What would change your mind?

  • 4501 Replies
  • 120279 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1380 on: November 16, 2020, 07:23:14 AM »
Quote
I'm sure you can work that one out.

No you've got me there I'm afraid.  But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof.  That's why I asked the question.  So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.

Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1381 on: November 16, 2020, 07:25:32 AM »
I am not adding any more fuel to the fire.  Just looking at it from different angles to verify for myself that it is real and giving it a poke every now and then.

Quote
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.

I know who you don't trust.  My question was who you do trust.  Shouldn't take you long as you clearly don't trust many people. Only one comes to mind at the moment.  But you mean to say there are others?!?

Mind you, you are right about one thing though.  I just put a tape measure across my fish pond and from what I could see it is completely level.  Gosh... the Earth is flat after all!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2020, 07:30:58 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1382 on: November 16, 2020, 07:26:45 AM »
I am not adding any more fuel to the fire.  Just looking at it from different angles to verify for myself that it is real and giving it a poke every now and then.
That is adding fuel to the fire you make out you dearly want to put out.
So help to put it out by not fuelling it.
See if you can do it.

*

Stash

  • 7240
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1383 on: November 16, 2020, 09:43:07 AM »
16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.
I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

Yeah, I figured that. Admittedly, it's a weird way the author expressed the curve, from the center out to the ends. We normally don't talk about it this way. We normally talk about it from the observer out to the target, in this case, 2 miles, with a drop of 2.6 feet or 32 inches.
Strange isn't it?

Strange indeed that these massive research facilities have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration when designing/constructing them. Either they are:

A) Lying
OR
B) Needlessly doing so when they don't have to and risk making their multi-million dollar facilities inoperable
OR
C) Doing so and they are correct to do so

My guess is that you're all about A.
And you guess correctly.

No motive no crime. What would be the motivation for these engineering efforts to claim they took earth's curvature into account when designing these facilities when the overall effort and research purposes of said have zero to do with the shape of the earth? In short, why lie?
Do you think they used a spirit level of some description in order to set this thing up?
What does it look like to you?
Can you see how it was set up?

It is a real thing....right?
You know this....right?

Help me out.

It was quite a complicated engineering endeavor and there are papers written about how they engineered it. Mostly using GPS if I remember correctly. I can dig up the engineering documents specific to this if you would like. But I think you wouldn't care. Just let me know. It is interesting stuff.

But that doesn't answer the question: Why lie when it's not material to what the facilities are designed to measure? It is just how they constructed the facilities to make for accurate results of other non-shape-of-earth research.


Do you think it was more complicated than this?

What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.

You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.

Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139

The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...

At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.


https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1384 on: November 16, 2020, 10:24:56 AM »
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.

Why doesn’t it work though?  You keep saying we wouldn’t see a horizon, but you don’t say what we would see.

For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.

Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesn’t matter if you believe that or not).  You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary).  There’s ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half.  What do you think you should see where they meet?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1385 on: November 16, 2020, 12:30:28 PM »
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt.
No, I know there is no chance to get through to him.
He appears vastly too far gone with self delusion.

The only question is if he genuinely believes his nonsense or if he is just a pathetic troll spouting garbage he knows to be garbage.
The problem with FEers is that it can be quite difficult to tell if the troll is playing their character consistently.


But I will continue to object to his nonsense to prevent anyone else who doesn't know better from foolishly beleiving it; until he either does the impossible and justifies his nonsense, or until he stop spouting such nonsense.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1386 on: November 16, 2020, 01:05:04 PM »
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

So who are the privileged and trusted few then?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1387 on: November 16, 2020, 01:09:10 PM »
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
When you're ready to deal with looking out from a level sight, let me know.
That is point 8.
So I am quite willing to deal with it.
Are you?
Including the logic that leads up to it and proves beyond any doubt that you are lying to everyone?

Or are you just willing to continually dismiss it with whatever excuse you can think of, without being able to show anything wrong with the logic?

See how it goes?
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

1 establishes that you can see Earth, it is not simply nothing but sky.
The next few points establish that this means you MUST have a horizon on a RE, unlike your repeated blatant lie.
7 and 8 then establish where this horizon would visually be, with point 8 showing that when close to the surface, the horizon would appear at basically eye level.
If you like, just to be explicit:
9 - Thus, if you set up a level scope, at an altitude of 2 m above sea level, if that scope has a FOV >=5.4 arc minutes you will see the horizon.

So when you are ready to deal with the logical proof which includes a level scope and clearly shows you are wrong, let everyone know, because that will be a miracle.

Quote
I'm telling you that I question stuff that has no direct proof
What do you call direct proof then?
I'm sure you can work that one out.
I assume you require it to show you are correct, and thus anything that shows you are wrong is instantly dismissed as not proof, because it doesn't agree with you?

If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.
The issue is not us knowing what it is. It is what you think it is.
This is because you have been provided with direct proof that you are wrong.
Yet you just continue to dismiss or ignore it.
So either you are lying to us yet again when you claim you will admit you are wrong when provided with direct proof; or you are effectively lying to us by using a completely different meaning of "direct proof".

I can understand it quite clearly
So you are intentionally being dishonest when you ask about a level scope?
Because if you understood it quite clearly you would know it is showing a level scope with a FOV of 90 degrees, clearly showing that the horizon would be visible.
The only possible rational, honest objection you could have to it is by saying that the FOV is too large and it should be smaller for the comparison, but then to be honest you would also need to accept the observer is far too high, and thus it should be lowered, a lot, which would then bring the horizon back into view.

If you want it to be too scale, to accurately show a person at 2 m height, all the way to the horizon, with a width of 1920 px (A standard HD monitor), this 1920 px would be ~5000 m, and thus it would be roughly 2.7 m per pixel.
The drop to the horizon would only be 2 m, i.e. less than a pixel, and the height of the person would be less than a pixel as well.
The difference in height between the person's eye and the horizon would be between 1 and 2 pixels.
And at that scale the curvature would be so tiny you would not easily see it. Again, it is less than 1 pixel.


And yes, you're right, it is getting pathetic....but not from my side.
Oh it is certainly from your side. Right from the start you spout an outright lie, get it completely refuted, and then continually ignore that refutation or just make up whatever excuse you can to dismiss it.
You are yet to rationally and honestly engage in the argument which clearly shows you are wrong.
So it is quite clearly your side that is completely pathetic from that.

Likewise you continually repeat the lie that the horizon is the convergence point, and dismiss all the evidence showing that is an outright lie as fake, with no justification at all for why it is fake. The sole reason you have for dismissing this evidence as fake is that it shows you are wrong.

Likewise you continually repeat the lie that water proves Earth is flat, even though you have been provided with evidence that shows beyond any sane doubt that it is curved, clearly obstructing the view to the bottom of a distant object that is above the horizon. Again, no rational justification at all. Instead you just appeal to a bathtub, where the budge would be on the order of 10s of nm, far too tiny for you to detect.

So it is certainly your side that is pathetic. You have nothing but lies and need to ignore/dismiss all the evidence and logical proofs that you are wrong.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1388 on: November 16, 2020, 10:47:44 PM »
Quote
I'm sure you can work that one out.

No you've got me there I'm afraid.  But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof.  That's why I asked the question.  So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.

Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.

I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.

So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.

Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well.  >:D

If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.  :'(

Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1389 on: November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM »
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
 The diagram is there.



Quote from: Stash

You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.


Quote from: Stash

Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139

The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...

At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.


https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1390 on: November 16, 2020, 11:41:56 PM »
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.

Why doesnít it work though?  You keep saying we wouldnít see a horizon, but you donít say what we would see.

For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.

Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesnít matter if you believe that or not).  You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary).  Thereís ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half.  What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.

In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.

Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.

But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1391 on: November 16, 2020, 11:52:42 PM »
Everyone, still hoping like mad, they can get through to this dolt.
No, I know there is no chance to get through to him.
He appears vastly too far gone with self delusion.

The only question is if he genuinely believes his nonsense or if he is just a pathetic troll spouting garbage he knows to be garbage.
The problem with FEers is that it can be quite difficult to tell if the troll is playing their character consistently.


But I will continue to object to his nonsense to prevent anyone else who doesn't know better from foolishly beleiving it; until he either does the impossible and justifies his nonsense, or until he stop spouting such nonsense.
This is what I do with you people.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1392 on: November 16, 2020, 11:53:26 PM »
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

So who are the privileged and trusted few then?
Nobody you need to be concerned about.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1393 on: November 16, 2020, 11:55:52 PM »


So it is certainly your side that is pathetic. You have nothing but lies and need to ignore/dismiss all the evidence and logical proofs that you are wrong.
Nope. I'm not dismissing any evidence. I'm responding.
You are dismissing anything I say and coming back with the very same questions.
You have the issue, not me.
You are certainly having trouble with the word, level.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1394 on: November 16, 2020, 11:58:40 PM »
Quote
I'm sure you can work that one out.

No you've got me there I'm afraid.  But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof.  That's why I asked the question.  So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.

Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.

I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.

So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.

Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well.  >:D

If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.  :'(

Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.
Facts will change my mind.
p to now, none of you lot are armed with them.
You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority. That does not guarantee, truth's...and you know it.

*

Stash

  • 7240
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1395 on: November 17, 2020, 12:42:34 AM »
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
 The diagram is there.

There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.



Quote from: Stash

You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.

There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.

No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.

Quote from: Stash

Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139

The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...

At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.


https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.

And what silliness might that be?

*

Stash

  • 7240
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1396 on: November 17, 2020, 01:20:17 AM »
Quote
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.

I see.  So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such.  Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it.  Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.

If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.

How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.

Hey look, someone did exactly what ytou asked for. The "Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave." - I.e., The simple set up you gave: a leveled tube. Simple, just what you asked for:



Any hey, using your simple set up, the one you have asked for, the leveled tube, not only can I see the horizon but I can see that it is below eye level. Go figure.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1397 on: November 17, 2020, 01:47:30 AM »
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.

I have a massive interest in truth seeking
Stop lying. You have no interest in the truth at all.
Again, the only question is if that is because you have deluded yourself so much that you truly believe your delusions are the truth and will reject anything that shows otherwise, or if it is because you are just a troll.

If you actually cared about the truth you would have accepted the evidence provided or provided a rational reason to object to it, even if that reason was your own photos showing a different result.
But ignoring that evidence, if you actually cared about the truth you would have accepted the logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong, or you would have done the impossible and refuted it.
But instead you just use whatever excuse you can to dismiss it, with no objection to any point of the argument.

So it is quite clear you have no interest in seeking the truth, at least not on this forum.

You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.
Again, if we accepted anything, we would have accepted your plentiful lies.
The fact we don't, the fact we reject them and refute them shows that we don't just accept anything.

I accept things based upon evidence and logical reasoning, 2 things you are yet to provide, and 2 things which easily show you are wrong.

Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky
No, only if your FOV is small enough, such as it being 0, in which case you see nothing.

Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
For a RE, the horizon is only 2 times the distance below you that it is in your FE fantasy with a magically and inexplicably close horizon.
If it can do the 2 m, why can't it do the 4 m?

It can't exist and it wouldn't.
Again, PROVE IT!
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie.

This is what I do with you people.
Yes, you ignore and insult the people that clearly show you are wrong, beyond any doubt, leaving you no wiggle room for any attempt at a rebuttal as you know you have been beaten.

Nope. I'm not dismissing any evidence. I'm responding.
You dismiss it as a conjob, with no justification at all other that it doesn't agree with you.
That is dismissing.

You are dismissing anything I say and coming back with the very same questions.
No, I am pointing out why your lies are lies.
That is not dismissing what you say. It is explaining why you are wrong.

Facts will change my mind.
Stop lying.
You have been presented with facts which you just repeatedly dismiss.
This facts are facts of math, not subject to any evidence.

It is a fact that the RE DOES have a horizon.
It is a fact that its position is dependent upon the altitude of the observer (and the radius of Earth, but as Earth is a physical object with a radius which changes so negligibly, and which you cannot control, that can be ignored as a variable).
It is a fact that all scopes have a FOV.
It is a fact that your ability to see the horizon though a level scope is dependent upon the above factors, i.e. the height of the scope above Earth and the FOV of the scope.
Thus it is a fact that your claim that you would never see the horizon through a level scope on a RE is an outright lie.

This was proven to you beyond any doubt with a simple logical argument you are yet to point out any problem with.

So it is a fact that you do not give a damn about facts and truth and that you have no interest in changing your mind.

Once more, here is the logical argument you are yet to present any rational challenge to:

1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

Are you going to try to honestly and rationally deal with it?
Are you going to event attempt to point out something that you believe is wrong with it, why you think it is wrong and what you think it should be?
Or will you surprise everyone and admit you have been lying to us this whole time?

If not, you have been presented with facts which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong, and these facts are not changing your mind.



You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority.
The plentiful evidence you have been provided with is not authority.
The logical arguments you have been provided with is not authority.
We are not appealing to authority.
We are using evidence and logical arguments to establish facts which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1398 on: November 17, 2020, 03:52:51 AM »
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.

The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.

Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.

This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection

The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.

If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.

The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment

So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1399 on: November 17, 2020, 04:22:18 AM »
Quote
I'm sure you can work that one out.

No you've got me there I'm afraid.  But then I don't think anyone can work out what you regard as direct proof.  That's why I asked the question.  So perhaps you could answer it.
If you don't know what direct proof is, I can't help you.

Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
I trust a few, wholeheartedly

And who are the trusted few?
Not you and those arguing on here, for sure.

I'm happy to debate with you on other topics in this fine forum, sceptimatic, but I'm not adding any more fuel to this dwindled fire.

So you don't trust me on anyone else in this debate. Fine. Why don't you tell us then, who you do trust? Afterall, you don't even trust your own eyes.

Maybe jack black is right. Maybe you're just an actor and "Sceptimatic" is your flat earther character. If so, you played your role well.  >:D

If not, you need to see a doctor, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.  :'(

Everybody enjoys a challenge, but there are limits. Nothing will change your mind.
Facts will change my mind.
p to now, none of you lot are armed with them.
You are all armed with massive appeals to what you believe is, authority. That does not guarantee, truth's...and you know it.

One last post then....  >:( >:( >:(

Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?

You think you know more about facts than I do, then? You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?

Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1400 on: November 17, 2020, 04:28:48 AM »
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.

Why doesnít it work though?  You keep saying we wouldnít see a horizon, but you donít say what we would see.

For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.

Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesnít matter if you believe that or not).  You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary).  Thereís ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half.  What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.

In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.

Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.

But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (itís only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.

So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?

Itís a simple question, why canít you answer it?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1401 on: November 17, 2020, 10:01:03 AM »
Quote
Facts will change my mind.

O that's a good one....  If we weren't nearly 50 pages into this discussion I would almost believe that.  But any chance of anyone changing your mind was lost a long time ago. 

I've got a book here..  The Family Book of Facts...  had it for years. How about I try some out on you and see what you think.   O wait a minute.. perhaps not.  I can't find any mention in it about the Earth being flat.  I'm sure Scepti has has his own book of 'facts'.

*

JJA

  • 4160
  • Math is math!
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1402 on: November 17, 2020, 05:59:12 PM »
Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.

It's just baffling you don't think it's possible to see the edge of an object you are standing on.  How would that even work?  I can't imagine there is anyone else, even on this board that would agree that you can't see the edge of an object that isn't flat. It's just too easy to disprove, I can see a dozen things in my house right now that I can see the edge of.

I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.
The fact you refuse to understand, whether deliberate or otherwise, sets you back.

You keep appealing to edges in your own home or looking at a basketball or whatever, from a short distance away from it and believe this shows what you think it would be like if you were stood on it.
Strange as hell how you can't grasp what's beens aid....but....like I said, it could be deliberate.

I can see the edge of my table.  I can stand on it and still see the edge. How can you not understand this?  ::)

Tell me, what is the exact size an object needs to be before you can't see the edge any more?  When does it go from being able to see the edge to not being able to see an edge any more?

Please tell us how far that is.




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1403 on: November 17, 2020, 09:54:40 PM »
What would designing/engineering a facility that must take into account the curvature of the earth to operate properly have to do with with a fictional space vehicle that utilizes technology that doesn't exist yet? The facilities were built and exist. The Enterprise was never built and doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
 The diagram is there.

There are diagrams for lots of things, real and not real. So now you discount the existence of a facility that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth only that they mentioned the challenge the shape of the earth posed in constructing it? Lots of journalists and researchers have written about their work at the facility. I haven't read anything from journalists and researchers regarding real workings on the Enterprise.
As well, I can visit the site and go on a tour, even can see it on google maps just like I can my house. And I'm pretty sure my house is real. I have a diagram of my house too.



Quote from: Stash

You asked for the tech used to design these facilities. I offered to send you documentation on it. And as I suspected you would just dismiss it as a fiction just like the Star Trek poster. You really have no interest in truth seeking.
I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.

There's physical proof. Like I mentioned before, you can visit either of the two LIGO facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Washington. What makes you say I accept anything? Because I'm convinced a research facility exists? Because there's a massive amount of evidence that it exists? Conversely, you believe in a carbonite crystal thing-a-mabob that projects the sun onto a membrane covering earth with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And you say I'll believe anything? Hilarious.

No, you really, really don't care about the truth. That's plain to see by everyone. But that is your prerogative.

Quote from: Stash

Here's the document I was referring to if you're interested in complicated engineering endeavors:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
W. E. Althouse1,2, S. D. Hand3,4, L. K. Jones1, A. Lazzarini1, and R. Weiss
LIGO Laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
CB&I Services, Plainfield, Illinois 60606
Jacobs Engineering, Livermore, CA 94550
LIGO Laboratory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139

The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported...

At the inception of the LIGO project construction, GPS surveying techniques had been applied to a number of large scale precision surveys8,9,10 and the their use in construction had become a standard practice. LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface. The alignment was, therefore, not the same as that for a level highway or pipeline.


https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.

And what silliness might that be?
Tell me what you're looking at and how can you describe it from your point of view, not the one you go by?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1404 on: November 17, 2020, 09:59:56 PM »
Quote
I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.

I see.  So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such.  Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it.  Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.
When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.

If you don;t want to admit to that then fine...but that's what's been provided.

How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.
No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.

Hey look, someone did exactly what ytou asked for. The "Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave." - I.e., The simple set up you gave: a leveled tube. Simple, just what you asked for:



Any hey, using your simple set up, the one you have asked for, the leveled tube, not only can I see the horizon but I can see that it is below eye level. Go figure.
This gets a bit tedious.
So a level has been set from the side view and then we are shown a view through the simple tube scope and have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?
Well let's try and make this more clear.

You see how simple that is and if you are an honest person you would try it for yourself and find, for yourself that looking through that scope on the level will give you a level horizon.

Just try it for you because you will keep bringing this clear rubbish to the fore to supposedly back you up when you should know fine well what the horizon level is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1405 on: November 17, 2020, 10:02:39 PM »
Have you ever seen this thing working?
How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.

It may be impossible to physically manifest but it's never impossible for a story teller to manifest it as a cloaked secret portrayed as reality.
Look at unobtanium.

Every day we get the urine taken out of us and every day people just swallow it all up.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1406 on: November 17, 2020, 10:04:16 PM »
Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.

The current line of discussion is a distraction method you often employ to avoid talking specifics.

Address the video.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
You pick a time in the video for me to look at and describe what you think is happening, then I'll give my answer to what I think.
You can do this for any part but concentrate on one bit at a time.

This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection

The video is super simple and super clear in its scope and intent.

If you have issue with its basic priciniple then lets have at it.

The video in its entirety is self explanatory.
If your big brain is incapable of understanding let us know what confuses you and we can discuss.
Now that is a loaded statment

So ill try again
Let us know whats wrong with it and how it does not match reality and we can discuss.
Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1407 on: November 17, 2020, 10:11:27 PM »
One last post then....  >:( >:( >:(

Facts will change your mind, will it? Like the fact, the moment you declare we live on a flat earth, all of a sudden you can't explain thousands of planetary phenomena which are easily explained by Earth being a globe? Fact like that?
There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You think you know more about facts than I do, then?
No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You think you know more about gathering evidence, investigating, and establishing facts than I do?
Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Take a wild guess at what my career has been for the past 21 years, sceptimatic.
It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.

Am I close?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1408 on: November 17, 2020, 10:19:31 PM »
A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.
It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


Your attempt to try and make it happen on a globe does not work. And like I said, you believe it works because you see your horizon on what you were schooled into, to accept as your spinning globe.

Why doesnít it work though?  You keep saying we wouldnít see a horizon, but you donít say what we would see.

For a moment forget what shape you think the earth is and how you think the horizon works.

Now imagine you are standing on a sphere over 12000km across (it doesnít matter if you believe that or not).  You look straight ahead (level scope not necessary).  Thereís ground in the lower half of your field of view, and sky in the upper half.  What do you think you should see where they meet?
Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.

In one mile your curve is 8 inches. In 2 it is 32 inches. Just 2 miles your curve is around half your height.

Where could your horizon possibly be just in this area?
It can't exist and it wouldn't.

But we know the horizon does exist.
Why?
Because Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

So you can clearly see the ground in front of you (itís only dropped 8 inches over the first mile), and you can see the sky in front of you.

So what would you see where the ground and sky meet?

Itís a simple question, why canít you answer it?
Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.

You seem to accept your globe drops 8 inches per mile, squared.
Let's just deal with that first mile.

You're stood upright. Let's say 5 feet minimum to eye level.
You look through the simple scope tube we've been talking about, or stash's plastic pipe...set level.

Assume you are stood at the edge of a lake. A calm lake with no obstructions.


Ok, you can surely accept that, below the end of the scope to the ground, you will not see anything due to your scope being 5 feet from it and levelled horizontally.


This alone means you've lost 5 feet of ground/water.
In addition to that, your focus is directly horizontal over the lake and this lake will be dropping by 8 inches in the first mile of it, along with the 5 feet height of your eye.


How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?
If you argued that your lake curves up by 5 feet 8 inches then I'd see how you could have your horizon of water to sky.


Any logical person should easily see how silly this globe is.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1409 on: November 17, 2020, 10:20:54 PM »
Quote
Facts will change my mind.

O that's a good one....  If we weren't nearly 50 pages into this discussion I would almost believe that.  But any chance of anyone changing your mind was lost a long time ago. 

I've got a book here..  The Family Book of Facts...  had it for years. How about I try some out on you and see what you think.   O wait a minute.. perhaps not.  I can't find any mention in it about the Earth being flat.  I'm sure Scepti has has his own book of 'facts'.
Anything to add?