% of the speed of light:

We see that this has hit the sweet spot where light just goes down and up for the bottom part of the trip.
And logically we can keep going.
This is 90% of the speed of light:

We see that now the light doesn't travel to the left at all.
But there is still no violation of any physical laws, as the light is merely changing direction.

But I can also make some for the cases where we completely ignore relativity.
If we do, and allow the speed of light to vary and ignore length contraction, we end up with this for a system travelling at 50% of the speed of light:

Here we notice light massively change speeds to go to the bottom section.
And here it is for 90%:

Again, a massive change in speed, more so than last time.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 27, 2020, 01:48:45 PM »
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
The justification has been provided in multiple ways and all you have been able to do in anyway against them is just repeat the same pathetic lie.

If you wish to assert that the globe would not have a horizon, and have any shred of integrity, you need to deal with these multiple arguments which show beyond any doubt that the RE WOULD have a horizon.

And the simplest part is asking just what you think the transition from ground/sea to sky should look like on a globe, the very simple questions I started with.
Remember, you have already admitting that on a globe, looking straight down, you would see the ground. You were effectively forced into that to stop your position looking like pure insanity with you claiming the RE should be invisible. But now you have admitted that, and there is no backing out.
Likewise you accept if you look up you see sky.
So what happens between?

Unless you can actually address this and actually refute all the arguments showing beyond any doubt that a RE would have a horizon, all you are doing is showing everyone that you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend that Earth is flat.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 27, 2020, 01:48:11 PM »
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
Again, it isn't us struggling.
We have made the problem with your lies clear, yet you continue to ignore these problems and pretend there is none.

But if you truly think it is us struggling, then what we are "struggling" (by which I really mean we are repeatedly showing you are wrong) with are a few key points:
A - What is wrong with the argument I have presented to you, which you have repeatedly ignored?
According to this argument, you are wrong, as the RE would have a horizon and when close to the surface that would be imperceptibly different from level. You have repeatedly ignored this argument, and haven't shown a single thing wrong with it.

Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

Can you point out exactly what is wrong with this argument?
And again, before you appeal to a level scope, that is dealt with at the end. If you need it explicit:
9 -  Thus looking through a level scope with a vertical FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, standing 2 m above Earth, will allow one to see the horizon through this level scope, furthermore, looking through one with a FOV of 2.5 degrees would have the horizon appear to only be 1.8% of the FOV below level, and that still relies upon you having it perfectly level.


B - Just what is wrong the diagram I presented? It clearly shows an observer looking out level, with a FOV of 90 degrees, and still clearly seeing the horizon. It also shows how this physical horizon obstructs the bottom of distant objects.

Here is the diagram again:


And before you repeat the same lie, IT IS A LEVEL VIEW! That purple line is simply one line out of many in the FOV. The FOV is bounded by the brown lines, which is symmetric about the line extending horizontally from the observer, and thus it is a level view.

C - Why do so many photos, found from so many sources, clearly show the horizon to be below the convergence point, below eye level? And no, just dismissing them all as fake is not good enough. Clearly explain why you think they are fake, and no, them showing you are wrong is not good enough either.

D - The closest thing you have to an actual argument against being able to see the ground on the RE is appealing to the fact that it is below you and below your line of sight. But this argument applies equally to the FE. So what magic allows the ground to rise up into your FOV on a FE but doesn't allow the same for a RE?
You can't use perspective, because that would work for both.

E - What magic prevents us from seeing the bottom of distant objects on your hypothetical FE? All the available evidence indicates a real physical horizon, with the distant object having its base below that horizon, likely due to the curvature of Earth.
We know it can't simply be the atmosphere scattering the light, as that would merely create a blur which obscured the bottom of the object and blurs the sea/ground into the sky. It would not magically cause the entire building to appear lower.
We know it can't simply be limited resolution, as that would equally obscure the top and the bottom (technically it would obscure the top slightly more as it is further away). It also wouldn't magically lower the base, instead the entire building should just appear smaller, but still entirely above the horizon. And perhaps most important of all, using a better optics system doesn't allow more to be brought into view, even though it does allow small objects before the horizon (which limited resolution has rendered unresolvable) to be well resolved.
We know it can't simply be that the light reflected off the base isn't strong enough, as that would simply make it dark. It wouldn't magically lower the base to have it appear below the horizon. The best you would get is a dark band in your vision. It also would be dependent upon sensitivity to light, with more sensitive optics allowing you to see further down. That would mean simply changing the exposure setting on a camera should control how much is visible.

You will notice a common theme missing from all the explanations, what makes the building appear to have its base submerged?

Does that clear up the issues that YOU are struggling with, that YOU are struggling to come up with an excuse to dismiss to have it match your flat fantasy and reject the RE model you cannot find fault with, that you wish to pretend we are struggling with as you can't provide any rational objection?

I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.
Yes you are.
You are repeatedly lying about the RE.
You are repeatedly lying about reality.
You are repeatedly ignoring arguments and explanations presented only to then ask the same stupid already answered question again and again.
You are repeatedly misrepresenting what we have said or provided.
You are repeatedly dismissing evidence as fake and manipulated, even though the sole justification is that it shows you are wrong.

You are the one being extremely dishonest.
And that dishonesty seems to be the only effort you are willing to put in.

So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
And more pathetic dishonesty.
No, we are still using the same round Earth, constantly curving down from any point.
But if you rotate it, it looks like a hump.
That is because you kept on appealing to it curving up.

But thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.
The sole distinction between those 2 diagrams is that one has been rotated and had the lines turned into stick figures.
Do you see a hump in the second diagram? No. So why pretend anyone is appealing to a hump.
That is just to try to explain it to you, because you don't seem to understand how the RE model works at all, or how sight works at all.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 27, 2020, 04:46:22 AM »
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.
You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up.
Pathetic semantics.
The meaning is clear. You are claiming things that we have not said to pretend that is a problem with the RE.
You were the one who said it rises up, not us. You did this to pretend there was a contradiction, when there was none.
You do this because you have no rational objection to the RE model.

This diagram shows you are wrong.

How about you own up to your mistakes for once?

While you are at it you can also admit your claims about the horizon are pure BS?

Unless you have found a problem with the argument you have been repeatedly ignoring:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

And once more, due to how you continually avoid simple questions and simple arguments, it is quite clear we are not the ones with the problem here.

You people seem to think you can see over a curve from a horizontally level stand point, looking through a lens...so show me.
You mean like the diagram I have already provided?

A globe, told and sold, is the biggest lie told to us.
Is that why you are completely incapable of pointing out a single fault with it and instead need to repeat the same refuted lies and repeatedly ignore/dismiss the refutation of those lies?

It sure seems like you are the one trying to sell us a lie here.

Exactly the same principle.  Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball.  Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface.  Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see.  Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.

What happens?  The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball.  What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum
Again, WHY SHOULD THAT MAGICALLY CHANGE ANYTHING???
Yet again you go for pathetic dismissal rather than any rational objection.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 27, 2020, 04:36:03 AM »
Put more effort in if you're struggling.
The only one who is struggling here is you.
You cannot justify your model due to the massive flaws in it.
But rather than admit that or attempt to you just continually insult people.
Put in some effort and actually address the issues showing your model to be nonsense.

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Stop twisting it, you're only frustrating yourself.

Make up your mind what I supposedly said because you've changed it yet again.
Again, I'm not the one twisting it.
I have shown beyond any doubt that you are contradicting yourself. Now you are pulling the same standard dishonest BS to try to deflect away from it.
Grow up.

Once more, answer the simple question:
You have a layer of air. It is being pushed down from above, and it is pushing down the layer below.
Is it pushing down the layer below with the same force, a greater force or a lesser force than it is being pushed down by the layer above?

Either way, you have a massive problem.
In order to make it match reality, you need a greater force, but then you need to explain where this extra force comes from.
Without it, your model is DOA.

Now going to stop with the pathetic BS and deal with this issue?

14
At the beginning of eclipse, before going southwards, rahu's position is being at higher latitude north while the sun's posisition is being at celestial Atlantic ocean.
Why don't you try drawing a diagram showing where Rahu is and where the sun is, and how that changes during the eclipse?

And then explain why no one has ever observed Rahu.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 27, 2020, 12:51:14 AM »
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.

You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
This picture clearly shows Earth curving down, yet still hiding the bottom of the distant object.

Going to admit you were wrong with that claim?

And of course, there is still the blatant lie right from the start that you haven't explained, what magic causes the horizon on the RE to be invisible?
The diagram shows that the horizon does exist and would be visible.

It also shows how you can see ground in front of you (while it is still below your line of sight), even though you can't see the ground directly below you through your current FOV.

The logical you are yet to present any challenge to shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, yet you still haven't addressed it. So it is quite clearly you who is dodging, not us. Here is the argument yet again. Figured out anything wrong with it yet? Or will you finally be honest and admit you were wrong?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.


And then as you seem to think the ground being below you means you can't see it, you need to explain how you magically see it on a FE even though it is below you.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 27, 2020, 12:47:02 AM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.
How about right in that quote chain.
You literally said that it isn't larger, and then immediately after said it is larger.
You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.
Show me where I said the force is larger above than below in terms of atmospheric stacking.
Show me in bold, Mr twister.
I'm not twisting anything. Yet again you come up with whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting your model doesn't work, and admit you contradicted yourself.

I never said that you said the force is larger above.
I asked how it is larger below.
You then claimed that it isn't larger and that straight after claimed it was.
And because it is so obvious where your contradiction is, you are trying to get out of it by setting up pathetic strawmen for you to defeat.

And again, this is a massive problem for your model, your model prevents it from being larger, but reality demands it is.

So yet again, this same problem is yet to be solved by you and your model:
Consider any 3 layers in sequence, the bottom, the middle and the top.
We know from reality that the bottom layer is at a greater pressure than the middle which is at a greater pressure than the layer above.
This means the downwards force on the bottom layer from the middle layer needs to be larger than the downwards force on the middle layer from the top layer.
But this raises the question of where does this extra force come from?

If it is only the air pushing down, then the top pushes down with some force, and the middle will simply transfer that force and push down on the bottom with the exact same force.
There is no increase of force in your model.

So again, WHAT OTHER THAN THE AIR IS PUSHING DOWN ON EACH LAYER OF AIR TO CAUSE THE FORCE TO INCREASE?

Can you actually address this MASSIVE problem for your model?

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.
How about you people try harder at learning them. It's not hard.
The problem isn't us.
We haven't learnt what you claim and what your model indicates.
We have clearly pointed out the massive problems with it.
But you just ignore these problems.
You are the one who needs to try harder, or to cut out the BS and admit your model doesn't work.

Push down can only happen by pushing up.
Have a real goold think about that.
It makes no sense.
You can't push an object down, by pushing up on it from below.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« on: November 27, 2020, 12:31:42 AM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.

18
Jack, I'm the champion in this thread
Really?
Because you seem to have been repeatedly failing. Still completely unable to point out a single problem with the RE HC model.

So it seems the RE HC model is the champion.

Hmm.. was it fraction of a previous post of mine? 🤔
Yes, almost as if he was just you making up a new account to post that.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Time dilation in horizontal light clock?
« on: November 26, 2020, 01:33:43 PM »
I deduced time dilation to be = t = t(1+v^2/c^2)^0.5 when the base of the right-angled triangle is vt/2 instead of vt/2 where t is the dilated time. Light clock moves with v in time t relative to outside observer therefore the base of the whole time dilation triangle is vt. not vt'
For what we have been doing, time dilation is t'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This would mean that t=t'*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Again, there is no triangle where s=vt/2.
t is measured inside the frame moving with the clock.
In this frame, v makes no sense as it is measuring the velocity of this frame.
There is no right angle triangle in this frame. It is just going back and forth.

The frame with t' is the one with the clock moving. This is the frame where v makes sense.
You need this frame to be able to get the triangle.

You only ever get s=vt'/2. You never get s=vt.

Since t is longer than t therefore outside observer unable to see what the inside observer sees in his time frame just like the sighting of a pulse in a horizontal light clock therefore a returning pulse should strike the lower mirror after the completion of one second in time t due to time dilation.
Mostly right.
The outside observer sees the same events take longer.
If it takes 1 second inside the moving frame for the light to appear to bounce back and forth, then for the outside observer which sees the clock as moving, it will take more than 1 second to complete the bouncing backing and forth.

The grey area is the light cone of the observer. Just wondering ct is perpendicular to the x-axis but x and x are not perpendicular to the ct and ct respectively. Since there are 3 time-axis (ct,ct,ct) and 3 space-axis (x,x,x) therefore shouldnt be there 3 light cones
In this case, there should only be 1 light cone.
This is because the light cone is for the observer at the centre.
Different velocities will change the frequency of light and some other things, but it will not change the regions that are in your light cone.
Changing your velocity will not allow you to see things you can't as they are out of your light cone.

You would get multiple light cones if you have multiple observers in different positions.

As for the axes, you wouldn't expect them to be perpendicular for all frames in this diagram.
If you convert the diagram to different frames then whichever frame you choose will be perpendicular, but other ones will not.

The speed of light is constant. That means if you draw a line from the observer at 45 degrees, it follows the speed of light and that is the same regardless of reference frame.
This causes the "horizontal" and "vertical" lines to cross along this 45 degree line, and that applies for all the reference frames.
That makes it impossible to simply rotate the frame and instead you need to skew it as well.

The other aspect is simultaneity and how it varies, which this skewing covers.

20
No, it doesn't indicate anything of the sort.
It indicates that Earth was tilted in a particular way towards the sun, with the moon following a path through it.
There is no need to invoke any fantasy Rahu which is never observed, when it is clear the moon causes the eclipse.

Regardless, showing a single point doesn't help at all.
But with your Rahu being further south than the sun, why did the eclipse go over North America in the first place?

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 26, 2020, 12:30:01 PM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.
How about right in that quote chain.
You literally said that it isn't larger, and then immediately after said it is larger.
You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

And as clearly explained, that is a massive problem for your model.
Your prohibits it from being larger as the only thing pushing down is the air above so there is no way to increase the force.
But your model requires it in order to match reality.

And that is why I asked such a simple question last time, which of course you have to ignore because either way you answer it, your model is refuted.
So I will ask again:
Consider any layer of air. How does the force of it pushing down on the layer below compare to the force of the layer above pushing down on it? Is the force it pushes down on the layer below equal to, larger than, or less than the force that the layer above pushes down on it?

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!
NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.
Not only is it new information, it is also just another massive problem for your model.

Your model, having the air push everything down, requires the air to push it down from the top.
You can't push it down from the bottom or the sides. Moving it down from the bottom would be pulling, and you say that isn't real. And pushing from the sides would push it in, not down, and again require pulling.
But as we have seen, pushing things down from the top creates massive problems.
So while your model requires the air to push down from the top, reality shows it can't.

Yet again, it isn't us not grasping your model.
It is your model repeatedly failing to match reality and you repeatedly being unable to explain any of it.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 26, 2020, 03:03:45 AM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


Is that why you weren't able to answer the question of if it is larger or not?
It sure seems like there is a massive contradiction and you realise that your model simply cannot work.

Once more, if there isn't any extra force, the the force needs to be the same for each layer. Each layer would push down the next layer with the exact same force. There would be no increase.
But if there is no increase, that means the force is the same throughout and you don't get the pressure increase you need.

Your problem is, you can't grasp the simplicity of it, or you're playing games. Which is it?
Neither. Your problem is that I can grasp it. I can understand it. I can realise it does not work, that it does not make sense and requires you to outright contradict yourself.

The question is if you realise that and are just trolling, or if you actually don't understand such a simple issue.

Pay attention to this:
Each stack below is more dense than the stack above and each stack below has to resist more than the stack above....and....each stack below the stack above has more molecules per area than the stack above....all the way up.
No, you pay attention. I have been paying attention the whole time, which is why I am able to continually show what is wrong with your model.
That is an observation, not an explanation.
You need to explain WHY each stack is more dense.
You need to explain why it has to resist and why it has to resist more.

Again, simple physics shows that the force must be the same unless you have an additional force.

Again, consider a horizontal system with the exact same laws of physics.
When you compress it between 2 ends, there is no pressure gradient. It is the same pressure throughout.
The air doesn't just magically resist to the left, it resists to the left and the right.
That is because each layer is squashed between 2 other layers (or the very end), such that it pushes the layer to its left to the left while the layer to the left pushes it to the right, and it pushes the layer to its right to the right while the layer to the right pushes it to the left.

Nice and balanced forces, with no magical increase.
The same would apply in your vertical stack in the absense of an extra force.
Each layer pushes the layer above up and pushes the layer below down. Each layer would be pushed in equal amounts by the layer above and the layer below to cause it to be compressed.
And that compression would be the same throughout.

Once more, no extra force, no pressure gradient.

Quote from: JackBlack
Once more, consider any layer, the layer above pushes this layer down with a force of F.
This layer pushes the layer below down with a force of G.
Assuming there is no extra force involved, and no net force on the layer, F=G, and thus there is no increase in force and thus no increase in pressure, meaning the stack would be the same pressure throughout.

In order to have the pressure greater the lower you are, you need G>F, but that means you need another force.

Pay more attention instead of just repeatedly dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
Forget your force and F and force and G.
You have no need to spew this nonsense. Just say force.
[/quote]
Why forget it?
It clearly gets to the point.
Forces aren't just magical things which push. They have a magnitude.
And that is the big part where your model fails, you can't explain why the magnitude is different.
You can't explain why force F is different to force G.

If there is no extra force pushing the layer of air down then F=G, and you have no pressure gradient.

Once more, without a force pushing down each layer, in addition to the air above, you will have the same force acting on each layer and thus the same pressure throughout.

Keep this as reference or carry on with your trolling.

So I'll ask again, what force is acting on each layer of air in addition to the air above to cause the force each layer applies to the layer below to increase?

Once more, no increase, no pressure gradient.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 26, 2020, 02:51:25 AM »
And of course, you still ignore the irrefutable argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Here it is again:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

Which coloured line is supposed to be the level line?
None.
Your view is not a line.
Any view has a FOV.
Do you understand that?
Not a line, a region.

This region is represented by the brown lines in the picture.
Everything inside that is inside your FOV, is inside your level view.

And yet again, you ignore the actual point of that picture.
Once more, here is the picture:

Notice that the Earth curves down from the observer.
Notice that this curve blocks the bottom of the distant object.

We don't need Earth to curve up to obstruct the view to distant objects.

Also notice that the ground directly at their feet is not inside the FOV, but further away it is.

Engage your brain and tell me how something that curves away and down from you can suddenly rise to your eye level.
Just simply explain it.
Already did, and already provided in the argument.
But like always, YOU IGNORED IT!
It is the very same thing you need to make your FE ground rise up to eye level.
PERSPECTIVE!
Your eyes see based upon angles not height.

Something 1 m below eye-line, 1 m in front of it will be at an angle of ~45 degrees below level.
But something 1 m below your eye-line 1 km in front of it will only be at an angle of 0.06 degrees.

Once again, there are 2 effects at play, one is the Earth physically curving down making it physically lower, the other is perspective making things below you appear higher.

At short range, perspective wins. At long range, curvature does.
The point were they are equal is the horizon.

Here is another picture you will likely ignore or find an excuse to dismiss:

The red is for a flat Earth, the green is for a round Earth with a radius of 6371 km.
The x axis shows the distance from the observer, going straight (not following the curve).
The left y axis, along with the solid lines, show the physical height, measured from the height of the observer (note, even a flat Earth doesn't have it magically rise up).

The right y axis, along with the dotted lines, shows the angular position.
Note that for a FE, the ground continues rising, but the rate at which it rises slows dramatically.
This means it will still never get to exactly eye level, and there will never actually be a horizon as there will always be further than you can see.

Note that for a RE, initially perspective wins, with the Earth appearing to rise up. But eventually the curving down becomes dominant, and it starts appearing lower. This means this more distant land is blocked from view by the closer land.

Here is another diagram, but for a larger distance:

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: November 26, 2020, 01:49:12 AM »
Papers will get out, but they will not become famous like Einstein's did.
If it was something that big, they would.
The only way to prevent that if instead it was a very larger group all working together. Then the group/facility gets famous.

e.g. Plenty people know about LIGO, but I couldn't tell you the names of the head scientists.

And "why hide FE" was one of most discussed parts of theory. You can find answer in other threads.
You mean the most deflected. No justifiable answer was ever provided.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: November 25, 2020, 03:57:32 PM »
no
not what i meant.

look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).

Right, something like this?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: November 25, 2020, 03:51:24 PM »
Assuming sandokhan is right
1. To hide flat Earth. Sandokhan claimed (probably) that this proves something else which whoud prove FE.
That just pushes the problem back. Why hide the FE?
And separately, why couldn't they just include that in RE. As has been pointed out plenty of times to him, none of his nonsense to replace gravity actually relies upon a FE. Subquarks existing or not is irrelevant to the RE, it has no bearing on the shape. Gravitons are somewhat expected by mainstream science. So they would fit just fine with a RE and thus are not proof of a FE.

2. It will too be supressed. I belive he showed that happen althrought this might be wrong.It was talking about 20' and 30' and Einstein or something. I searched but i found nothing :-\
Considering how much gets out, you can't completely suppress anything.

3. You can't just ban entire field of research. Supressing individual papers tho..
And this contradicts 2. Either you can suppress it all, or you can't.
If you can, you can suppress the entire field. If you can't manage to supress the entire field, the results will eventually get out.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:23:36 PM »
The fact that you guys don't acknowledge the long range photos really makes me scratch my head. You are not bots?
They were acknowledged. It was just pointed out that the ones we know about don't support a FE.

If you have one that you think does, feel free to provide it.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Those search engines
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:20:56 PM »
It sounds like they were avoiding practicality, oh no wait thats just surveillance.
It has nothing to do with avoiding practicality. It is entirely to do with limitations of the software and computational power.
Understanding meaning of a phrase in context is quite difficult.
A video showing FE and RE arguments, without a higher level of understanding, could be taken as supportive of a FE or a RE.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 25, 2020, 12:54:37 PM »
I have not been following this thread, but is it so that sceptimatic claims pressure comes from just stacking things on top of each other, and that then somehow creates a force?

Sceptimatic does not quite understand that stacking things does not, by itself, provide a force? Something like that?
Not just things. Specifically air. Only air has the magic sauce to magically stack without cause. Everything else needs the air.

Air somehow stacks all by itself, with no force at all, but then that pushes the air below down for no reason at all, which causes it to compress, with that force and pressure increasing the further down you go, again for no reason at all and no origin for any of these forces.
Then that air acts on objects to push them down, except in the cases where it inexplicably pushes objects up.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: November 25, 2020, 12:51:22 PM »
P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.
There are a few quite big issues with that:
1 - What is the motivation? Absolutely none.
2 - Some other scientist would then likely discoverer it and release it anyway.
3 - Why allow all the research on it in the first place then?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 455