# To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)

• 159 Replies
• 24051 Views

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 25561
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #150 on: July 13, 2019, 07:26:18 AM »

Exactly.
Red is what we see.
Yellow is not what "we should see".

On the one hand, you have wanted I not reply it. On the other hand, you claim one answer is true and using it as an argument. Surely we should to see none of them, but a trigonemetric shape, not a line.

Now you understand what you tried to do with your yellow lines on your three images stitched together.

I understand you are a cheater, called me to not answer then acted how I answered it. I told they are quite different things your example and the other example. We are talking about a line but your shape quite different. Shame on you. Give up childish manipulations.

The light from P will reach O directly.

The light from P will not reach O directly, because there is obstruck between them, that I have numerously said but you insistently deny. Your shape is a theory. You see these objects on a line only on a paper, not in reality. Is it hard to get?
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

#### JackBlack

• 22451
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #151 on: July 13, 2019, 06:36:53 PM »
O and P stands higher than points between them does not an evidence the observer see the point P.
Yes it does, as there is nothing to stop the light getting from P to the observer.
As such, they will see it.

There is no object between them no matter how much you want to pretend there is.
Dishonestly using angular size as physical size doesn't put an object between them.

Now how about you try answering my questions, as they show just how flawed your method is (I'll even throw in an extra one as a bonus):
You are looking at an object directly in front of your eyes. What is its angle of elevation?
As it moves away, what happens to its angle of elevation?
What happens if you move your entire scene down by 1.9 m, so you are now 0.1 m above the water, as is the ship, with no waves at all?
What if you move the entire scene up by 10 m?
i.e. instead of an observer at 2 m, a wave at 1.9 m and the boat at 2 m, have your observer at 12 m, the wave at 11.9 m and the boat at 12 m?
Then what happens if you put a floor at 10 m along the entire scenario?

Your method produces widely different results. and angles because of the widely different heights involved. But that should no impact.
Moving the entire scene doesn't change what you can or cannot see. (You can try this by setting up a camera on a table, and then moving the table up and down and seeing if the view of the objects on the table change)
This shows your method is completely wrong.

Conversely, my method, where you measure the height relative to the observe produces consistent results. That is because it is the distance from the eye line that matters, not the absolute height.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 25561
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #152 on: July 13, 2019, 11:19:43 PM »
O and P stands higher than points between them does not an evidence the observer see the point P.
Yes it does, as there is nothing to stop the light getting from P to the observer.
As such, they will see it.

No it doesn't. Your being you have to object everything about me does not magically make opposite of my arguments true. It just shows how childish your behaves. Grow up, grow up and upgrade your system.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

?

#### Themightykabool

• 10958
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #153 on: July 15, 2019, 01:59:09 PM »
O and P stands higher than points between them does not an evidence the observer see the point P.
Yes it does, as there is nothing to stop the light getting from P to the observer.
As such, they will see it.

No it doesn't. Your being you have to object everything about me does not magically make opposite of my arguments true. It just shows how childish your behaves. Grow up, grow up and upgrade your system.

but if the light, for all intents and purposes, travels straight between O and P.
then O will see P and vice versa if they are both higher than said wave.
For O and P to NOT see each other, the light must be blocked.
So the wave must be bigger.
A 1m wave can not cover a 2m boat.
Angular size the wave will shrink proportionally with the boat.
You can not have one item shrink angular while maintaining an actual height of any objects in between.
You are blending up two different diagrams as Marcos and JackB have repeatedly pointed out.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 25561
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #154 on: July 15, 2019, 02:22:28 PM »
O and P stands higher than points between them does not an evidence the observer see the point P.
Yes it does, as there is nothing to stop the light getting from P to the observer.
As such, they will see it.

No it doesn't. Your being you have to object everything about me does not magically make opposite of my arguments true. It just shows how childish your behaves. Grow up, grow up and upgrade your system.

but if the light, for all intents and purposes, travels straight between O and P.
then O will see P and vice versa if they are both higher than said wave.
For O and P to NOT see each other, the light must be blocked.
So the wave must be bigger.
A 1m wave can not cover a 2m boat.
Angular size the wave will shrink proportionally with the boat.
You can not have one item shrink angular while maintaining an actual height of any objects in between.
You are blending up two different diagrams as Marcos and JackB have repeatedly pointed out.

this is exactly not about how angular observation works. get wait your big brothers.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

#### JackBlack

• 22451
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #155 on: July 15, 2019, 03:09:24 PM »
this is exactly not about how angular observation works. get wait your big brothers.
It is directly related to it.

You are claiming that the wave will block the view due to angular sizes magically becoming physical sizes.
But if the wave actually blocked the view, it would need to actually block the view.

If the wave is not in the path of the light, there is no way for it to block the view and thus the distant object must be visible. The only question then is if it is resolvable.

The wave will block the view to the water directly behind it, because the path of the light is obstructed.

This also matches how angular size and position actually works.

If the top of the wave is at ~0.56 degrees below level, then anything behind the wave below that (to the water level) will be blocked by the wave.
If you try drawing in the light path, you will find it would have to go through the wave.

This is how reality works.
Objects obstruct the view to objects behind them because the light would have to go through them, and you can use angles to determine if they would be blocked.

You are looking at an object directly in front of your eyes. What is its angle of elevation?
As it moves away, what happens to its angle of elevation?
What happens if you move your entire scene down by 1.9 m, so you are now 0.1 m above the water, as is the ship, with no waves at all?
What if you move the entire scene up by 10 m?
i.e. instead of an observer at 2 m, a wave at 1.9 m and the boat at 2 m, have your observer at 12 m, the wave at 11.9 m and the boat at 12 m?
Then what happens if you put a floor at 10 m along the entire scenario?

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #156 on: July 15, 2019, 04:12:11 PM »
this is exactly not about how angular observation works. get wait your big brothers.
Wise, please delete your fake and out of context quote from you signature!
I did write:
Please, Wise, can you show some evidence for these claims? Wise says, "Stop being childish brat!"
But I did not write any post that said:
Wise says, "Stop being childish brat!"
I can't, I am rabinoz, I am vaccinated, I am autistic.
I am sick of your misquoting me and making out that I said things that I did not say and that I agreed to things that I did not agree to.

#### FlatOrange

• 2458
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #157 on: July 15, 2019, 04:18:32 PM »
Howdy!

I know it's been a while since I've posted here but I've just been very busy.

I recently went on a voyage by ship from Washington to Alaska.

It was over 2500 miles long (about 4000km) and it took nearly a couple weeks.

I gotta say, the earth sure doesn't seem flat when you are navigating on long journeys.

(And yes I drove the boat some of the way when Captain and first mate needed a break!)

The weather has been lovely, and it never gets dark this time of year - you get a nice sunset which then turns into a nice sunrise - no night here!

Sorry to those of you who think Alaska and the north is around the outside of the flat earth - the days are just way too long here!

Anyway I'm supposed to be flying home soon (In a week or so?) - are there any particular things I should check for on the way home?

I have the theodolite app for starters. I'm also thinking of videoing ocean and land masses moving below the plane to check GPS/groundspeed to see if they match up or not.

(Of course there's only a small chance I get a window seat.)

Anyway, let me know any ideas I can do to help show the shape of the earth.

I'll try to check back here before taking to the air and see what I can learn!
PM me if you're still here! I live in Alaska!!
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

#### Macarios

• 2093
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #158 on: July 15, 2019, 11:38:49 PM »
One, single light ray from P to O has no angular size.

That single light ray has no obstacle either.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 10958
##### Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #159 on: July 16, 2019, 06:56:09 AM »
O and P stands higher than points between them does not an evidence the observer see the point P.
Yes it does, as there is nothing to stop the light getting from P to the observer.
As such, they will see it.

No it doesn't. Your being you have to object everything about me does not magically make opposite of my arguments true. It just shows how childish your behaves. Grow up, grow up and upgrade your system.

but if the light, for all intents and purposes, travels straight between O and P.
then O will see P and vice versa if they are both higher than said wave.
For O and P to NOT see each other, the light must be blocked.
So the wave must be bigger.
A 1m wave can not cover a 2m boat.
Angular size the wave will shrink proportionally with the boat.
You can not have one item shrink angular while maintaining an actual height of any objects in between.
You are blending up two different diagrams as Marcos and JackB have repeatedly pointed out.

this is exactly not about how angular observation works. get wait your big brothers.

Correct

Thats how light rays and line of sight work.