The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker --Flat earth video game?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH holyshit

I know you like talking down to me like I'm intellectually inferior, but the truth is, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I'll talk really slowly.

No, that is exactly what YOU are doing. Acting like everyone else is a complete imbecile that fails to comprehend the most basic things; all while you get the most basic things wrong.

I've driven across the US, roughly 3000 miles. There isn't any such thing.

Because you aren't even attempting to look for it, nor do you have instruments sensitive enough to detect it.
What you are doing is like taking a bunch of bark off that tree, as tiny little pieces, and trying to put it together to see if it curves in any direction.

A mountain should split apart as its own weight is forced onto both sides of a large hill.

Why should that cause a mountain to split apart?
Yet again you are just spouting pure garbage with no justification at all.
You can't come up with anything rational to use against the RE so you just spout whatever BS you can come up with.

Lava from a volcano should not simply roll down a natural hill, but factor in for curvature.

Why and how?
Just what magic do you expect it do to?

So, what works better than pretending flat areas are curved and having to figure out where the real formula is?

Accepting that it is curved rather than just pretending.

When I did the math for gravity, I found the entire thing formula led nowhere.

You didn't do math for gravity.
You did math for pure BS.

As a reminder, you decided to use the formula F=GMm/r^2; decide that F must be 1, for absolutely no reason at all; and use that to come up with a pure BS version of "G" as
"G"=G*F r^2/Mm; then subsititute this BS back in to get:
F=(G*F r^2/Mm)*Mm/r^2 = G.
You put garbage in, so you got garbage out.

That is NOT you doing the math for gravity. That is you just spouting garbage.


Now care to address what I said?
How round objects can "appear" flat when you look at a small enough portion of them?
So looking at a tiny portion of Earth (or the world Hyrule is on) is NOT ENOUGH to determine if it is flat or round.

And looking at multiple smaller bits wont help you either.

Yeah you laugh at me, but here's the point. You have a lameass idea that you have to wait for someone else to handle cuz you got nothing. JackBlack is on my ignore list, so I'm ignoring him if you got nothing. Anyway, I figure I might answer his objections by accident, so I'll just rant a little.  Let's see...

Silly math for curve was what you had. I spent all last night looking for a simple formula to measure the amount of curvature in a 90 degree angle, then in each section. It should have been simple, after all, they are more than happy to tell us the area of a circle. But strangly, I was directed to Calculus III formulas (I stopped math at around PreCalc or Trig, because that was all my course requirement, and I somehow got out of it due to having community college courses) that involved some sort of sine, cosine, and so on relats and went on for quite awhile. I guess it was supposed to be a "proof" but it just proved to me that they couldn't give a simple answer. I come from the Lao Tzu school of though that people who can't give a simple answer are usually lying.
Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.
Or the idea that dividing the Earth into sections that should give the ability to see flat around out of what is supposed to be a curved region. But there is only so much you can break that area down, as we have ability to see certain distance. The entire thing falls like a house of cards though when you consider that the distance of curve from a mountain is sometimes hundreds of miles, leading to a curve that would be too great to see.

You're laughing, but you got nothing. Just as the climate people are bullying folks like me with their 5G shit because they too have nothing. Their climate ideas are bankrupt, so they've decided to zap me to death. Sorry, but wrong ideas will still be wrong.
 You can't save the world with solar or wind if it involves clearing trees to do so (CO2 lost from trees makes the air that much worse). You can't save the world with electric cars, because they ultimately turn to wind and solar ostensibly to solve the problem, then because the amount of forests cleared would turn Earth into a wasteland, it ultimately comes back to out of sight power plants that are coal or even nuclear. Face it, none of this helps. So you try to shoot the messenger, and there are probably alot more messengers than you think. Will you go bankrupt trying to kill all the people who oppose you with 5G and vaccines?

By the way, maybe my rant will give you something to talk about. Cuz right now, you just laughing at me and relying on someone else? Kinda pathetic. You rely on Jack Black like I rely on Jesus. But Jesus has taught me that my faith has made me well, that I can (if need be) stand on my own.

But I know he will not abandon me to my enemies. Cuz they got nothing. Even death is nothing to fear. Therefore I will accept death whenever it takes me.

haha i got nothing?

no i just wanted to see jack go at it.

either way


skip to 2:05
10,000sided polygon.

for someone who apparently dabbles in CGI, you really are shit for brains to argue that many pieces of straight lines couldn't possibly create a circle.

amazing

JackBlack is on my ignore list

Yet you "respond" so often.
Just not on the topic.

Silly math for curve was what you had. I spent all last night looking for a simple formula to measure the amount of curvature in a 90 degree angle, then in each section. It should have been simple, after all, they are more than happy to tell us the area of a circle. But strangly, I was directed to Calculus III formulas (I stopped math at around PreCalc or Trig, because that was all my course requirement, and I somehow got out of it due to having community college courses) that involved some sort of sine, cosine, and so on relats and went on for quite awhile. I guess it was supposed to be a "proof" but it just proved to me that they couldn't give a simple answer.

The math is simple trig.
And there are a few different options (based upon what you want to measure) and a few approximations which can make it even easier.

Assuming you want an angle, and the drop is the height from your feet straight down to a line running perpindicular to straight down to the point on the curve, then it is simply:
h=R*(1-cos(a))

Simple enough for you?
Or don't you like basic trig?

If you want an approximation for that which is valid for short distances, then it is h=d^2/2R
Noting that this uses distance, not angle.

Another simple approximation is that for an observer (eye) at a height of h, the drop from the point directly below them (on a hypothetical curve level with the horizon) to the horizon will be h. So if you stand with your eyes a height of 2 m above sea level looking over an ocean, the horizon will be roughly 5 km away and will have a drop of roughly 2 m, or 4 m from your eye level.

I come from the Lao Tzu school of though that people who can't give a simple answer are usually lying.

So you, being unable to provide simple answers to so many questions, are likely lying?
In reality, not all questions have simple answers.
You can explain how I move my physical mouse it moves the cursor on the screen, in a simple manner which doesn't miss any detail at all? No.
That is a question that necessitates a complex answer. You can give a simple answer, but it would be so simple it is wrong.
Your inability to understand math doesn't mean everyone else is lying.

Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.

No, the idea that you can look at a small enough portion of a sphere, and not be able to tell it is a sphere.

Like this:

and this:


You have no way to refute it, so you dismiss it.

Or the idea that dividing the Earth into sections that should give the ability to see flat around out of what is supposed to be a curved region.

No, the idea that you are not able to detect the curvature at those distances, as you aren't even trying to use an instrument accurate enough to do so.

The entire thing falls like a house of cards though when you consider that the distance of curve from a mountain is sometimes hundreds of miles, leading to a curve that would be too great to see.

Did you mean too great not to see?
Notice how you just boldly proclaim this as a fact, with nothing to justify it at all?
You already admitted the basic math to determine how much curve is there is beyond you, so how do you even know how much curve there is to see?

Using the simple approximation above, and saying the distance to the horizon is 160 km that would be a drop of roughly 2 km (and likewise it would require an observer height of roughly 2 km.
We can also consider how much of a circle this would be. 160 km in each direction is 320 km from one side to the other. This works out to be roughly 3 degrees.
If you had a perfect spherical surface and take a slice of it, this is what that would look like:

Instead, you have a mountain in the middle, and you are standing in the middle looking out.
Just how do you plan on seeing this curve?

Here is a rendering giving an example of what it would look like assuming a perfectly smooth sphere viewed from 2 km:


And this is from a much greater altitude (35000 km, with the checker blocks larger):

Just as the climate people are bullying folks like me with their 5G shit because they too have nothing.

You sure do love spouting delusional BS.
If anything, the people who care about the climate/Earth oppose 5G, as it is wasteful.
Those promoting it have nothing to do with climate change.

You can't save the world with solar or wind if it involves clearing trees to do so (CO2 lost from trees makes the air that much worse).

Actually, you can.
It depends upon how much CO2 you save.
And for the most part it is a question of when not if.

This is because if your options are burning fossil fuels which just continually pump out CO2, or wipe out a few trees and replace them with solar panels to provide power to replace that oil based power, then the math can be quite simple.
The time it takes for that to be net neutral is how much "CO2" the trees contained (and under this assumption released) plus the amount of CO2 it took to make and install the solar panels all divided by the rate it is offsetting the production of CO2 from the power plant.

e.g. lets say that forest contained 99 million tonnes of CO2, i.e. cutting it all down and burning it would release that much CO2. That cost of producing and installing and upkeeping the solar panels is a total of 1 million tonnes of CO2.
The power output from the solar panels, as a per year average, would produce the same amount of power as burning 10 million tonnes of CO2.
This our calculation would be (99 + 1)/(10) = 10 years.

So before 10 years, it means more CO2 is in the atmosphere than if you didn't.
After 10 years it means less is there.

The big difference is that wiping out the tress is a one off.
Burning fossil fuels is additive, with more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere.

And this was entirely ignoring what happened to the trees.
Are these trees going to replace other trees that already would have been cut down? If so, the cost associated with cutting them down reduces or disappears entirely.

You rely on Jack Black like I rely on Jesus.

The difference is I am real and here and can actually do things. Your imaginary friend can't help you.

haha i got nothing?

no i just wanted to see jack go at it.

either way


skip to 2:05
10,000sided polygon.

for someone who apparently dabbles in CGI, you really are shit for brains to argue that many pieces of straight lines couldn't possibly create a circle.

amazing

  No, you aren't getting it. The existence of ten thousand sided polygon (btw, a circle is not a thousand sided polygon, it by definition is considered to be smooth; sides are edges) doesn't mean Earth is a thousand sided polygon. Rather every horizon we see would have to be a side. The problem with this is that perspective is (at least) three miles, barring obstructions and depending on altitude. This means there is a limit to the number of sides, and that limit must allow for each side to be 3 miles or more. And if we accept that being a sphere means the radius at 90° is equal to the radius at starting point, then the hypotenuse of a 3 ft radius tree trunk is an extra 1.243 ft beyond the radius. Without invoking pi and a bunch sketchy thirdhand math, that's what I'd say is the amount of extra curve. With Earth rather than a tree, there ought to be 1636 miles of extra curvature from point A to point B, roughly 3000+ miles away. I have never experienced even part of this, driving from Virginia to California. Further, you can't divide it by sides anyway, because sides are hard edges, and only certain adjacent edges can be seen. I picked up a 1d20 and I could see only 7 sides at a time (less than 1/3 of it).  Maybe 8 if I hold it back, but never all 20, if I hold it up to my eyes this goes down to about five. Only adjacent edges. And given sufficient curve, there is a natural limit to the number of edges, no matter how far away (in fact, even across the room, the limit on a 1d20 appears to be 8, the point at where things curve). The problem with this (since I'm entirely sure you will say, "See?") is that how mountains can stretch vision to tens or hundreds of miles away ( if there is a tall  object far away to see). We can see mountains from 443 km away from the Pyrenees to the French Alps. In other words, this limit of curvature actually disproves the ability to see that far.

Draw a circle of 8,000units diamter

Draw a stick 1 unit high off the edge of the circle.

From top of said stick, draw a line tangent to circumference of circle.

Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.

Same debunked argument?  Really?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 03, 2023, 05:21:06 AM

I have gone on more than a few boat rides and yeah it all seems very flat.

And again.  With the the navy I was south of the equator.

The FE map makes no sense south of the equator.  Distances are wrong and landmass relationships are off.


In addition, FE offers no solution why the North Star and certain constellations are physically blocked from view while in Australia where they should be brought back into view with a telescope.

And again..

Why can people in the Southern Hemisphere look south and see the same stars and constellations.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 03, 2022, 07:55:33 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 03, 2022, 07:26:55 PM

nobody can prove that the ocean curves around the underside of the equator,

One.  How people in the Southern Hemisphere can look south and see the same stars and constellations.






Two.  The earth’s curvature blocks some northern stars and constellations from view in the Southern Hemisphere.

Three.  Yet we all see the same side / surface of the moon


Four. The fact the earth’s curvature physically blocks ships from view where they cannot be brought back  into view with zoom.






Five.  Southern Hemisphere flights…


https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 03, 2023, 05:21:06 AM

This. In every direction.

This has been answered repeatedly in many ways.

Again…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 22, 2023, 12:10:10 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 22, 2023, 10:51:35 AM

Let's zoom in like a mother and see that indeed small sections of this cylinder are level.

The bubbles of the level are meaningless as employed in this fashion.

For example. If you laid the straight edge on top of a picture frame, or along the edge of a picture frame it would help you level the frame. 

The bubbles used in this fashion are useless. 

The important part is the straight edge against the tank.

And you ignored this.

What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

Again, this is going quite far from Zelda.
Where are these flat areas you claim exist in Tears of the Kingdom?
How do you know the entire world is flat?

No, you aren't getting it. The existence of ten thousand sided polygon (btw, a circle is not a thousand sided polygon, it by definition is considered to be smooth; sides are edges) doesn't mean Earth is a thousand sided polygon.

There are mutiple ideas of "what is a circle".
One is the limit of an n sided polygon as n goes to infinity.
And a many sided polygon is an approximation for a circle.
And no one is suggesting that the mere existence of such a polygon would mean Earth is that.
The point is that the angle between the sides is tiny.
If you represent a great circle of Earth as a 10 thousand sided polygon, each side would be 4 km long.
The exterior angle at an apex would be 0.009 degrees. It would appear to the naked as pretty much a straight line.

Rather every horizon we see would have to be a side. The problem with this is that perspective is (at least) three miles, barring obstructions and depending on altitude. This means there is a limit to the number of sides, and that limit must allow for each side to be 3 miles or more.

Wrong again. But it does help show how ridiculous your idea of curvature magically making the horizon at 5 km regardless of how high you are.
When you are low enough, the first corner blocks your view.
But if you get higher, you can see past that corner.

e.g. here it is for a 16 sided polygon:

For this in region A, they can see up to the first corner. After that the polygon blocks the view.
If they are in region B, they can see to the second corner, with the first corner not blocking the view to that portion.

And if we accept that being a sphere means the radius at 90° is equal to the radius at starting point, then the hypotenuse of a 3 ft radius tree trunk is an extra 1.243 ft beyond the radius. Without invoking pi and a bunch sketchy thirdhand math, that's what I'd say is the amount of extra curve. With Earth rather than a tree, there ought to be 1636 miles of extra curvature from point A to point B, roughly 3000+ miles away.

What?
Without invoking math you are just throwing out numbers.
If you have a circle with a radius of 3 units, then a right angle triangle touching the centre and 2 points will have a hypotenuse of 4.243, meaning the hypotenuse is 1.243 units longer than the radius. The arc along this 90 degree section will instead be 4.712 units, or an extra 1.712 units.
But more importantly, this is only for a 90 degree section.

If you want to translate that to Earth, that means you need a distance along the surface of roughly 10 000 km, not 3000 miles.
It is entirely unclear what you mean by "extra curvature".
Do you mean a distance along the surface of 3000 miles should actually be 4636 miles? Because that makes no sense at all.

Yet again you are just spouting nonsense to pretend Earth can't be round.

I picked up a 1d20 and I could see only 7 sides at a time (less than 1/3 of it).  Maybe 8 if I hold it back, but never all 20, if I hold it up to my eyes this goes down to about five.

Great job contradicting yourself, on several levels.
This demonstrates clearly that you don't need the side to go all the way to the horizon, and that the distance to the horizon will vary with altitude.

No, you will never see all 20 sides, because the dice will block the view to at least half the sides.
But if you hold it far enough back, and at appropriate positions, you should be able to see 10 sides.
For example, if you start aligned with the centre of one face, if you are close enough you will see 1 side, as you move it further away, you will see the 3 extra sides around it, and then the 6 extra sides around them.
If instead you start at a corner, you start seeing 5 sides, and as you move it away you eventually reach a point where you see an extra 5.

And given sufficient curve, there is a natural limit to the number of edges, no matter how far away

There is no need to invoke a curve specifically for this.
There is a natural limit to how much you can see of any solid object. If the normal of the face is more than 90 degrees away from the direction pointing to you, then to see it you need light to bend or reflect.

And this is not a limit based upon number of edges.
The easy way to understand this is to consider one of the more distant edges.
If you were to truncate a closer corner, in effect adding a corner to it, without making it stick out; why would that have any effect on your ability to see the distant face?
The only way to block that face by changing the geometry (rather than the orientation) is to make a closer face stick out and obstruct the view.

The other simple way to show it is not a matter of edges is to go the other way.
Consider a d4. This only has 4 faces.
You claimed that even when holding the d20 really close you can see 5 faces.
So why is it that I can never see all 4 faces of a d4 at once? Instead, I can see a maximum of 3, and can have it all the way down to 1.

The problem with this (since I'm entirely sure you will say, "See?") is that how mountains can stretch vision to tens or hundreds of miles away ( if there is a tall  object far away to see).

No, that is NOT a problem.
That is exactly what is expected.

What would be impossible is to see beyond 10 000 km.

You have had all this refuted before. Why come here and spout the same nonsense, especially when you have already contradicted it above?

"Refuted."

Now, when you're done with your sleight of hand trick, the human eye is obstructed by curve...
(we both agree so far)

...at any altitude!!!

Figure A & C. Despite looking down towards the ground (which I see as flat), the stick man can see down the hill of the curve, just as he could on a hilltop. This is patent nonsense. 
Figure B & D, looking straight ahead in either direction. I decided not to try to figure out angles upward. Now, Stickman decides to climb up the foothills and look from mountain. This is Figure E & F. Let's start with Figure E.

You might be tempted to think from the long sight line that Stickman can see farther. No, but I'll get to that.

I have decided to place a small city as a landmark near figure C. Now we have a point at which we can gauge actual distance at.  Stickman cannot see farther. In a round(ed) Earth, the horizon is farther from him, but actual view is exactly the same distance, except where obstructed in C.
At point C, distance seen is now shorter than the horizon but still longer than you naturally should be able to see. Btw, all of this is longer than you naturally should be able to see, if we're assuming 3 mile sides and standing on flat ground except E & F.

Okay, so... looking down, the city obstructs sight. Looking straight ahead (on a surface that again, appears to me to be flat), you see over the city as though standing on a hilltop. And I contend that it's not how high up you are on a round Earth but how close to the curve you are standing. I originally had the mountain facing the opposite direction, and realized they could see past the line of horizon for everyone else. So I moved the mountaintop parallel to the stick figure standing in front of the mountain base. Suddenly the curve prevented anything further. You can't see past the city, even if there is like a forest or something. You can only see over the city, at which point, curve forms horizon according to you.

You don't believe me? Tilt your computer sideways! The corner stands.

But let's assume it didn't. We're gonna keep going. I've drawn a volcano on some distant island. However, point F see only sky looking in a straight line. Even point D cannot see it, looking in a straight line (it would be well below them). That means, if we now remove the city, only C & E are even in a position to see it.

Do you see this in reality? No. No, you don't look down to see things off in the distance.


Then is it delusional? Yes. Is it BS? Yes.

@JackBlack, is Round Earth theory Delusional BS? You know the answer to this question in your heart and soul.

It's Delusional BS.

In a flat Earth, altitude increases focal length. No curve obstructs path. You do not have to look down to see distant mountains. You can look straight ahead. Horizon doesn't just appear to be farther away (in fact, because it is the sky and not the Earth that curves, horizon always seems the same distance, even though it is not always), objects actually can be 50 or even a hundred miles away. Fun fact. I thought Mount Fuji was right outside Tokyo. Turns out, it's 60+ miles away! If you were looking around a curve, you shouldn't even be able to see it. Not looking down, you can see it looking straight across.

wow
dishonesty to the extreme



your volcano is equivalent to approx 40%diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x 40% = 3,200mi high volcano.
your man is 1/6, 17% the approx diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x .17 = 1,333mi high person.

given commercial airliners boing 737 google says  fly at altitude 41,000ft = 8mi
woweee...

anyone know of such a thing to be 1,000mi high?!!?!??!?!??




also

hahah wtf is 'F'?
hahahahha you're an amzing person.
is A a point or a line?
is B an angle or a line or a point?
and holyshit wtf is C or D?!?! as theyre are clearly ambiuguously indeterminabel from being an angle, a corner nor a line.

are there any 5,500mile high mountains on earth that a 1,000mi high person has climbed?




amazing!!!!

"Refuted."
Now, when you're done with your sleight of hand trick, the human eye is obstructed by curve...

I'm not doing any slight of hand trick.

I even went and directly provided the tangents which limit the vision, to show how you were wrong (i.e. refute your claims).
And you even basically confessed to being wrong when you started discussing the dice.
If your delusional BS was true, you would only ever see 1 face of it.
The one trying a "slight of hand trick" here is you.

Figure A & C. Despite looking down towards the ground (which I see as flat), the stick man can see down the hill of the curve, just as he could on a hilltop. This is patent nonsense.

Why?
Because you say so?
You cannot demonstrate any actual fault with it, so you instead resort to just dismissing it as nonsense.
This indicates you likely know you are spouting pure BS.

You might be tempted to think from the long sight line that Stickman can see farther.

Yes, but it isn't a simple case of greater altitude means they can see further.
Instead it is about the tangents.

Just rejecting that because it does't fit your fantasy wont help you.

I have decided to place a small city as a landmark near figure C. Now we have a point at which we can gauge actual distance at.  Stickman cannot see farther. In a round(ed) Earth, the horizon is farther from him, but actual view is exactly the same distance, except where obstructed in C.

Why?
If the horizon is further what magic is stopping him from seeing further?

You are now just spouting pure BS with no justification at all.

At point C, distance seen is now shorter than the horizon but still longer than you naturally should be able to see. Btw, all of this is longer than you naturally should be able to see, if we're assuming 3 mile sides and standing on flat ground except E & F.

The diagram is of a 16 sided shape. That is quite clearly NOT a representation of a round Earth approximated as a polyhedron with 3 mile long sides.

Okay, so... looking down, the city obstructs sight. Looking straight ahead (on a surface that again, appears to me to be flat), you see over the city as though standing on a hilltop. And I contend that it's not how high up you are on a round Earth but how close to the curve you are standing.

That is basically just saying the same thing.
The only distinction is what you are measuring the height of.
Standing on a plateau, several km above sea level wont magically extend your horizon, because you are limited by the plateau.
So the important curve to measure to is the one your line of sight is tangent to.

I originally had the mountain facing the opposite direction, and realized they could see past the line of horizon for everyone else. So I moved the mountaintop parallel to the stick figure standing in front of the mountain base. Suddenly the curve prevented anything further. You can't see past the city, even if there is like a forest or something. You can only see over the city, at which point, curve forms horizon according to you.

So what you are saying, you clearly saw that you were wrong, so you then proceeded to manipulate it to pretend you aren't.
You made the curve at the most distant point the lower person can see to be quite extreme, to make it so a much greater altitude was needed.

But even then, you still just failed, and decided to just draw a line and pretend you can't see past it.


The higher observer can see past C.
And if you were more honest and made them a bit higher, that would be even more obvious.

What is certainly obvious is that the higher observer can see the top of the volcano, while the lower one can't.

The only way to prevent it is to put something else there to block the view.

You don't believe me? Tilt your computer sideways!

And see just how dishonestly you have made your shape?

Do you see this in reality? No. No, you don't look down to see things off in the distance.

Yes. We do.
Your dishonest, wilful rejection of reality does not change this:

Do you know the big difference between your crappy image and Earth?
SCALE!

In your image, the horizontal "diameter" of Earth is 494 px, the vertical one is 405 px; making the "radius" 247 px or 202.5 px respectively.
The distance from the high observer's eye to the ground is roughly 346 px.

That means you have your observer roughly 1.5 times the radius above the planet.

With such significant altitude they will have to look down quite a lot.

For Earth, even Mt Everest is only roughly 8 km above the surface, compared to the radius of roughly 6371 km.
Instead of a factor of 1.5, that is a factor of 0.00125.

Fortunately, simple math (I know, you hate it) easily allows one to determine the angle of dip to the horizon.
Assuming Earth was a perfect sphere with a radius of R, and an observer had an eye height of h, then the angle of dip to the horizon (a) is given by:
cos(a)=R/(R+h)

For the observer on Mt Everest, that is 2.9 degrees.
For an observer at a more reasonable altitude of 1 km, that is ~1 degree.
For someone standing at sea level with a height of 2 m, that is ~0.05 degrees.

Then is it delusional? Yes. Is it BS? Yes.

Your arguments most certainly are, without any shred of integrity.

@JackBlack, is Round Earth theory Delusional BS? You know the answer to this question in your heart and soul.

No, as further evidenced by the level of blatant dishonesty you need to appeal to to pretend there is a problem.
If it truly was delusional BS you wouldn't need to be so dishonest.

In a flat Earth, altitude increases focal length. No curve obstructs path.

There is no reason for altitude to allow you to see further on a FE.
No curve obstructing the path represents a massive problem, as you have NOTHING obstructing the view; yet in reality Earth is clearly observed to obstruct the view.

You do not have to look down to see distant mountains. You can look straight ahead.

This depends on the on where you and the mountains are.
What is certainly true is that to see an object at your altitude or below you, it will be below you.
And likewise, the horizon (other than that formed from mountains or hills or the like) will be below you.

Horizon doesn't just appear to be farther away

Not only does the horizon appear to be further away, it actually is further away.

I thought Mount Fuji was right outside Tokyo. Turns out, it's 60+ miles away! If you were looking around a curve, you shouldn't even be able to see it. Not looking down, you can see it looking straight across.

Mt Fuji, with a peak altitude of 3776.24 m, should have the peak visible to an observer at sea level roughly 219 km away.
At a distance of 100 km, if your eyes were at sea level, only roughly 784 m should be obscured, leaving roughly 3 km visible.

You might hate the math (because of how easily it shows you are blatantly lying to everyone) but without it the best you can get is "I don't know".
Because without the math we can see that getting higher, or making the distant object we are trying to view higher, it can be seen for a greater distance.
Without the math, we don't know what distance is required to hide Mt Fuji.

So contrary to your blatant lie, you should easily be able to see Mt Fuji.

Such blatant disregard for the truth wont help a flat Earth. Instead it just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

"Refuted."

Nothing is refuted by you.  There is an actual dip to the horizon.

What is proven? You don’t understand how large the spherical earth is. 

Or just willing to ignore reality. 

Yes, dishonesty to the extreme. You see this yourself, if you turn your comp on its side, but I know you won't do that but instead laugh at me again. You realize I gave you plenty of leeway with the insane height of this volcano (might as well be Death Mountain). And then I gave even more leeway by making the mountain high enough that should give a longer view. But I realized a curve is a curve, and the height lengthens the horizon, not the view. F, btw, is looking straight across. But there's some thing else I noticed. Neither C nor E actually hit line of sight with the volcano. E sees over it by a fair margin. C eventually looks up instead of down. This is the screwy sight physics of a round Earth.
And instead of thanking me for giving you extra opportunity to prove myself wrong, you pick at how my art is bad, and don't really that it was a favor that this mountain and this volcano were absurdly big. Yeah I used point, figure, and line interchangeably. So what. Most of these are lines that end in a point at the horizon. C ends with the city.

wow
dishonesty to the extreme



your volcano is equivalent to approx 40%diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x 40% = 3,200mi high volcano.
your man is 1/6, 17% the approx diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x .17 = 1,333mi high person.

given commercial airliners boing 737 google says  fly at altitude 41,000ft = 8mi
woweee...

anyone know of such a thing to be 1,000mi high?!!?!??!?!??




also

hahah wtf is 'F'?
hahahahha you're an amzing person.
is A a point or a line?
is B an angle or a line or a point?
and holyshit wtf is C or D?!?! as theyre are clearly ambiuguously indeterminabel from being an angle, a corner nor a line.

are there any 5,500mile high mountains on earth that a 1,000mi high person has climbed?




amazing!!!!

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Lines segment by points A to B.

Or

Lines themselves are marked by label.




Then look at jackBs green lines and then look up how "pirate crows nests" work and ask why neither stickman can see the bottom of the volcano and similarly why ships disappesr bottom first.



Amazing!
Your amazong diagram proves a ball earth.
Glad we now agree on reality.

Next up -politics and environment.
Alsmot there.

Yes, dishonesty to the extreme.

https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method

😁

Next up -politics and environment.
Alsmot there.

What?  You don’t appreciate the pictures of cross dressing?  If you’re going to derail a thread, do it in a dress. 

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Nomenclature is made to be broken.

Quote

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Nomenclature is made to be broken.

You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken?  And it has been for a long long time. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 05:58:19 AM

Quote

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Nomenclature is made to be broken.

You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken?  And it has been for a long long time.

i know i'm a little nonsequitor at times but what are you on about?!

holycrap balls man

hahah

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 26, 2023, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 05:58:19 AM

Quote

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Nomenclature is made to be broken.

You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken?  And it has been for a long long time.

i know i'm a little nonsequitor at times but what are you on about?!

holycrap balls man

hahah

We are often limited by reality.  But when it comes to the reality of outer space/ our solar system vs the dome.   

If you just stare gaze and buy any decent telescope.  It becomes quite apparent there are other planets like Jupiter.  The dome in the sense of flat earth is pure BS.  The dome is a made up limit. 

So, take  bulmabriefs144.  Wanting to live an expanded life?   

bulmabriefs144 that believes their god stuck them in a fish tank.  A very limited existence.  And ignores the true nature and possibilities of outer space.  Where one can see comets.  Or study the planet Jupiter with its many moons.


So bulmabriefs144 thinks living one’s best life is to don a piece of cloth for attention and to lie about the very nature of our solar system and creation. 

Again, where are these flat regions in tears of the kingdom?

Yes, dishonesty to the extreme.

Thanks for summing yourself up.

But I realized a curve is a curve, and the height lengthens the horizon, not the view.

You mean you realised you were wrong, you realised that increasing altitude will allow you to see further, so you felt the need to be as dishonest as possible to pretend it wouldn't.

As shown, even by your own diagram, and your own confession regarding dice, for a round (or even polyhedral) object, the higher you are above it, the more you can see.

Neither C nor E actually hit line of sight with the volcano. E sees over it by a fair margin.

Because they are arbitrary lines drawn in with no basis at all.
That doesn't prove anything except that you are yet again grasping at straws.

This is the screwy sight physics of a round Earth.

There is nothing "screwy" about this.

And instead of thanking me for giving you extra opportunity to prove myself wrong

And I took it and further demonstrated your dishonesty.

don't really that it was a favor that this mountain and this volcano were absurdly big.

How is it a favour?
You appeal to these giant objects to claim you need to look down, to pretend it refutes the RE.

But the only reason you need to look down so much is due to the ridiculous height of the mountain.
If you drew it to scale; you wouldn't need to look down anywhere near that much.

Most of these are lines that end in a point at the horizon.

No, 2 are. The rest just magically end for no reason at all.
Because you want to pretend the horizon is magic and wont let you see further.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 05:58:19 AM

Quote

Stick to one system of nomenclature.

Nomenclature is made to be broken.

You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken?  And it has been for a long long time.

Solar system?

Are you referring to the Nine Realms?



They cannot be traversed, except through the atmospheric bridge.

Are you referring to the Nine Realms?

I’m referring to what is actually witnessed when using a telescope at night. 

Or phenomena during the day like a solar eclipse. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 09:36:40 PM

Are you referring to the Nine Realms?

Have an adult read his post to you. He asked you to explain how something that can be observed occurs. Answer the question or show evidence for the nine realms.

So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?

But space as a theory has a number of problems.

Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces. Jet skis? Push against water. Planes? Push against air. Unless something has a surface to push against (like a "rainbow" bridge between words made of air or water) it just falls. The idea of it moving or rolling forward is absurd.

So if we see comets or meteors moving around, it's because they are interacting with bands of atmosphere connecting worlds.

Quote from: Bored on October 26, 2023, 10:02:16 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 09:36:40 PM

Are you referring to the Nine Realms?

Have an adult read his post to you. He asked you to explain how something that can be observed occurs. Answer the question or show evidence for the nine realms.

So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?

But space as a theory has a number of problems.

Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces. Jet skis? Push against water. Planes? Push against air. Unless something has a surface to push against (like a "rainbow" bridge between words made of air or water) it just falls. The idea of it moving or rolling forward is absurd.

So if we see comets or meteors moving around, it's because they are interacting with bands of atmosphere connecting worlds.

A bunch of bullshit.












Hello?  McFly.  Why would they need bands of atmosphere if there is no vacuum of space?  In what?  Your solid dome.

One.  The sun illuminates the atmospheres of Saturn and Jupiter.  No evidence of bands of atmosphere for comets to travel in.   And how would comets stay aloft in bands of atmosphere. 

Two.  The tails of comets are moved away from the sun by solar wind as they travel around the sun.  How would that work in what band of atmosphere in your dome delusion.

Three.  No evidence that comets travel around a sun that is orbiting above a flat earth in earth’s atmosphere.  Ever indication comets when they travel around the sun, the sun is the center of our solar system, are traveling around a sun 93,000,000 miles away outside earth’s atmosphere and van Allen vents. 

Again.  One night of star gazing and using a good telescope shows you’re full of shit.

[
So if we see comets or meteors moving around,

Shouldn’t your parabola delusion make them invisible anyway.  So stupid.  I guess you’re just blind to reality.  Or live in a basement.

So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?

We have sky islands.
Some rocks which fall.
And we have star fragments which fall from above the star

But space as a theory has a number of problems.

Yet you can't show any and instead just make stuff up to pretend there is.

Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces.

No.
We move by action-reaction pairs.
Push something one way, and it pushes back against us the other way.
For a car, it pushes against the road and the road pushes back.
For a boat, it pushes against the water and the water pushes back.
For a plane, it pushes against the air and it pushes back.
For a rocket, it pushes against high pressure gas which gets ejected.

This is required to get it moving.
But what you appear to be appealing to is the effect of gravity making things fall.
That doesn't magically make it stop moving and fall straight down.
It just changes its direction.
Meteors are in free fall.
Satellites in orbit are in free fall.

So where is the problem?

Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?

That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn tonight, at around 8 o clock!" There was an ISS space station supposed to be visible on the beach at Cape May one year at 9 pm. We could have seen it while on vacation.

But my dad, being my dad, wanted to see it from a better beach. We got lost on the road, ended up getting there late to the wrong beach , and then an hour later when I told him I was really pissed at him, but now that years have passed, I'm thankful. It was gone by the time we got to that beach, like it was never there... not over to the side, just gone. I have never seen any of this stuff, Saturn, Venus, the ISS. When the object is supposed to be visible, I'm not involved.

Again, what does this have to do with Zelda?
You can't see Saturn in Zelda.
Instead, the main celestial objects are the moon and blood moon (Is that the same moon, or something else) and the sun.

Where are the mystical flat lands you claim exist in Zelda?

Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?

That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn tonight, at around 8 o clock!"

No, that is the result of viewing an object with a small angular size through a lot of atmosphere.
And Saturn, being a planet that is very far away, is visible for roughly half the world at once, for a very long period of time.
It isn't that you can see it around 8 o clock.
Instead, currently (based upon the position of Saturn and Earth in their orbits around the sun) it "rises" shortly after mid day and "sets" shortly after mid night.
However, as it is faint you need it to be night to see it.
That means Saturn is visible from sunset till shortly after mid night.

There was an ISS space station supposed to be visible on the beach at Cape May one year at 9 pm. We could have seen it while on vacation.

But my dad, being my dad, wanted to see it from a better beach. We got lost on the road, ended up getting there late to the wrong beach , and then an hour later when I told him I was really pissed at him, but now that years have passed, I'm thankful. It was gone by the time we got to that beach, like it was never there... not over to the side, just gone. I have never seen any of this stuff, Saturn, Venus, the ISS. When the object is supposed to be visible, I'm not involved.

You have brought that up before, and simple math shows you were too late.
Even without the simple math, the ISS orbital period of roughly 90 minutes means that if you were an hour late, you would have missed it.
Just think, if your dad was better and got you there in time, and you looked in the right place, you would have seen the ISS yourself and maybe not have gone down this path of delusional BS.
Stop hiding behind your wilful ignorance.