the 'hill' topic

Quote from: digimonkey on October 06, 2012, 09:30:32 PM

It's really not semantics, you're just wrong.  In everyday life when you look down a hill things may be obstructed by it, and you may see taller objects in the distant but with part of their bottom structure cut off.  You need to think about it differently and I don't think at this point it can be put in any other way.  It's something you'll just have to realize in your own time.

i have shown it in pictures exactly what happens. can you demonstrate differently? so far all who have opposed have failed.
feel free to return to the discussion when you have something new to say with evidence to disprove my claim.

29silhouette already demonstrated how it works in about the best way you can giving the medium of communication.   You seem to be under the impression there is an incline of the Earth surface before a decline, and this is simply not how it works.  You really just need to think on the subject more and stop being so defensive about it.

29silhouette's reply looked more like it was backing my claim.

You really just need to think on the subject more and stop being so defensive about it.

you may not of noticed but this is the debate section 

(no where near the scale of a 2 meter person on a 12,756,000 meter sphere)

Obviously, the closer one gets to the surface, the shallower the angles become.

take note of the hill in question...
the point in this thread is that in ENaG the curvature is calculated using the red line and the 'hill' is not taken into consideration. we do not observe objects at the horizon perpendicular to the observer so the red line is incorrect.

I have the ability to aim my eyes straight ahead, at the ground, at the sky, and at every angle in between.

Why not show a diagram of a flat earth with the light rays of the objects in the distance bending downward so as to give the "appearance" of a rounding earth?

I have the ability to aim my eyes straight ahead, at the ground, at the sky, and at every angle in between.

Why not show a diagram of a flat earth with the light rays of the objects in the distance bending downward so as to give the "appearance" of a rounding earth?

why would i need to do this exactly?

i guess you cant provide any evidence to disprove my claim either... changing the subject is a poor way to divert the debate.
on a flat earth diagram the light would be bending upwards. so drawing your fiction diagrams are not going to get anybody anywhere.