Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.

  • 172 Replies
  • 37825 Views
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #90 on: March 28, 2017, 05:20:52 AM »
I see someone mentioned going to Norway, so I thought views of water horizons would be curved, so I took a look see:

South-

https://c5.staticflickr.com/4/3503/3267999092_c4f3c5e560.jpg

West-

http://ship-photo-roster.com/images/photos/thumbs/de/defd2fa3f2_l.jpg

East-

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/north-sea-prter-remote-view-norway-krager-s-island-paradise-pearl-coast-43848257.jpg

North-

http://www.thebeautyoftravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lofoten-Islands-Fredvang-Bridges-Norway.jpg

How disappointing, all four views show the water line horizon of the Norwegian Sea as flat, level, and horizontal to plane earth, just like the Hudson Bay. You know what I'm willing to bet, you'll find it like that all over earth.

Can you show me a water line horizon on earth that is curved, left to right, to match earth's curvature claim? Find videos that pan far away, so you get more distance/miles of the water line horizon left to right. Then it will be easier to show the water curvature. Like this one:




*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2017, 05:33:16 AM »

See, I tested to make sure the water line horizon is level, straight, non-deviating before I formulated this argument, now I have no need to check, for I know the outcome will always be the same, a straight, level, flat waterline, where water meets air. So I know, based on that observable fact, ships do not go over some imaginary curvature, there has to be a different phenomena happening, and there is:
Are you utterly incapable of reading and understanding? I have said and shown over and over that
there is no horizontal curvature to be seen from a low altitude on the Globe, none, so of course, you are going to see any!
And perspective explains how things get smaller and finally might become invisible in the distance, but not they get below to below the horizon.
No matter how much you try perspective cannot explain:
  • How ships disappear behind the horizon, and they do.
  • How huge buildings disappear behind the horizon, and they do.
  • How the sun sets behind the horizon, when it starts from 3,000 miles above the earth, without getting smaller, and it does.
And how is it that parallel lines on the earth surface meet at a vanishing point, but that vanish point it not at the horizon, but past it?
Ship wakes are a demonstration for that, but even the quite parallel sides of the Suez Canal or the top and ocean level of cliffs.

Ship's Wake
   

Suez Canal
   

Looking East along the "Bight"

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #92 on: March 28, 2017, 05:41:51 AM »

See, I tested to make sure the water line horizon is level, straight, non-deviating before I formulated this argument, now I have no need to check, for I know the outcome will always be the same, a straight, level, flat waterline, where water meets air. So I know, based on that observable fact, ships do not go over some imaginary curvature, there has to be a different phenomena happening, and there is:
Are you utterly incapable of reading and understanding? I have said and shown over and over that
there is no horizontal curvature to be seen from a low altitude on the Globe, none, so of course, you are going to see any!
And perspective explains how things get smaller and finally might become invisible in the distance, but not they get below to below the horizon.
No matter how much you try perspective cannot explain:
  • How ships disappear behind the horizon, and they do.
  • How huge buildings disappear behind the horizon, and they do.
  • How the sun sets behind the horizon, when it starts from 3,000 miles above the earth, without getting smaller, and it does.
And how is it that parallel lines on the earth surface meet at a vanishing point, but that vanish point it not at the horizon, but past it?
Ship wakes are a demonstration for that, but even the quite parallel sides of the Suez Canal or the top and ocean level of cliffs.

Ship's Wake
   

Suez Canal
   

Looking East along the "Bight"

"there is no horizontal curvature to be seen from a low altitude on the Globe, none, so of course, you are -not- going to see any!"

I know, because water does not arch/bow/convex/curve across its surface. You'll NEVER see or find an example here on plane earth. So we agree. I took the liberty of adding -not- for you, hope you don't mind.

That only means NASA's globes are a flat out lie, correct? And, you must start using multiple explanations to explain away what is not observed about the physics of water. Go ahead, by now Occam has already rolled over in his grave several times since I started posting here. One more flip by you won't bother him that much. 

*

PawnedScum

  • 175
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #93 on: March 28, 2017, 05:45:08 AM »
I see someone mentioned going to Norway, so I thought views of water horizons would be curved, so I took a look see:

South-

https://c5.staticflickr.com/4/3503/3267999092_c4f3c5e560.jpg

West-

http://ship-photo-roster.com/images/photos/thumbs/de/defd2fa3f2_l.jpg

East-

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/north-sea-prter-remote-view-norway-krager-s-island-paradise-pearl-coast-43848257.jpg

North-

http://www.thebeautyoftravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lofoten-Islands-Fredvang-Bridges-Norway.jpg

How disappointing, all four views show the water line horizon of the Norwegian Sea as flat, level, and horizontal to plane earth, just like the Hudson Bay. You know what I'm willing to bet, you'll find it like that all over earth.

Can you show me a water line horizon on earth that is curved, left to right, to match earth's curvature claim? Find videos that pan far away, so you get more distance/miles of the water line horizon left to right. Then it will be easier to show the water curvature. Like this one:



I'm not sure why you think a camera would have a greater field of view then the human eye does.  The only thing that will increase your field of vision to the horizon is elevation.  No matter if it's your human eye or the camera, it will only see the great circle around you and the curve is so slight in that instance that it is nearly undetectable.  That's why large ships and city skylines are needed to see them pass over the edge of the great circle. 

For someone who uses the word perspective a great deal, you don't seem to have any spatial perspective of how big our home really is.
The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #94 on: March 28, 2017, 05:45:24 AM »
By this stage, I'm presuming trolling.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #95 on: March 28, 2017, 05:58:57 AM »
I see someone mentioned going to Norway, so I thought views of water horizons would be curved, so I took a look see:

South-

https://c5.staticflickr.com/4/3503/3267999092_c4f3c5e560.jpg

West-

http://ship-photo-roster.com/images/photos/thumbs/de/defd2fa3f2_l.jpg

East-

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/north-sea-prter-remote-view-norway-krager-s-island-paradise-pearl-coast-43848257.jpg

North-

http://www.thebeautyoftravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lofoten-Islands-Fredvang-Bridges-Norway.jpg

How disappointing, all four views show the water line horizon of the Norwegian Sea as flat, level, and horizontal to plane earth, just like the Hudson Bay. You know what I'm willing to bet, you'll find it like that all over earth.

Can you show me a water line horizon on earth that is curved, left to right, to match earth's curvature claim? Find videos that pan far away, so you get more distance/miles of the water line horizon left to right. Then it will be easier to show the water curvature. Like this one:



I'm not sure why you think a camera would have a greater field of view then the human eye does.  The only thing that will increase your field of vision to the horizon is elevation.  No matter if it's your human eye or the camera, it will only see the great circle around you and the curve is so slight in that instance that it is nearly undetectable.  That's why large ships and city skylines are needed to see them pass over the edge of the great circle. 

For someone who uses the word perspective a great deal, you don't seem to have any spatial perspective of how big our home really is.

You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

*

PawnedScum

  • 175
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #96 on: March 28, 2017, 06:09:19 AM »

You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

You answered your own question.  You don't see the curvature as it drops away from you, why would you see it across the horizon line.  It's a circle of vision and the horizon is the same distance around you in all directions.  The ship going over the curvature will happen if the boat is moving away from you at a 45 degree angle just the same as if it is going straight away from you.

You really should try doing research for videos that don't say "Debunking" the globe earth. 
The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2017, 06:11:03 AM »


You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in western direction you can see the effect of the earth curvature.
if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in northern direction you can also see the effect of the earth curvature.

you seam to have only one little "argument" that you post again and again. We already explained to you why that argument does not work.
Also there are other proven evidence that we showed you that the earth is a globe. Even i showed you a video of a Flat Earth Idea Believer that clearly shows that a flat earth is impossible.
Why are you still bring only this one little "argument" that based on a false assumption.

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #98 on: March 28, 2017, 06:22:09 AM »


You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in western direction you can see the effect of the earth curvature.
if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in northern direction you can also see the effect of the earth curvature.

you seam to have only one little "argument" that you post again and again. We already explained to you why that argument does not work.
Also there are other proven evidence that we showed you that the earth is a globe. Even i showed you a video of a Flat Earth Idea Believer that clearly shows that a flat earth is impossible.
Why are you still bring only this one little "argument" that based on a false assumption.

"driving from you away"

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.

*

deadsirius

  • 899
  • +0/-0
  • Crime Machine
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #99 on: March 28, 2017, 06:40:51 AM »
I guess it can be a little hard to visualize.  Okay man, you do your thing.  As long as "your thing" doesn't involve maritime navigation in any way, I guess it won't hurt anybody.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #100 on: March 28, 2017, 06:45:19 AM »


You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in western direction you can see the effect of the earth curvature.
if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in northern direction you can also see the effect of the earth curvature.

you seam to have only one little "argument" that you post again and again. We already explained to you why that argument does not work.
Also there are other proven evidence that we showed you that the earth is a globe. Even i showed you a video of a Flat Earth Idea Believer that clearly shows that a flat earth is impossible.
Why are you still bring only this one little "argument" that based on a false assumption.

"driving from you away"

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.

ok let drive a ship from 9 o'clock position to 3 o'clock position and let it drive away from you increasing the distance to your viewpoint, it will disappear behind the horizon.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #101 on: March 28, 2017, 08:09:17 AM »
It is trolling. It knows that there shouldn't be any curvature left to right so that's why it keeps repeating it. It did the same with the 'physical evidence of motion' thing.

I'd be very surprised if it genuinely thinks the earth is flat.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #103 on: March 28, 2017, 01:10:40 PM »
Physical observer, it is obvious to all of us that your only argument is that it looks flat to you. It seems that there is no limit to the number of times that we can show you clear photographic evidence of the curvature of the earth across a body of water, and you just keep saying the same 6 o'clock 9 o'clock whatever.  You're stupid little toy boat videos have nothing to do with anything that we're talking about. Of course very small bodies of water on very small scales are very flat. Again, all that shows is that you don't understand the scale of the earth. You just flat don't understand.  I gave you a very simple mathematical proofs using your insistence that the earth curves at 8 inches per mile Square. I need you to give a mathematical proof why we are wrong. Otherwise you don't have a point. Just saying over and over again that looks flat to you doesn't mean a thing.

If you have a video or picture of a water surface on earth that is bowing to match the alleged curvature, then show it! Every video you'll have produced has been easily debunked just by showing the horizon where water meets air. Show me a body of water on earth that bends/convex/bows across its surface left to right. I look for long distance shots of the ocean, so there are more miles of horizon left to right, and I drop a straight edge, sky side, along the horizon, and I have NEVER seen a curved water surface. The water surface is always perfectly aligned with the straight edge. Go ahead, check for yourself:







See, I tested to make sure the water line horizon is level, straight, non-deviating before I formulated this argument, now I have no need to check, for I know the outcome will always be the same, a straight, level, flat waterline, where water meets air. So I know, based on that observable fact, ships do not go over some imaginary curvature, there has to be a different phenomena happening, and there is:


It's been explained multiple times that perspective does not make things disappear from the bottom up.
It actually argues against how sunsets works.
Also the fact that there is a hard line of the horizon rules out flat earth.  That's all based on how perspective actually works.
You are seeing a curve, it's curving away from you, hence the hard line of a horizon.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #104 on: March 28, 2017, 01:28:03 PM »
"driving from you away"

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.
I agree with you and from what I can see everyone else agrees with that
on the globe there is not any visible horizontal curvature on the ocean horizon.
So why do you keep posting that you cannot see any horizontal curvature on the ocean horizon?

I am not trying to prove you wrong, because you are correct when you say "see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line".

But ships do go over the horizon and disappear over the horizon when travelling away from you!
Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.

You show your video "Ocean View - 1 Full Hour HD - Cruise Ship Balcony" looking out the side, but I challenge you to show a similar oe looking out the stern as the ship leaves an island.
Even in this photo, there is something disappearing over the horizon - the ships wake!

Ship's Wake

Open your eyes and see the physical shape of the earth!
The early Greeks did, and decided that the earth was a Globe.
The early mariners that travelled around the Globe did, and knew that the earth was a Globe.
Christopher Columbus the Globe knew that the earth was a Globe, but got the dimensions wrong and bumped into the Americas.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #105 on: March 28, 2017, 02:34:13 PM »
If you have a video or picture of a water surface on earth that is bowing to match the alleged curvature, then show it!
We have. You just dismiss them.

Every video you'll have produced has been easily debunked just by showing the horizon where water meets air.
No. They haven't.
They show exactly what you would expect, the horizon being at the same angle, and thus appearing straight, while blocking the lower sections (or entirety) of objects in the distance.

a straight edge, sky side, along the horizon, and I have NEVER seen a curved water surface. The water surface is always perfectly aligned with the straight edge. Go ahead, check for yourself
So you used the straight edge to obstruct any buldge?
Good job.
I have analysed a few photos, including several you provided here.
Some have the water bowing down, others have it bowing up.

When I pointed that out to you, you dismissed it as waves.

So no, they are not perfectly aligned. Instead they are imperfect and you have a degree of error which makes it impossible to distinguish a flat Earth from a round Earth for most photos/videos.


Really? Have you actually watched this video?
The horizon, just in the still image before playing the video, is curved.
On the left the horizon is at y=48, on the right it is 40. In the middle it is at 43. (and there is a difference of 287.5 px between each point in the x direction).
So the overall slope is 0.014. For the left section it is 0.017. On the right it is 0.010.

So there you have, in your own video, a clear curve on the horizon.

See, I tested to make sure the water line horizon is level, straight, non-deviating before I formulated this argument
BULLSHIT.
If you did, you would have seen that curve in the third video.

now I have no need to check, for I know the outcome will always be the same, a straight, level, flat waterline, where water meets air.
Except it wont be.
You checked a few cases which showed no noticeable curve due to the low altitude or low FOV, and then falsely concluded that it is flat all the time.


So I know, based on that observable fact, ships do not go over some imaginary curvature, there has to be a different phenomena happening, and there is:
No. You believe due to your ignorant bullshit.
Observable fact shows ships disappear over the horizon.


Perspective doesn't explain it.

Find videos that pan far away, so you get more distance/miles of the water line horizon left to right. Then it will be easier to show the water curvature. Like this one
Nope. Quite the opposite.
Panning a distant horizon will keep the angle the same and thus keep the position on the camera the same.
That will make it harder.

What you want is a picture which captures as much of the horizon as possible in a single image with a small FOV.
But that requires viewing it from a great distance, and you just dismiss it as CGI.

I know, because water does not arch/bow/convex/curve across its surface. You'll NEVER see or find an example here on plane earth. So we agree. I took the liberty of adding -not- for you, hope you don't mind.
No. It is because the bowing expected for that is so small it isn't funny, and it relies upon a proper perspective image instead of something which measures based upon angles.
This is because the horizon is at the same angle, all around.

That only means NASA's globes are a flat out lie, correct? And, you must start using multiple explanations to explain away what is not observed about the physics of water. Go ahead, by now Occam has already rolled over in his grave several times since I started posting here. One more flip by you won't bother him that much.
No. It doesn't.
It means they are far enough away to start seeing a noticeable curve.

If you want to see the curve, take a fish eye camera and aim it straight down. That will let you see the circle of the horizon.

We aren't using multiple explanations to explain away what is not observed.
These things you want to observe are not meant to be observed for a spinning round Earth, with a radius of ~ 6371 km spinning at a rate of ~ 15 degrees an hour.

Yes, with every post full of bullshit you post, Occam will roll over in his grave.

You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.
No. Not the same curvature.
That same curvature would be the great circle of Earth, which is hidden by the horizon. You only see a single point.

The horizon will be at the same angle of depression all around, and thus not appear to curve.

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.
Like I said, you will see them going over curvature.
They will appear from behind the horizon and then sink below it.
The only way for them to appear to travel straight along the horizon is if they were going in a circle along you.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:36:25 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2017, 04:06:29 PM »
If you have a video or picture of a water surface on earth that is bowing to match the alleged curvature, then show it!
We have. You just dismiss them.

Every video you'll have produced has been easily debunked just by showing the horizon where water meets air.
No. They haven't.
They show exactly what you would expect, the horizon being at the same angle, and thus appearing straight, while blocking the lower sections (or entirety) of objects in the distance.

a straight edge, sky side, along the horizon, and I have NEVER seen a curved water surface. The water surface is always perfectly aligned with the straight edge. Go ahead, check for yourself
So you used the straight edge to obstruct any buldge?
Good job.
I have analysed a few photos, including several you provided here.
Some have the water bowing down, others have it bowing up.

When I pointed that out to you, you dismissed it as waves.

So no, they are not perfectly aligned. Instead they are imperfect and you have a degree of error which makes it impossible to distinguish a flat Earth from a round Earth for most photos/videos.


Really? Have you actually watched this video?
The horizon, just in the still image before playing the video, is curved.
On the left the horizon is at y=48, on the right it is 40. In the middle it is at 43. (and there is a difference of 287.5 px between each point in the x direction).
So the overall slope is 0.014. For the left section it is 0.017. On the right it is 0.010.

So there you have, in your own video, a clear curve on the horizon.

See, I tested to make sure the water line horizon is level, straight, non-deviating before I formulated this argument
BULLSHIT.
If you did, you would have seen that curve in the third video.

now I have no need to check, for I know the outcome will always be the same, a straight, level, flat waterline, where water meets air.
Except it wont be.
You checked a few cases which showed no noticeable curve due to the low altitude or low FOV, and then falsely concluded that it is flat all the time.


So I know, based on that observable fact, ships do not go over some imaginary curvature, there has to be a different phenomena happening, and there is:
No. You believe due to your ignorant bullshit.
Observable fact shows ships disappear over the horizon.


Perspective doesn't explain it.

Find videos that pan far away, so you get more distance/miles of the water line horizon left to right. Then it will be easier to show the water curvature. Like this one
Nope. Quite the opposite.
Panning a distant horizon will keep the angle the same and thus keep the position on the camera the same.
That will make it harder.

What you want is a picture which captures as much of the horizon as possible in a single image with a small FOV.
But that requires viewing it from a great distance, and you just dismiss it as CGI.

I know, because water does not arch/bow/convex/curve across its surface. You'll NEVER see or find an example here on plane earth. So we agree. I took the liberty of adding -not- for you, hope you don't mind.
No. It is because the bowing expected for that is so small it isn't funny, and it relies upon a proper perspective image instead of something which measures based upon angles.
This is because the horizon is at the same angle, all around.

That only means NASA's globes are a flat out lie, correct? And, you must start using multiple explanations to explain away what is not observed about the physics of water. Go ahead, by now Occam has already rolled over in his grave several times since I started posting here. One more flip by you won't bother him that much.
No. It doesn't.
It means they are far enough away to start seeing a noticeable curve.

If you want to see the curve, take a fish eye camera and aim it straight down. That will let you see the circle of the horizon.

We aren't using multiple explanations to explain away what is not observed.
These things you want to observe are not meant to be observed for a spinning round Earth, with a radius of ~ 6371 km spinning at a rate of ~ 15 degrees an hour.

Yes, with every post full of bullshit you post, Occam will roll over in his grave.

You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.
No. Not the same curvature.
That same curvature would be the great circle of Earth, which is hidden by the horizon. You only see a single point.

The horizon will be at the same angle of depression all around, and thus not appear to curve.

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.
Like I said, you will see them going over curvature.
They will appear from behind the horizon and then sink below it.
The only way for them to appear to travel straight along the horizon is if they were going in a circle along you.

"We have. You just dismiss them."

You dismiss mine, I still give them. The fact is, you have none.

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2017, 09:19:51 PM »


You'll claim a human eye can see a ship go over a curvature, so that same human eye should be ale to see that same curvature with the water horizon, left to right. It's all the same distance for the human eye, right? I mean, you'll claim we live on a ball, not a rolling pin.

Oh, my!

Two things:
First, I already explained to you, using YOUR math, that a person standing on the shore watching a ship sail from three miles northeast due west to three miles northwest will observe the ship travel along a path that appears to go from six feet below their level to three feet below their level and back to six feet below their level. That's up three feet across a path over miles long at a distance of over two miles at its closest point. As your perspective stuff shows us, we perceive size by the comparative angular width of something. Three feet at a distance of 2+ miles is a miniscule 0.016 degrees. To put it another way, That would be a rise of 1 foot for every 3733 ft.  On a small scale, that's like a 1 mm rise over 3.7 m. Looks flat!!

Second point:  if you were standing on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean, and island that is basically barely above the surface of the water, your horizon would be about 3 miles out in every direction. Also, it would be  dipped below you about 6 feet in every direction. A line that is always dipped below are you 6 feet in every direction will always look flat. Please stop saying that it looks flat to you. It looks flat all of us. We know that already and it proves nothing.

if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in western direction you can see the effect of the earth curvature.
if you look on hudson bay at a ship that is driving from you away in northern direction you can also see the effect of the earth curvature.

you seam to have only one little "argument" that you post again and again. We already explained to you why that argument does not work.
Also there are other proven evidence that we showed you that the earth is a globe. Even i showed you a video of a Flat Earth Idea Believer that clearly shows that a flat earth is impossible.
Why are you still bring only this one little "argument" that based on a false assumption.

"driving from you away"

However, if I'm at a 90 degree position to the 'away' observer, I'll see the same ship sail along a flat, level, horizontal horizon water line. I will not observer a ship sailing from my left to my right, go over any curvature the 'away' observer claims to see. If you claim that is a false assumption, then show a ship sailing from the 9 or 3 o'clock position go over a curvature, as you view it from the 6 or 12 o'clock position. Prove me wrong, don't make empty assertions you cannot support.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2017, 11:57:01 PM »
"We have. You just dismiss them."

You dismiss mine, I still give them. The fact is, you have none.
No. You outright dismiss them as fake/CGI without reason.
I provide reasons why your do not show what you think they do. I even pointed out in that comment that yours showed the opposite of what you claimed and had a noticeable curve.

I notice how you didn't bother responding to that, or basically anything.
So do you have anything rational to say on the matter?

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2017, 03:05:45 PM »
"We have. You just dismiss them."

You dismiss mine, I still give them. The fact is, you have none.
No. You outright dismiss them as fake/CGI without reason.
I provide reasons why your do not show what you think they do. I even pointed out in that comment that yours showed the opposite of what you claimed and had a noticeable curve.

I notice how you didn't bother responding to that, or basically anything.
So do you have anything rational to say on the matter?

Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #110 on: March 29, 2017, 03:09:01 PM »
Using the formula that you gave, I calculated that from the point of view of an observer standing on the shore, a ship three miles to the northeast would appear just on the horizon.  I further calculated that sailing it due West from that point would bring the ship to about little over 2 miles from the observer's position and then the ship would reach the horizon again 3 miles to the north west.  That is all simple trigonometry. I also calculated that at its closest point, the ship would appear to have dipped down about 3 feet. So over a 4.2 mile path, the ship will go from 6 feet down to 3 feet down and back to 6 feet down before beginning to send over the horizon from the observer's point of view. A little basic geometry plus your equation shows that the ship will follow a level course. I say "level" because it will on "rise" three feet over 11,000 feet. That is proportional to a 1 mm rise over 3.7 m. If you know better or different, then you need to show us better math for that. Otherwise, your only argument is that it looks flat to you.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2017, 04:34:12 PM »
"We have. You just dismiss them."

You dismiss mine, I still give them. The fact is, you have none.
No. You outright dismiss them as fake/CGI without reason.
I provide reasons why your do not show what you think they do. I even pointed out in that comment that yours showed the opposite of what you claimed and had a noticeable curve.

I notice how you didn't bother responding to that, or basically anything.
So do you have anything rational to say on the matter?

Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!

Wow, you can sure be rude!

We've all seen the video of the NASA guy saying that one image was CGI. We've also all seen the other images from Appollo, ISS, and other countries.

That's all beside the point. We have shown math and photos that match our math. We've shown you that your photos match our math. You got nuthin'.

"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #112 on: March 29, 2017, 04:44:19 PM »
"We have. You just dismiss them."

You dismiss mine, I still give them. The fact is, you have none.
No. You outright dismiss them as fake/CGI without reason.
I provide reasons why your do not show what you think they do. I even pointed out in that comment that yours showed the opposite of what you claimed and had a noticeable curve.

I notice how you didn't bother responding to that, or basically anything.
So do you have anything rational to say on the matter?

Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?

You are lying.
You never showed us any evidence for that claim
Quote


Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.


You are correct he does not show shit,
It's you that show us Bullshit and lies
Quote


"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!

You did not answer because you did not even understand what he was telling you.

?

sciencer

  • 29
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2017, 05:23:31 PM »
Would you believe amateur rockets?









And many, many more.

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2017, 08:01:08 PM »
The way our eyes and brain determine "level" is whether and by how much we have to raise or lower our eyes as we look across an object. Since the horizon for a person standing on the shore looking out to sea is always three miles out and angled down six feet, the person would never have to raise or lower their eyes. Hence the brain says "level" when scanning the horizon.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2017, 11:52:15 PM »
Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?
Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it.

In reality, NASA produced a computer model of the globe using Satellite data, which they stitched together, such that anyone could view this globe from any position (using the appropriate software) to get a good idea of what Earth should look like.

We did not use that globe. Instead we used photos of Earth taken from much more distant satellites, including ones NASA had nothing to do with.

So no, them openly making a computer model of the globe is not a reason to reject their photos of Earth.

Do you have a good reason?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.
No. I know far more than you, at least far more than you act like you know.
Yes, here, on this forum, I am pretty much all talk, as that is what people do on a forum. But that talk is action.
It is completely disproving you again and again, pointing out your arguments are full of shit and explaining why.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!
No. It wasn't ridiculous. The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line.
It didn't curve up in the left corner, it curved up in the middle, being convex.
It goes complete against your bullshit claim of the horizon always being flat and had nothing to do with my computer.
So do you have a rational response to it, or just pathetic childish dismissal to hide your blatant lies and stick to your delusions?

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #116 on: March 30, 2017, 01:42:51 PM »
Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?
Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it.

In reality, NASA produced a computer model of the globe using Satellite data, which they stitched together, such that anyone could view this globe from any position (using the appropriate software) to get a good idea of what Earth should look like.

We did not use that globe. Instead we used photos of Earth taken from much more distant satellites, including ones NASA had nothing to do with.

So no, them openly making a computer model of the globe is not a reason to reject their photos of Earth.

Do you have a good reason?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.
No. I know far more than you, at least far more than you act like you know.
Yes, here, on this forum, I am pretty much all talk, as that is what people do on a forum. But that talk is action.
It is completely disproving you again and again, pointing out your arguments are full of shit and explaining why.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!
No. It wasn't ridiculous. The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line.
It didn't curve up in the left corner, it curved up in the middle, being convex.
It goes complete against your bullshit claim of the horizon always being flat and had nothing to do with my computer.
So do you have a rational response to it, or just pathetic childish dismissal to hide your blatant lies and stick to your delusions?

"Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it."

Because for years they told us it was an actual photo of earth, they lied. Yeah, they certainly did do something wrong, deception by lies.

"The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line."

I dropped a straight edge on all the ocean scenes I used. I wanted to make sure I avoided a fish-eye lens that would give the illusion of curvature. It seems you lie just like NASA!

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #117 on: March 30, 2017, 01:50:33 PM »
Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?
Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it.

In reality, NASA produced a computer model of the globe using Satellite data, which they stitched together, such that anyone could view this globe from any position (using the appropriate software) to get a good idea of what Earth should look like.

We did not use that globe. Instead we used photos of Earth taken from much more distant satellites, including ones NASA had nothing to do with.

So no, them openly making a computer model of the globe is not a reason to reject their photos of Earth.

Do you have a good reason?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.
No. I know far more than you, at least far more than you act like you know.
Yes, here, on this forum, I am pretty much all talk, as that is what people do on a forum. But that talk is action.
It is completely disproving you again and again, pointing out your arguments are full of shit and explaining why.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!
No. It wasn't ridiculous. The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line.
It didn't curve up in the left corner, it curved up in the middle, being convex.
It goes complete against your bullshit claim of the horizon always being flat and had nothing to do with my computer.
So do you have a rational response to it, or just pathetic childish dismissal to hide your blatant lies and stick to your delusions?

"Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it."

Because for years they told us it was an actual photo of earth, they lied. Yeah, they certainly did do something wrong, deception by lies.

they say that they used computer to put real pictures together, nothing more. they never said that all the pictures are generated completely with a computer.
therefore that you telling a fact wrong you are lying.
Quote

"The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line."

I dropped a straight edge on all the ocean scenes I used. I wanted to make sure I avoided a fish-eye lens that would give the illusion of curvature. It seems you lie just like NASA!

if you use a straight edge to check if the water on the picture looks flat, you only make sure that you post pictures that fit you claim. your never really checked if a non distortion lens is used.
therefore that u are only post pictures that fits you claims you are lying.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #118 on: March 30, 2017, 02:02:50 PM »
Because for years they told us it was an actual photo of earth, they lied. Yeah, they certainly did do something wrong, deception by lies.
No they didn't.
If you wish to claim such crap, prove it.

I dropped a straight edge on all the ocean scenes I used. I wanted to make sure I avoided a fish-eye lens that would give the illusion of curvature. It seems you lie just like NASA!
Nope. The picture is there for everyone to view. It clearly shows a curve.
So you are the one lying, not me.
If you did drop a straight edge, you did so to hide the curve.

How about you go analyse it yourself, honestly and rationally for once?

Re: Views around Hudson Bay and the assumed curvature of water.
« Reply #119 on: March 30, 2017, 02:07:09 PM »
Gee, NASA admits their globe is CGI, but that is not a good reason to reject?
Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it.

In reality, NASA produced a computer model of the globe using Satellite data, which they stitched together, such that anyone could view this globe from any position (using the appropriate software) to get a good idea of what Earth should look like.

We did not use that globe. Instead we used photos of Earth taken from much more distant satellites, including ones NASA had nothing to do with.

So no, them openly making a computer model of the globe is not a reason to reject their photos of Earth.

Do you have a good reason?

Jack, you never show shit, you are all talk, with no action.
No. I know far more than you, at least far more than you act like you know.
Yes, here, on this forum, I am pretty much all talk, as that is what people do on a forum. But that talk is action.
It is completely disproving you again and again, pointing out your arguments are full of shit and explaining why.

"had a noticeable curve."

Yeah, it was so ridicules, I didn't waste time responding. What did you say, it curved up in the left corner? Bucky, you'll claim water convexes, not concaves. It was probably your cheap ass Tandy computer from the 70s. Laughable!
No. It wasn't ridiculous. The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line.
It didn't curve up in the left corner, it curved up in the middle, being convex.
It goes complete against your bullshit claim of the horizon always being flat and had nothing to do with my computer.
So do you have a rational response to it, or just pathetic childish dismissal to hide your blatant lies and stick to your delusions?

"Why use admit? It implies they did something wrong and later admitted to it."

Because for years they told us it was an actual photo of earth, they lied. Yeah, they certainly did do something wrong, deception by lies.

they say that they used computer to put real pictures together, nothing more. they never said that all the pictures are generated completely with a computer.
therefore that you telling a fact wrong you are lying.
Quote

"The middle was higher than you would expect for a straight line."

I dropped a straight edge on all the ocean scenes I used. I wanted to make sure I avoided a fish-eye lens that would give the illusion of curvature. It seems you lie just like NASA!

if you use a straight edge to check if the water on the picture looks flat, you only make sure that you post pictures that fit you claim. your never really checked if a non distortion lens is used.
therefore that u are only post pictures that fits you claims you are lying.

"they say that they used computer to put real pictures together,"

Listen again, they used data from 'satellites', like the heat from the ocean to determine where it should be a darker blue, or where algae grows the thickest for a light green shade. Where there were gaps in the data, they filled it in. The dude even admitted, the globe is what HE THINKS it should look like! The point is, it is not a pic of the globe, like they told us for years! When Photoshop hit the home market, people started questioning the NASA globe, and finally they told the truth, because they knew people would not believe or accept it, and I doubt 90% of the world has never seen the confession, and 80% of those people could care less. As long as they get their Dr. Phil, and their Criminal Minds.

That leads one to wonder what else NASA has lied about. We know the Moon landings were a Hollywood production. You cannot trust NASA to give you the truth, they must be rejected in the course of debate. Like wiki, NASA is not a trustworthy source of information.