1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 09:25:45 AM »

Circles and triangles behave/ look differently on your earth?


Feel free to draw us your version.

See how the earth is curving downwards in your diagram where is that part on earth?

Youre standing on it.
Thats the surface of the earth.
You know what a circle is?
Not sure where your confusion is.


Quit debating how the round earth circlss works.
You cant grasp the concept.

But since you know how flat earth triangles work, lets see you draw it.

We can also go in planes and be above the surface and see the curvature dipping down.

Draw a circle

Then draw a bigger circle around the 1st.

Let me know at which part the big one dips down into the little one.

We can wait...


Or back to the basket ball.
Stand in front.
Tell me if you can see the back side of the ball.

You know, the part thats curved away from you.



Or be honest
Draw a circle to scale of diameter 12,750,000 units and put a 2unit stick on the edge.
Let us know from what "height" that stick needs to be raised to see the curve.

or you could just do the basketball experiment raise the camera a little bit and prove me wrong.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 09:05:17 AM »

Circles and triangles behave/ look differently on your earth?


Feel free to draw us your version.

See how the earth is curving downwards in your diagram where is that part on earth?

Youre standing on it.
Thats the surface of the earth.
You know what a circle is?
Not sure where your confusion is.


Quit debating how the round earth circlss works.
You cant grasp the concept.

But since you know how flat earth triangles work, lets see you draw it.

We can also go in planes and be above the surface and see the curvature dipping down.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 09:04:43 AM »

i have done the experiment with a basketball and a curve is always there and when I raise the camera it looks nothing like earth does.. so you see lying and being dishonest about this experiment atleast I do experiments, you are too lazy to do the experiment I said.

Sorry but are you really that dense or just putting on a good show? Do you not realise that if you were to reduce the Earth to the size of a basketball then you would be about the size of bacteria. And I bet you wouldn't see any curve on a basketball at that level.

By all means carry on dismissing and denying all the evidence the others are giving you to show you are wrong but the Earth is a globe no matter how you want to argue the point.  I have never personally seen the curvature of the Earth (apart from during a total lunar eclipse) but than doesn't stop me accepting the Earth is round.

Cool so you want me to just believe you that the curvature is there? You haven't seen the curvature during a total lunar eclipse you have only seen a shadow that's all.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 08:01:35 AM »

Circles and triangles behave/ look differently on your earth?


Feel free to draw us your version.

See how the earth is curving downwards in your diagram where is that part on earth?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 06:52:12 AM »

Yh it doesn't look like that on earth.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 05:38:27 AM »

Draw the triangle and show us how the olposite side becomes fuzzy and disappears bottom up.

Show me the curvature dipping down

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 04:58:03 AM »

I don't know if it's manipulated but it would be better to have videos you can't just use pictures to show stuff videos show it much better.

Again, if you were provided a video, would you admit that you are wrong and that Earth is round?
If not, I don't see any point in giving you one as so far you just reject everything that shows Earth is round without reason.

I'm expecting the ground to follow the same path the objects do the ground should be curving down I've yet to see this on earth

Again, this is what it looks like, as clear by the fact lifting yourself up (i.e. going to a higher altitude) allows you to see around this curve and see more of Earth.

So again, JUST WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE?
None of this vague garbage of "downhill" or "curve" or any crap like that. Clearly explain exactly what you are expecting to see.

A magical arrow saying "DOWN"?

Can you draw a picture of what you think it should look like?

Cool you are going to have to wait until I get a better camera too use. But this just shows you don't even care to know the truth about this you won't even do a simple experiment

Quit with the BS.
I do care about the truth, and you have already provided videos showing you are wrong.

It isn't that I don't care to know the truth or aren't willing to do experiments. Instead, it is that YOU ARE WRONG and rather than admit that, you just insult us and expect us to do the impossible.

Again, you may as well be telling people to go to the garden and look for pixies.

The problem is you.

You wouldn't always see the bottom you could prove this to yourself but some reason you want me to prove it to you when you can prove it to yourself.

Stop lying.
I have proven to myself that I can ALWAYS see the bottom. That over a flat surface an object NEVER appears to sink into it with the surface obscuring the object.
The closest I can get is if I look from the bottom of the surface, so I can't see any of the top of the surface, then it can obstruct the bottom of an object. But that isn't what is being discussed.

Stop pretending we are the problem just because you are blatantly lying about what flat surfaces you cannot to do the impossible.

There was no diagram in your post?

There was a diagram, you just probably thought it was a line. Here it is again:
Below here.

Above here
Edit: My bad, forgot the embed code.
But here is a link for you in case you still miss it:
https://i.imgur.com/7XfGfF2.png

That is a realistic, i.e. TO SCALE diagram of the curvature of Earth over 10 km.
The dip is less than 1 pixel.
You cannot see the person, because they are much less than 1 px.

Now do you understand?

The diagrams to show how objects are hidden show much larger objects/a much smaller Earth. That is so people understand HOW the object is hidden.
Math allows you to determine how much is hidden.

The real question is why can't you just show a realistic diagram representing what we see on the fantasy you think earth is? With the bottom of objects hidden by a flat surface they are above, with the observer above, the physically impossible.
Its because you know you can't have an object hidden by a flat surface without your or the object being below the surface?

But you could just raise the camera a little bit to show the bottoms of the toothpicks and we will see if it matches reality

Or you could. But you refuse.
You seem to be fine refusing to do experiments yourself, but when refuse you accuse of us dishonesty. Why?

Yet your object is completely ludicrous. Are you really suggesting that a basketball is magic and can obstruct the view to an object behind it even if you walk around it.

Draw us a triangle please so we can understand at what point one corner will cease to be visible from another.

You do it.

Again, telling us to do it is pointless.
We can draw the diagram, showing how the ENTIRE FLAT SURFACE will be visible, regardless of where you are above it.
We can draw the diagram, showing how THE ENTIRE OBJECT ABOVE THE FLAT SURFACE will be visible.

You are the one claiming magic, you draw the diagram.

Again, stop expecting us to do the impossible to justify your false claims. YOU DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS!

i have done the experiment with a basketball and a curve is always there and when I raise the camera it looks nothing like earth does.. so you see lying and being dishonest about this experiment atleast I do experiments, you are too lazy to do the experiment I said.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 04:55:17 AM »

Earth is big...

So where is the curvature to obscure the mountain? That doesn't show any object being obscured...

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 04:54:02 AM »

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by "tiny dip"? You've been given the dimensions of earth, the dip calculations and as you can plainly see in reality, Earth is massive. For two, over long distances the dip becomes more apparent. Hence distant objects being partially or entirely obscured as they move over the horizon.

Why don't you provide how a perspective causes the obscuring of an object. Again, here's what you are saying with your notion of perspective:



Why is the tower partially obscured in reality when perspective on a flat plain shows nothing obscured?

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen? You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

If the back of a hill slopes why can't I see it from the front? If the hill is the size of the earth and I'm standing on top of it, why can't I see the slope?

What do you mean not be seen?

Take a basket ball. Take 5 toothpicks, tape them standing up perpendicular to the ball surface in a line an inch apart. Get really close to it so your field of view is like the "flat shot" of the basket ball. Rotate the basket ball away from you. You would then see something like this:



A basketball is a sphere, right? Do you get it?

Stop being dishonest do your basketball experiment and raise the camera a little bit and let's look at those objects.

What’s dishonest about it?

What would raising camera have to with it?
 It’s a simulation of someone standing on a large sphere looking at tall objects far away.

You still haven’t answered the question, what’s manipulated in the perspective line image?

Because raising the camera will show what it looks like when you raise altitude let's see if it matches reality.

I don't know if it's manipulated but it would be better to have videos you can't just use pictures to show stuff videos show it much better.

How do you not get the fact that looking at the toothpicks in line that they start to be obscured from the bottom behind the horizon line? How are you having a hard time conceptualizing this. It’s very basic. If the camera is raised you’re simply going to see each stick less obscured on the bottom.
The ball looks flat in the image even though it’s a sphere. Do you not get this. For the thousandth time, the earth is huge. 

You’re right, sometimes videos do show things better. Like the bottles on a table video you shared that showed they didn’t get obscured from the bottom up like you wish they would. Keep up the good work refuting yourself.

And you still haven’t answered. What about the image is manipulated? What would a video of the same perspective show you? The converging eye level lines would still be above the horizon at that great elevation, video or not. Your excuse for not being able to answer is lame and disingenuous.

But you could just raise the camera a little bit to show the bottoms of the toothpicks and we will see if it matches reality, let's see if raising the camera let's us see the bottoms of the toothpicks just the same as we do when raising altitude on earth and let's see if it matches what the earth looks like when raising altitude but you won't do it because it won't match what we see on earth.

If one were to raise the camera, the horizon would be farther away which means one could see farther. If one gets high enough you can see the bottoms of all five sticks. So what?
If I added another 5 I would have to go even higher to see far enough to see the bottoms of all 10.
What’s the mystery here?

Do it then let's see if it matches reality..

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 05:51:14 PM »

Draw us a triangle please so we can understand at what point one corner will cease to be visible from another.

You do it.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 05:50:26 PM »

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by "tiny dip"? You've been given the dimensions of earth, the dip calculations and as you can plainly see in reality, Earth is massive. For two, over long distances the dip becomes more apparent. Hence distant objects being partially or entirely obscured as they move over the horizon.

Why don't you provide how a perspective causes the obscuring of an object. Again, here's what you are saying with your notion of perspective:



Why is the tower partially obscured in reality when perspective on a flat plain shows nothing obscured?

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen? You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

If the back of a hill slopes why can't I see it from the front? If the hill is the size of the earth and I'm standing on top of it, why can't I see the slope?

What do you mean not be seen?

Take a basket ball. Take 5 toothpicks, tape them standing up perpendicular to the ball surface in a line an inch apart. Get really close to it so your field of view is like the "flat shot" of the basket ball. Rotate the basket ball away from you. You would then see something like this:



A basketball is a sphere, right? Do you get it?

Stop being dishonest do your basketball experiment and raise the camera a little bit and let's look at those objects.

What’s dishonest about it?

What would raising camera have to with it?
 It’s a simulation of someone standing on a large sphere looking at tall objects far away.

You still haven’t answered the question, what’s manipulated in the perspective line image?

Because raising the camera will show what it looks like when you raise altitude let's see if it matches reality.

I don't know if it's manipulated but it would be better to have videos you can't just use pictures to show stuff videos show it much better.

How do you not get the fact that looking at the toothpicks in line that they start to be obscured from the bottom behind the horizon line? How are you having a hard time conceptualizing this. It’s very basic. If the camera is raised you’re simply going to see each stick less obscured on the bottom.
The ball looks flat in the image even though it’s a sphere. Do you not get this. For the thousandth time, the earth is huge. 

You’re right, sometimes videos do show things better. Like the bottles on a table video you shared that showed they didn’t get obscured from the bottom up like you wish they would. Keep up the good work refuting yourself.

And you still haven’t answered. What about the image is manipulated? What would a video of the same perspective show you? The converging eye level lines would still be above the horizon at that great elevation, video or not. Your excuse for not being able to answer is lame and disingenuous.

But you could just raise the camera a little bit to show the bottoms of the toothpicks and we will see if it matches reality, let's see if raising the camera let's us see the bottoms of the toothpicks just the same as we do when raising altitude on earth and let's see if it matches what the earth looks like when raising altitude but you won't do it because it won't match what we see on earth.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 05:13:59 PM »

But the amount hidden at ground level comes back in view when raising elevation without the earth curving downwards?

No, that is physically impossible.
Without the ground curving down, more would not come into view.

The ground curves down, so if you move closer or get higher you can see more of the object.
You also see a different portion of the object.

Again, that is how you see curvature.
If you think it should be something different, CLEARLY DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE EXPECTING TO SEE!

why does it look like the top drawing in reality when raising altitude?

It doesn't.
If it was like the top, then you would ALWAYS be able to see the base of the building. You wouldn't need to raise yourself higher to see it.

the object would be on a tilt we don't see this

And more dishonest BS.
We have covered this BS before.
A tilt of 1 degree requires the object to be 111 km away.
This is a tilt in a direction which by its nature is very difficult to see.
It is equivalent to looking at a building, but looking slightly up instead of directly at it.
You will not be able to visually see this insignificant tilt.

Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.

how about you draw me a diagram showing what we are seeing on earth when objects are obscured by curvature

You mean like this one I did before:


That is a more accurate scale.

How about you stop making demands from other people and start providing stuff yourself.
You have been provided with plenty of diagrams and math clearly showing you are wrong.
How about you provide a diagram showing how the bottom of a distant object above a flat surface is obscured? Or provide video evidence of such a magical phenomenon?
Or how about you explain just what you are expecting to see.

Well if you don't want to do simple experiments that's not my problem

It is your problem.
You have baselessly asserted garbage and refuse to justify it.
That is your problem.
If you are not willing to justify it, don't bother making the baseless claims.

It is also your problem that these simple experiments don't back up your claims and instead refute them.

We are under no obligation to prove the impossible to prove you are correct.
You are the one who needs to do the impossible and prove yourself correct.

Stop making excuses.
Either provide the evidence or admit your cannot show that a flat surface is capable of hiding an object.

And before you even bother telling us to prove it doesn't, you have already provided videos showing just that, that a flat surface does not obstruct the view to the bottom of an object above it.

Why wouldn't it work?

That has already been explained.
But there is more.
I like the fact that there are 2 celestial poles.
One is always due north and one is always due south.
You can circumnavigate these poles, always keeping the pole to one side of you.

For a FE, this requires 2, non-overlapping straight lines to intersect twice after a finite distance.
This is impossible, and shows Earth is not flat.

Another great example is the moon (and a similar argument works for any constellation).
The moon is always observed to be roughly the same size with roughly the same face facing you, regardless of where on Earth you are and what time it is (assuming you can see the moon). And importantly, the apparent location of the moon differs depending on where you are (e.g. for some people it is directly overhead, while for others it is near the horizon, and for others it isn't visible).

The fact it remains the same size regardless of time and location shows it is very far away. The distance to it must be many times the size of Earth.
But if it is very far away, it needs to be in the same direction for everyone.
If Earth was flat, that means it would appear in the same direction for everyone. But with a RE, the apparent direction changes, because the reference you are using, the surface of Earth changes direction.

Another example is just the position in general, and how they ever possibly drop below the horizon. If the sun is above a flat Earth, it should be visible to EVERYONE. But instead it appears to set, appearing to drop below the horizon. If Earth was flat, this means it should set for everyone. But it is always visible somewhere. The FE cannot account for why any celestial object appears to set, nor can it explain the observed pattern of daylight on Earth. But a RE does wonderfully.

I'm expecting the ground to follow the same path the objects do the ground should be curving down I've yet to see this on earth .. 

Cool you are going to have to wait until I get a better camera too use. But this just shows you don't even care to know the truth about this you won't even do a simple experiment yourself you just want someone else to tell you . You wouldn't always see the bottom you could prove this to yourself but some reason you want me to prove it to you when you can prove it to yourself.

There was no diagram in your post? Why can't you just show a realistic diagram representing what we see on earth? Its because you know you can't have an object hidden from curvature without seeing this curve.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 05:08:07 PM »

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by "tiny dip"? You've been given the dimensions of earth, the dip calculations and as you can plainly see in reality, Earth is massive. For two, over long distances the dip becomes more apparent. Hence distant objects being partially or entirely obscured as they move over the horizon.

Why don't you provide how a perspective causes the obscuring of an object. Again, here's what you are saying with your notion of perspective:



Why is the tower partially obscured in reality when perspective on a flat plain shows nothing obscured?

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen? You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

If the back of a hill slopes why can't I see it from the front? If the hill is the size of the earth and I'm standing on top of it, why can't I see the slope?

What do you mean not be seen?

Take a basket ball. Take 5 toothpicks, tape them standing up perpendicular to the ball surface in a line an inch apart. Get really close to it so your field of view is like the "flat shot" of the basket ball. Rotate the basket ball away from you. You would then see something like this:



A basketball is a sphere, right? Do you get it?

Stop being dishonest do your basketball experiment and raise the camera a little bit and let's look at those objects.

What’s dishonest about it?

What would raising camera have to with it?
 It’s a simulation of someone standing on a large sphere looking at tall objects far away.

You still haven’t answered the question, what’s manipulated in the perspective line image?

Because raising the camera will show what it looks like when you raise altitude let's see if it matches reality.

I don't know if it's manipulated but it would be better to have videos you can't just use pictures to show stuff videos show it much better.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:50:19 PM »

Notasphere...

I'm not really involved in this discussion and nor do I really want to be. But I ask you this... how much do you know about astronomy? There are a lot of clues in the night sky which evidence that we don't live on a flat Earth. In particular how do you think equatorial mounts could possibly work in the southern hemisphere if we did not live on a globe?

Why wouldn't it work?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:45:50 PM »

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by "tiny dip"? You've been given the dimensions of earth, the dip calculations and as you can plainly see in reality, Earth is massive. For two, over long distances the dip becomes more apparent. Hence distant objects being partially or entirely obscured as they move over the horizon.

Why don't you provide how a perspective causes the obscuring of an object. Again, here's what you are saying with your notion of perspective:



Why is the tower partially obscured in reality when perspective on a flat plain shows nothing obscured?

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen? You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

If the back of a hill slopes why can't I see it from the front? If the hill is the size of the earth and I'm standing on top of it, why can't I see the slope?

What do you mean not be seen?

Take a basket ball. Take 5 toothpicks, tape them standing up perpendicular to the ball surface in a line an inch apart. Get really close to it so your field of view is like the "flat shot" of the basket ball. Rotate the basket ball away from you. You would then see something like this:



A basketball is a sphere, right? Do you get it?

Stop being dishonest do your basketball experiment and raise the camera a little bit and let's look at those objects.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:44:21 PM »

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen?

You have asked that same stupid question repeatedly, and had it answered repeatedly.
YOU CAN see the curvature, by moving around (especially increasing elevation) and seeing the amount hidden vary, and seeing the portion of Earth you see change.


Again, stop just spouting vague garbage and clearly explain exactly what you are expecting to see in terms of this "curvature".

And while you are at it, answer if you could see curvature in the photo of the basketball, or the photo of the ground I provided.

You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

And again, if you bothered to read what has already been said, you would know that dip which is allowing the bottom to be obscured, is BEYOND the horizon.
Again, Earth continues to curve down after the horizon, making the bottom of the building appear to be below the horizon, resulting in the lower portion being obscured.

If there was no dip, there would be no horizon, and the bottom of the building would be visually above the water.

Stop just ignoring what has been said and spouting the same refuted BS again and again.

Because wouldn't you want to see for yourself?

The problem is IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
You are telling me to do it myself because YOU CAN'T DO IT!
Because you can't provide any evidence of your blatant lie you want to deflect and pretend anyone should be able to.

You make the claim that it is possible, the burden of proof is on you to prove it is.
Don't bother telling me to do the impossible.
You may as well tell me to go to a garden to look for pixies.

So you think you should be able to see on a flat surface forever so let's just say we have a flat surface and the edge of this flat surface is 100,000 miles away you honestly believe you would see the edge??

Unless there is something obstructing the view, YES!
If the atmosphere is obstructing the view, then you have a blur, rather than a clear horizon, and the blur of the atmosphere would be obscuring the bottom of the distant object, not the ground/sea.

There should be a dip downwards similar to that video

That video went much higher.
And you have been provided with a photo showing that dip.

we shouldn't even have to go that high to see this effect because you say just 3 miles out objects will be obscured by earth.

The math I provided before shows that is just another blatant lie from you.
Do you really think you can see 1 degree of dip just by eye?
If so, you are delusional.
If you want to see the dip from ground level, you need quite accurate tools.
As you get higher, it becomes easier, but it still quite a small dip until you get very high.

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you need to travel out thousands of m to hide a few m.


Stop just spouting the same refuted, dishonest BS again and again.
Clearly describe just what you expect to see for curvature, and provide an example of a flat surface obscuring the bottom of a distant object.

But the amount hidden at ground level comes back in view when raising elevation without the earth curving downwards?
https://imgur.com/a/zDENSTF why does it look like the top drawing in reality when raising altitude?
The bottom drawing with a curve is showing how the bottom can't be seen but then raise altitude and you will be looking down over a curve and the object would be on a tilt we don't see this ... how about you draw me a diagram showing what we are seeing on earth when objects are obscured by curvature not just some lines draw the earth and draw the objects and person to represent someone looking .

Well if you don't want to do simple experiments that's not my problem you could see it for yourself but you don't want too... I don't have the camera I was using a year ago to do it all I have now is poor quality mobile camera so I can't show you me doing the experiment right now because at the distance the object is my camera just shows it blurry. Do it yourself stop being so lazy it's better to do it yourself anyway than just believe me.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 02:51:59 PM »

How about you just get a flat surface and see for yourself...

So because you can't prove the impossible, you want me to do it for you, so you can pretend your outright lie is justified? No thanks.

So far I have NEVER seen a flat surface obstruct the bottom of an object above it.
Likewise, I have NEVER seen a flat surface where you cannot see to the edge while you are above it.

Your own videos show quite well that a flat surface does not obstruct the bottom of an object, nor prevent you seeing to the edge.
If you want to claim that is possible, the burden is on you to prove it.

but when you lift the camera up earth should actually be curved .

Again, just what do you mean by this?
Just what are you expecting to see?

You keep claiming it should be curved and that you should see this; but you refuse to explain just what this would look like.

I already told you how you see curved objects. As you change your position around it you will see a different portion of it, with this portion changing smoothly.
That is what a curved object looks like.
That is what Earth looks like.

If you think that is not showing the curvature, then clearly articulate exactly what you would expect to see.

I would rather see videos to be honest . It's alot easier to manipulate a picture .

And this just shows you have no interest in any honest discussion.
Anything you are given which shows you are wrong, you will just dismiss as manipulated.

Can you provide ANY reason to think this is manipulated, other than the fact it shows you are wrong?

If a video is provided, will you then admit that you are wrong, that the horizon is observed to be below eye level, in a manner consistent with a RE and inconsistent with a FE, which shows that Earth is round, not flat?
Will you admit that you are wrong, and that there is no reason to think Earth is flat?
Will you admit that Earth is round?

Or will you just dismiss it as manipulated or ignore it?

Because wouldn't you want to see for yourself? You can just get a flat surface and a small object and get the camera as close to the ground as possible to see this effect...
So you think you should be able to see on a flat surface forever so let's just say we have a flat surface and the edge of this flat surface is 100,000 miles away you honestly believe you would see the edge??

There should be a dip downwards similar to that video with simulated sphere and flat earth next to each other eventually it should look like that but we shouldn't even have to go that high to see this effect because you say just 3 miles out objects will be obscured by earth.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 02:48:19 PM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

And more deflection.

You have already been provided images showing the dip to the horizon. Remember this one:

This not only shows the dip to the horizon, but also how this dip gets larger the higher you are. Entirely consistent with a RE.

Are you just going to ignore them and pretend they don't exist?

Just like you ignore the fact that perspective cannot explain why the sun appears to set, or why the bottom of distant objects are obscured.

Just like you can't provide a demonstration of a flat surface obscuring the bottom of an object on it, or a flat surface where you can't see until the edge.

The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion? Could you also link a video where this picture came from? But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

And this just shows how blatantly dishonest you are.
You ask for a photo from a plane to show the dip, and then you just reject it because it shows you are wrong.
Why bother asking if you are just going to dismiss it?

Just what reason is there to think it is the light rather than Earth curving?

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

It most certainly is a dip downwards, unless you can explain why the bottom of a clearly resolvable object is hidden.

Again, clearly explain just what you mean when you talk about seeing the curvature or seeing a dip downwards.


You are making it abundantly clear you have no interest in honestly discussing the shape of Earth. Instead you are just here to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth is flat.

in your little water experiment you can easily manipulate it you are saying thats a dip but it's tiny from high altitudes but from ground level there's apparently a big dip hiding buildings so the dip should be massive from that height the horizon wouldn't be infront of you like that earth would be way below you .

I don't know what Skiba is trying to show here, but it looks like ye olde FE "The horizon never drops from eye-level" gambit. The experiment above from Jack certainly demonstrates that it does drop with altitude. The front and back tube water levels are level with each other yet the horizon drops as you go higher.

Here's another that fits into your perspective wheelhouse:



Notice where the perspective lines converge, especially the level at eye-line one? Huh, they converge above the horizon. Go figure. I wonder why that would be?

Just because you look down at earth doesn't mean it's a curve if you are in your living room and you look down to the ground does that mean your floor is a sphere?

This illustrates that the horizon drops from eye-level the higher up you go. Which directly refutes whatever Skiba was trying to show.

I would rather see videos to be honest . It's alot easier to manipulate a picture .

That's your argument? You'd rather see a video? You think a video can't be manipulated?

What about the image do you think is manipulated?

Well video would be better why not?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 02:47:40 PM »

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by "tiny dip"? You've been given the dimensions of earth, the dip calculations and as you can plainly see in reality, Earth is massive. For two, over long distances the dip becomes more apparent. Hence distant objects being partially or entirely obscured as they move over the horizon.

Why don't you provide how a perspective causes the obscuring of an object. Again, here's what you are saying with your notion of perspective:



Why is the tower partially obscured in reality when perspective on a flat plain shows nothing obscured?

I mean if the dip is so small how can it obscure objects but not be seen? You are showing an object partially blocked but not actually showing the earth dip or curve with the blocked objects.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:36:40 PM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

And more deflection.

You have already been provided images showing the dip to the horizon. Remember this one:

This not only shows the dip to the horizon, but also how this dip gets larger the higher you are. Entirely consistent with a RE.

Are you just going to ignore them and pretend they don't exist?

Just like you ignore the fact that perspective cannot explain why the sun appears to set, or why the bottom of distant objects are obscured.

Just like you can't provide a demonstration of a flat surface obscuring the bottom of an object on it, or a flat surface where you can't see until the edge.

The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion? Could you also link a video where this picture came from? But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

And this just shows how blatantly dishonest you are.
You ask for a photo from a plane to show the dip, and then you just reject it because it shows you are wrong.
Why bother asking if you are just going to dismiss it?

Just what reason is there to think it is the light rather than Earth curving?

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

It most certainly is a dip downwards, unless you can explain why the bottom of a clearly resolvable object is hidden.

Again, clearly explain just what you mean when you talk about seeing the curvature or seeing a dip downwards.


You are making it abundantly clear you have no interest in honestly discussing the shape of Earth. Instead you are just here to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth is flat.

in your little water experiment you can easily manipulate it you are saying thats a dip but it's tiny from high altitudes but from ground level there's apparently a big dip hiding buildings so the dip should be massive from that height the horizon wouldn't be infront of you like that earth would be way below you .

I don't know what Skiba is trying to show here, but it looks like ye olde FE "The horizon never drops from eye-level" gambit. The experiment above from Jack certainly demonstrates that it does drop with altitude. The front and back tube water levels are level with each other yet the horizon drops as you go higher.

Here's another that fits into your perspective wheelhouse:



Notice where the perspective lines converge, especially the level at eye-line one? Huh, they converge above the horizon. Go figure. I wonder why that would be?

Just because you look down at earth doesn't mean it's a curve if you are in your living room and you look down to the ground does that mean your floor is a sphere?

This illustrates that the horizon drops from eye-level the higher up you go. Which directly refutes whatever Skiba was trying to show.

I would rather see videos to be honest . It's alot easier to manipulate a picture .

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:35:25 PM »

i said send me the video...

How about you provide the video showing a flat surface obscuring the bottom of a distant object.

You raise the camera you should still be able to see the part of earth obscuring the tower

You can already see that without raising the camera. It is the part of Earth leading up to the horizon that is obscuring things beyond the horizon.
When you lift up, you can see more, and as clearly shown, the horizon is below eye level.

Just because you look down at earth doesn't mean it's a curve if you are in your living room and you look down to the ground does that mean your floor is a sphere?

Do you know the important distinction?
I can see the edge of the floor.
We can't see all the way to the edge of your fantasy Earth.

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

STOP WITH THE DISHONEST BS!

Again, the towers ARE TINY

Again, Earth is over 10 MILLION m wide.
The tower is a mere few hundred m.
Do you understand the scales involved?

Compared to the size of Earth, THE TOWER IS TINY.

Stop pretending a RE should be a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.

If you wish to claim it doesn't make sense then provide the math to prove it.

Stop just spouting pure BS to defend your failed fantasy.

How about you just get a flat surface and see for yourself...

Yh but when you lift the camera up earth should actually be curved .

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:16:41 PM »

in your little water experiment you can easily manipulate it you are saying thats a dip but it's tiny from high altitudes but from ground level there's apparently a big dip hiding buildings so the dip should be massive from that height the horizon wouldn't be infront of you like that earth would be way below you .

And more blatant dishonesty.

You are provided with clear evidence of a dip, and you just straight out reject it.
What was the point in asking for it if you had no intention of ever accepting it?

As for the big dip hiding buildings, that is the big dip Stash was talking about, where the dip is beyond the horizon.
As the horizon blocks your view, you are not going to see it.

And just how massive do you think it should be?
Again, you make vague, useless claims.
Instead of such useless claims, how about you try to quantify it?

And again, don't forget the massive difference in scale.

It is actually quite simple to calculate, based upon simple geometry:

That angle marked in red and labelled DIP is the angle of dip.
b is 90 degrees - dip.
a is 90 degrees - b = dip. (because the line of sight meets the horizon at a right angle.)
So the dip is the angle subtended at the centre.

And cos(a)=R/(R+h).

So this makes it incredibly easy to see just how large this "MASSIVE" dip should be.

And putting in the numbers what do we get?
Well for the 1700 m in the picture, or 1.7 km, we end up with:
a = arccos(6371/6372.7) = 1.3 degrees.

Do you really think 1.3 degrees is massive?

Again, STOP PRETENDING EARTH IS A TINY BALL!

Your pathetic youtube video by a known conman is directly refuted by the water level images shown.

You are taking his blatant lie that the horizon never dips below eye level in contrast to photographic evidence clearly showing it does.
The dip is so small for most locations that you will not be able to observe it by eye. Instead, you will need a tool to measure it.
And that has been done repeatedly. In fact it was one of the early measurements of the size of Earth.

Do you have any proof that the horizon is at eye level, which requires being able to distinguish between eye level and what it should be in reality?

Again, all you are doing is showing you have no interest in any honest discussion about the shape of Earth. You falsely believe Earth is flat and trying to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it is.

Now why don't you go try and find a flat surface obscuring the bottom of an object, and post some videos of that, or admit you can't and that the bottom of objects being obscured is quite clear evidence of curvature.

How can a tiny dip hide massive towers? That makes no sense.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:15:13 PM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

And more deflection.

You have already been provided images showing the dip to the horizon. Remember this one:

This not only shows the dip to the horizon, but also how this dip gets larger the higher you are. Entirely consistent with a RE.

Are you just going to ignore them and pretend they don't exist?

Just like you ignore the fact that perspective cannot explain why the sun appears to set, or why the bottom of distant objects are obscured.

Just like you can't provide a demonstration of a flat surface obscuring the bottom of an object on it, or a flat surface where you can't see until the edge.

The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion? Could you also link a video where this picture came from? But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

And this just shows how blatantly dishonest you are.
You ask for a photo from a plane to show the dip, and then you just reject it because it shows you are wrong.
Why bother asking if you are just going to dismiss it?

Just what reason is there to think it is the light rather than Earth curving?

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

It most certainly is a dip downwards, unless you can explain why the bottom of a clearly resolvable object is hidden.

Again, clearly explain just what you mean when you talk about seeing the curvature or seeing a dip downwards.


You are making it abundantly clear you have no interest in honestly discussing the shape of Earth. Instead you are just here to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth is flat.

in your little water experiment you can easily manipulate it you are saying thats a dip but it's tiny from high altitudes but from ground level there's apparently a big dip hiding buildings so the dip should be massive from that height the horizon wouldn't be infront of you like that earth would be way below you .

I don't know what Skiba is trying to show here, but it looks like ye olde FE "The horizon never drops from eye-level" gambit. The experiment above from Jack certainly demonstrates that it does drop with altitude. The front and back tube water levels are level with each other yet the horizon drops as you go higher.

Here's another that fits into your perspective wheelhouse:



Notice where the perspective lines converge, especially the level at eye-line one? Huh, they converge above the horizon. Go figure. I wonder why that would be?

Just because you look down at earth doesn't mean it's a curve if you are in your living room and you look down to the ground does that mean your floor is a sphere?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:13:38 PM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

From 70,000', U2 Spy plane:


The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion?

What kind of distortion? What kind of distortion presents a curve?

Could you also link a video where this picture came from?

Use your brain. Look at the code when you reply to a post.

But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

What would a dip down look like to you? You've already been shown a dozen images of a dip down. What are you missing?

Just from looking at such a long distance we might not be seeing what it actually looks like.

Why is that and how so? What about it is not how it actually "looks"?

What do mean? I don't see no video link.

Could you be more daft? It's an image, not a video. Look at the code when you reply to someone. It's not rocket science. It's literally a matter of being barely observant.

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

How is it not a dip downward? The CN tower is partially obscured. If I raise the camera, I can seed farther and it will be less obscured. Why do you keep expecting to see something that is obscured, in the way of, behind, something else?

Like demonstrated, on the left the CN Tower is obscured because it's beyond the horizon and is subject to the the very, very gradual (Earth is massive) curvature, hence the dip of the tower. On the right is how it should look based upon perspective. Spoiler alert: It doesn't look that way on the right in reality. And reality is what we're talking about.

i said send me the video...

You raise the camera you should still be able to see the part of earth obscuring the tower but instead the earth just looks level ...

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 12:21:44 PM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

And more deflection.

You have already been provided images showing the dip to the horizon. Remember this one:

This not only shows the dip to the horizon, but also how this dip gets larger the higher you are. Entirely consistent with a RE.

Are you just going to ignore them and pretend they don't exist?

Just like you ignore the fact that perspective cannot explain why the sun appears to set, or why the bottom of distant objects are obscured.

Just like you can't provide a demonstration of a flat surface obscuring the bottom of an object on it, or a flat surface where you can't see until the edge.

The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion? Could you also link a video where this picture came from? But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

And this just shows how blatantly dishonest you are.
You ask for a photo from a plane to show the dip, and then you just reject it because it shows you are wrong.
Why bother asking if you are just going to dismiss it?

Just what reason is there to think it is the light rather than Earth curving?

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

It most certainly is a dip downwards, unless you can explain why the bottom of a clearly resolvable object is hidden.

Again, clearly explain just what you mean when you talk about seeing the curvature or seeing a dip downwards.


You are making it abundantly clear you have no interest in honestly discussing the shape of Earth. Instead you are just here to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth is flat.

in your little water experiment you can easily manipulate it you are saying thats a dip but it's tiny from high altitudes but from ground level there's apparently a big dip hiding buildings so the dip should be massive from that height the horizon wouldn't be infront of you like that earth would be way below you .

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 11:55:23 AM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

From 70,000', U2 Spy plane:


The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion?

What kind of distortion? What kind of distortion presents a curve?

Could you also link a video where this picture came from?

Use your brain. Look at the code when you reply to a post.

But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

What would a dip down look like to you? You've already been shown a dozen images of a dip down. What are you missing?

Just from looking at such a long distance we might not be seeing what it actually looks like.

What do mean? I don't see no video link.

That's not a dip downwards but let's say there's a dip there now raise altitude we should see earth dipping down, but we don't.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 11:00:22 AM »

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

From 70,000', U2 Spy plane:

The horizon is about 320 miles away at that altitude do you not think its possible there would be distortion? Could you also link a video where this picture came from? But I don't mean a curve on horizon I mean a dip downwards. Notice how on the horizon its very light so that curve doesn't even look like its earth curving it's just light .

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 10:14:36 AM »

What do you mean it retains the same speed? On the heliocentric model the sun doesn't move over earth so if the sun is moving then doesn't that prove the sun moves over earth?

Yet again you deflect away from the main issue.

Speed is relative.
So no, the apparent motion of the sun or the relative motion of the sun does not prove that Earth is a stationary disc with the sun circling above it.

The key points are that the apparent motion of the sun remains ~constant, and the apparent size remains ~constant. Regardless of where you are the sun will appear to move at roughly 15 degrees per hour in the equatorial plane, and be ~0.5 degrees accross. It does not change with position on Earth nor with time of day.

For the RE model this all works just fine.
But with the FE model, it doesn't.
For the FE model with the sun "sinking due to perspective" you need the sun to physically speed up to maintain the same apparent speed, and to get physically larger to maintain the same apparent size.
But that would only work for 1 location. For people elsewhere, they would see the sun appear to get bigger and appear to move faster when this happens.

Again, this shows it is NOT perspective causing the sun to set, or even appear low to to the horizon.
You need some other phenomenon.

It shows that the sun is roughly the same distance from you at sunset as it is at midday.

Again, the RE works just fine.
Earth rotates, with the radius of Earth insignificant compared to the distance to the sun, so the sun remains roughly the same distance away all the time. (Sure, it varies by roughly 5 million km over the course of a year, but given it is roughly 150 million km, that isn't much, and also makes the daily rotation nothing).
And the sun appears to move because you are facing in a different direction (or the ground you are standing on is). It appears to set when Earth starts blocking the view.

If the curvature is so small how does it hide objects behind it?

And again you deflect.
You didn't even answer if the ground in the image I provided was curved or flat.

I have already answered your question, repeatedly.
The curvature is tiny, so it hides a tiny amount.
You need THOUSANDS of m of this tiny curvature to be able to hide a mere few m of an object.

if you are standing with your eyes 2 m above the surface, you need to travel ~5000 m (closer to 5048 m) before anything is hidden at all.
After 6 THOUSAND m, a mere 0.07 m is hidden. That is 1 part in 84000 parts.
After 10 THOUSAND m, a mere ~2 m is hidden. That is roughly 1 part in 5 thousand.

Do you understand just how little is hidden compared to Earth?

The amount hidden is absolutely tiny compared to the distance required to hide it.

Now do you understand why it is so hard to "see the curvature"?

And you still haven't even clearly explained what you mean by "seeing the curvature."

The best you have come up with is being able to rise in altitude and see more around the curve, and that is exactly what happens with Earth.

Why can't you show the bottom an object being hidden by a flat surface?
If the surface is flat, how does it hide anything?
If the surface is flat, and you are above it, what is stopping you seeing the edge?

So go in a plane and show me this downward dip then.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 14, 2021, 03:44:06 PM »

Ok so stay at ground level but slightly tilt tip of plane upwards to stop following the curvature...

Then you will continue to gain altitude and eventually go through the clouds.

If I'm looking at a hill then raise altitude I can see the hill sloping down

If it is a gradual curve, it looks the same. You just see a different portion of it. You need to raise yourself up until you are above the hill to be able to see down it.
And if it is a gradual enough curve, even if you are standing on top, without the reference of the land around the hill it doesn't look like its curving.

On Earth, it is sloping, but by a very small amount.
It is very difficult to try and determine the direction something is sloping.
There are even a bunch of places where downhill looks like up hill.
They are often called something like magnetic hill or gravity hill, where the attraction is that people go there to see things apparently roll up hill. But that is just a visual effect due to a person's inability to accurately determine what is level.

For Earth, the simplest thing to do is measure the angle of dip to the horizon, which increase the higher up you go.

But in reality, what you actually get with the hill is when you go up higher you can see more of it, and that is also exactly what happens with Earth.

But for a flat surface, that doesn't happen.
For a flat surface, if you are above it you can see to the end because there is nothing to obstruct your view.
As you raise up, the portion of your FOV each section takes up changes, but you don't see any more.

This is one of the simplest ways to see curvature in a 3D object. By noting that you see different portions of it when looking at if from different positions, and that those portions change smoothly.
So the fact that we have a clear horizon, and the position of the horizon varies with altitude and position, shows that Earth is round.

Because you would never get that if Earth was flat.

Again, does the basketball look curved?
Do you think it can hide objects?

Here is a simple question for you, is this ground flat or curved:

Ok so raise the altitude a little bit on the basketball experiment to show what it would look like from a plane... not sure why you can't just put an object over the Curvature on a basketball 🤔

How high is your plane?

Again, 2 m corresponds to roughly 30 nm.
The cruising altitude of a jet is roughly 10 km. That would be roughly 150 um.
Still virtually nothing. For comparison, a human hair ranges from roughly 20 to 200 um.
So you still need to be less than the width of a hair above your ball.

Again, Earth is not some tiny ball.

If the curvature is so small how does it hide objects behind it?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 14, 2021, 03:43:12 PM »

The sun retains the same size as it apporaches the horizon.
It also retains the same speed.
Finally, on a flat earth the sun would never even get close to the horizon. If you don't believe me, try calculating how far the sun would have to be for it to reach 5 degrees above the horizon.

What do you mean it retains the same speed? On the heliocentric model the sun doesn't move over earth so if the sun is moving then doesn't that prove the sun moves over earth?