What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

If it was on a pizza a little to the edge, it would be brought into view.

Then again, theory and practice say otherwise. If the image doesn't contain the ship, one won't bring it back just by making the image bigger. You will also find that telescopes don't revert actual cases of inferior and superior mirages.

Except that there is nothing to block the objects nor a corner to see around...   Critical thinking, eat your heart out...

Did I mention "corners" anywhere in my comment?  Nope.

I specifically said "the line of curvature" in my example. And I said that for a reason you obviously misunderstood.
 

Post you quoted. Choice of bolded yours:

If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

And there is no curvature or corners, so I clearly don't understand your non sequitur, no. 

Then again, theory and practice say otherwise. If the image doesn't contain the ship, one won't bring it back just by making the image bigger. You will also find that telescopes don't revert actual cases of inferior and superior mirages.

And again, this simple, established application of the laws of optics is still not understood by most flat earthers.  Maybe another parallel with telescopes and optical paths would be ground-based artillery, where the gunners have to plan a trajectory beyond the visible horizon.
 
The following is from an article about the WWI "Paris Gun":



 
The guns emplacement was dug out of the north side of the wooded hill at Chateau Bellevue.  Mounted on steel rails, the gun faced Paris.  The gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 75 miles.  The distance was so great that the Coriolis effect of the earths curvature affected trajectory of the gun. 

Firing at an azimuth of 232º, west by southwest, the gunners had to take into consideration that the shells landed to the right of their target due to the curvature of the earth.  (And bear in mind that these calculations were made nearly a century ago.)

Note also the range difference of 800m due to the earth's curvature.
 

The guns emplacement was dug out of the north side of the wooded hill at Chateau Bellevue.  Mounted on steel rails, the gun faced Paris.  The gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 75 miles.  The distance was so great that the Coriolis effect of the earths curvature affected trajectory of the gun. 

Firing at an azimuth of 232º, west by southwest, the gunners had to take into consideration that the shells landed to the right of their target due to the curvature of the earth.  (And bear in mind that these calculations were made nearly a century ago.)

Note also the range difference of 800m due to the earth's curvature.
 

Or, maybe they just did it like they do it with modern artillery.  A couple of Forward Observes with binoculars are close to where the target is and tell the artillery people how far off their calculations are so they can adjust their guns?

What?  A hundred years later, and we can not make accurate calculations for artillery shells from 10 miles away, yet, they could calculate this with any amount of accuracy from 75 miles back then?

I'm confused; you're asking me to believe that is saying the/a coriolis force exists because of curvature?

Or, maybe they just did it like they do it with modern artillery.  A couple of Forward Observes with binoculars are close to where the target is and tell the artillery people how far off their calculations are so they can adjust their guns?

Are you being serious with this claim? Exactly how did these "forward observers" survive in the first place, and even assuming they did, how did they "tell" the gunners what corrections to make to their trajectories?  And this a century ago?  You obviously also have no idea at all about modern artillery fire procedures do you?  We certainly don't use forward observers to direct artillery fire—computers do it for us.  Or for visual target locking, we use radio-controlled drones operated from a rear base.

You also have very little idea about non-ballistic missile launching and trajectory plotting either.  Ever been in the army?  I have.

What?  A hundred years later, and we can not make accurate calculations for artillery shells from 10 miles away, yet, they could calculate this with any amount of accuracy from 75 miles back then?

We can't accurately drop shells from a mere 10 miles distance?  Have they moved April 1 forward a couple of weeks?   



 

he could be thinking of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator

And as usual, confusing reality with fantasy and not properly separating them.

he could be thinking of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator

And as usual, confusing reality with fantasy and not properly separating them.

So, in flat earth terminology, binoculars = laser designators?
 
Sounds reasonable.   
 

Quote from: SirSpankalot on March 07, 2014, 07:31:00 PM

he could be thinking of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator

And as usual, confusing reality with fantasy and not properly separating them.

So, in flat earth terminology, binoculars = laser designators?
 
Sounds reasonable.   

Its plausible! lol

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:33:38 PM

Or, maybe they just did it like they do it with modern artillery.  A couple of Forward Observes with binoculars are close to where the target is and tell the artillery people how far off their calculations are so they can adjust their guns?

Are you being serious with this claim? Exactly how did these "forward observers" survive in the first place, and even assuming they did, how did they "tell" the gunners what corrections to make to their trajectories?  And this a century ago?  You obviously also have no idea at all about modern artillery fire procedures do you?  We certainly don't use forward observers to direct artillery fire—computers do it for us.  Or for visual target locking, we use radio-controlled drones operated from a rear base.

You also have very little idea about non-ballistic missile launching and trajectory plotting either.  Ever been in the army?  I have.

Quote

What?  A hundred years later, and we can not make accurate calculations for artillery shells from 10 miles away, yet, they could calculate this with any amount of accuracy from 75 miles back then?

We can't accurately drop shells from a mere 10 miles distance?  Have they moved April 1 forward a couple of weeks?   



 

Forward observers were used to report how far off the artillery shell missed because the people running the artillery battery would not have line of sight. Before computers were used, forward observers would watch the shell impact from afar with binoculars, then report how far off the shells missed and in what direction by radio or something of the sort, so that the shot could be recalculated. This would go on until they hit the target.

Ah Ok.. I stand corrected..

You also have very little idea about non-ballistic missile launching and trajectory plotting either.  Ever been in the army?  I have.

You obviously were a desk jockey and calling for artillery support was not a vital function of your job.  Virtually every Infantry leader has some level of knowledge about forward observation.  There is even a military occupation just for forward observers.  Also, yes, I was in the military, and no, I was not a desk jockey.



Those must be laser binoculars he is using. 

You obviously were a desk jockey and calling for artillery support was not a vital function of your job.

I find it endlessly amusing how often flat earthers use the word "obviously" as though it somehow magically endows their claim(s) with absolute probability and/or credibility.

BTW, they guy in your nice little picture is actually searching for contacts, and not ranging.
 
 

Maybe, but the guy with the binoculars in this pictures is.  Also, the guy in the first picture is still a Forward Observer. 

Your WWII diagram proves that you know absolutely nothing about how modern artillery functions.

Sorry.

Really?  I suppose you know more, desk jockey?

Your WWII diagram proves that you know absolutely nothing about how modern artillery functions.

Sorry.

Does it involve GPS?

Really?  I suppose you know more, desk jockey?

Is "desk jockey" and insult?

What do you do for a living now?

Quote from: jroa on March 08, 2014, 10:53:05 AM

Really?  I suppose you know more, desk jockey?

Is "desk jockey" and insult?

What do you do for a living now?

If you really want to know, PM me and I will tell you, but I do not see the relevance of my profession in this topic. 

This isn't a dig, just wondering why you only tell people what you do for a living in PM's??  There's nothing wrong with what you do, as you know I know what you do and it only adds cred to your views..

Because, I have a professional career.  As you can understand, not everyone at my job believes the same way I do.  I don't want to be labeled as a nut at my work place, but here, I really don't care.  I would only answer a PM if I thought there was very little chance that the person sending it would be tied to my organization.  However, I don't know who any of these hundreds of Guests are that read these boards everyday. 

Yep ok, that makes sense.

Because, I have a professional career.  As you can understand, not everyone at my job believes the same way I do.  I don't want to be labeled as a nut at my work place, but here, I really don't care.

So by saying this, you're effectively admitting that all the folks you work with accept the round earth model, and consider the flat earth model untenable and/or scientifically preposterous?  Do you not wonder sometimes why this should be so?  Do you seriously regard each of those round-earthers you work with as a "nut"—as you believe they would of you were your views to be known?

And why specifically are you afraid of stating your (flat earth) case to your workmates if you can at the very least explain the same logic that you use on this forum?  Is it that you lack the courage of your convictions when it comes to the crunch?  Remember that Galileo faced execution by Pope Urban simply for publicly stating his convictions about the planet.   

And I for one don't regard you as a "nut", but more aptly that I cannot in any way accept your alternative view of the planet we inhabit, and that I believe your opinion of the earth's shape to be totally unfounded.

But that's merely my opinion, and not an insult (as was your silly "desk jockey" jibe earlier).
 

No, by saying this, I am asking that my personal life and my online life remain separate. 

No, by saying this, I am asking that my personal life and my online life remain separate.

I understand what you're saying, and respect that of course. 

But having acknowledged that, it doesn't answer any of my "generic" questions I asked you, which in no way would make public any of your personal life.
 

You know ausGeoff ,I find some of my female clients extremely attractive & arousing. That doesn't  mean I have to let that be known to them. they may not feel the same way. imposing ones feelings & views on anther in that frame work is inappropriate . Now if they were on a chat site it might be different in expressing ones views & feelings.
So stop be a pratt. it means nothing of the sort she is effectively admitting that all the folks she works with accept the round earth model, and consider the flat earth model untenable and/or scientifically preposterous. I cant remember the last time one of my clients brought up the topic of a sphere shaped  earth. Oh & by the way referring to a round earth can be interoperated as being a flat round disc             

Get off the crack Charles..

AusGeoffs questions were reasonable, Jroa's answers were also reasonable..

Jroa is a BLOKE, not a female and Geoff is NOT trying to pick her.. I mean him.. up.! 

It seems grasping science isn't the only thing you're utterly hopeless at.

Oh & by the way referring to a round earth can be interpreted as being a flat round disc             

You've obviously missed the numerous times on this forum that I've described the earth (correctly) as an "oblate spheroid".  Most folks here just use "round earth" or more commonly "RE" for convenience's sake.  Saves a few keystrokes too.

—It's invariably a case of "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" wherever you're concerned isn't it Charles?
 

You seem to of mist the metaphor. There's no requirement in the contract ,in joining this forum to provide anything other then a legitimate  email address & a user name.
If the entity jroa doesn't want to disclose personal information ,then that's their prerogative. Making up assertions biased on their right to that prerogative is pretty childish.