What would change your mind?

Another simple example is the night sky with stars. Notice how your eyes don't magically join together the stars, and instead you have large regions of darkness?
If it was a case of your eyes magically joining together regions when you can't see anything between them, the sky would be bright all over.

Why would your eyes join dots of light together?
You are looking up into the sky with a bunch of lights and absolutely no reference point for any horizon line...only darkness or little to zero light back to your eyes.
What stands out among that are dots of reflected light. It's a strange thing to use in this argument.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

And as another comparison to a simple every day object, saying you can't see a horizon on a RE is like saying you can't see the edge of the ball.

I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.

Except you have already admitted you see the horizon, which is the edge of that ball, no matter how much you wish to deny it.

I admit to seeing my horizon because I see it on  a flat Earth....not your global Earth.
Nice try though.

Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.

The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.

If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?

Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself.  So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true? 

If that were the case it is a complete waste of time on 'your' flat Earth going to school, college or university because you will be 'indoctorinated' with information which according to you is not true.   Good luck with that.

Just out of interest what causes aurora displays and the Earths magnetic field in 'your' flat Earth and how do you know your version is correct and the RE version wrong?  Have you personally carried out the tests and the measurements and the experiments?  I have just read through the section of the FE wiki about auroras and to a large extent what is said there could have been simply copied and pasted from any other website which describes how auroras are produced.  It mentions about magnetic field interaction but not how the magnetic field is created in the first place.

Make a diagram of a person looking through a level scope on your globe.
Let's assume it is a kitchen roll holder you are looking through, just to make this much simpler.

Just like buildings lose light from below before above, in distance, so does the suns reflective light back to our eyes as it moves away.

So just like something else you can't explain.
That doesn't explain why it appears to go below the horizon.
If it was a case of the light not getting to us due to distance (rather than Earth obstructing the view) it would disappear still high in the sky, with a large band of darkness between Earth and the sky.

The way your sun works creates a massive problem when observed after setting by using a high tower to bring it back. This cannot work on a globe we supposedly walk upon but certainly can looking through less dense atmosphere at height to bring back more reflective light.

And yet another insane assertion from you.
It is trivially explained on a globe.
As repeatedly explained, there is a dip angle to the horizon.
At 2 m it is 2.7 arc minutes.
At 500 m it is ~43 arc minutes.
That means the sun would need to move an extra ~40 arc minutes down to vanish.

The tower on a globe would be tilted away with the so called rotation

Only if you climb it slowly.
Earth rotates at roughly 15 degrees an hour, or 15 arc minutes a minute.
That means in order to obscure the top of that tower you would need to wait 2.6 minutes.

FE has a similar issue with the sun magically moving away and magic causing it to not be seen, even at that altitude.
Both models have the question of if you can get up fast enough.

Evidence has been offered against your globe

No, it hasn't.
Pathetic stawmen which in no way actually represent what is expected for a RE have been offered and destroyed.
That is not evidence against the globe.
The existence of the horizon is evidence for the globe, not against it.

If you actually have evidence, then provide it, otherwise stop claiming it has been provided.

It all comes down to the very same thing.

Yes, which side actually has evidence vs which sides needs to strawman the other and repeatedly accuse them of just blindly following what they have been told.
It is the RE side with evidence.

If we had all the data to prove this so called globe then why do people keep harking back to so called ancient people who supposedly knew the script of Earth?

So they can claim to be better than the "indoctrinated fools", so they can so seeds of distrust in the government, so they can sell books and the like.

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?

Determining the distance to such a distant sun is quite challenging. It also depends on what level of accuracy you need.
It's near constant angular size requires it to be very distant.
It appearing to rise due east on the equinox, for basically everyone, requires it to be very distant. (Many many times the size of Earth)
This allows you to use the difference in angle to the sun to determine the radius of Earth, (as well as other techniques such as the angle of dip to the horizon from a known altitude).
Using that, along with measurements from distant positions on Earth you can measure the parallax of the moon and thus determine its distance.
You can then use the angular separation between the moon and the sun, when 50% of the moon is illuminated to calculate the distance to the sun using trig (a right angle triangle from You, to the moon to the sun, with the right angle at the moon).
Then, if you want a more accurate method, you can make an approximation of circular orbits, measure the maximum angular distance of Venus to the sun, to determine the relative sizes of the orbits, and then use a transit of Venus to calculate the distance with more complex trig.

Alternatively, accurately measure the speed of light, then measure stellar aberration over a year. Use that to calculate the velocity of Earth in its orbit around the sun, then use that velocity along with the period of the orbit to determine the size of the orbit and thus the distance to the sun (again, with a circular approximation).

I explained this.

And that explanation was refuted.
It has nothing to do with how far your eyes can see. If it was, you would have a band of darkness, like that separating the stars in the sky. It doesn't explain why the boat has magically lowered or why the sea has magically raised.

However, like I said earlier. If the globe was a reality, you would have no horizon

And you repeating the same lie again and again doesn't magically make it true.

Why would your eyes join dots of light together?

That's the point. They wouldn't!
So if you couldn't see the bottom of the distant object, why would your eyes magically glue the top section you can see to the water?
Likewise, it wouldn't. Instead you would have a band of darkness.

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.

No, the exact same situation.
You are looking towards a ball, and you claim that in one case you can see it but in another case you can't.
That makes no sense at all.

Why should a ball be visible, but not Earth?

How about this, stop avoiding the questions, and tell us what is the relationship between how large (in terms of degrees) a ball of radius r should be, if you are a distance h away from the surface?

Quote from: Stash on September 18, 2020, 12:59:43 PM

With your eyeballs we can see here a sailboat on the horizon. We break out our telescope and we can zoom right into the boat (The telescopic view would obviously not be blurry as presented - Image is for demonstration purposes only.).


In the second panel, we see the boat has sailed further away, getting smaller as has done so. And, curiously, we can only see the top sail on the horizon. The bottom hull has disappeared. Why? Curious indeed.

I explained this.
The farther your eye can see, the less light it can reflect back to it.
Your eye lens is convex. It sees a small wider view around you, but the prime focus if centralised on that convex lens, which is the very reason you see your horizon at eye level...always.

Why?
Because the rest of the eye takes in light from left to right and up and down.
The up and down vision is key to the observation of objects within that focused light reflection back to the lens, because it's this part where the sky meets the denser ground/sea...meaning the sky gives back more reflective light than the ground/sea can.

Basically, if an object  (boat in this instance) moves away from your eye it also loses reflective light from the bottom as opposed to the top for reasons I've just given, above.

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

Quote from: Stash

On a flat earth we would expect to see the sail boat in its entirety, bottom hull and top sail on the horizon as it would get smaller and smaller the further away it gets until it's just a pinpoint on the horizon. And if we break out our telescope, we could magnify the pin point to a much larger view. But even then, as it got further away it would shrink and shrink to another pinpoint on the horizon when the telescope optic magnification capabilities are exhausted. All the while, the horizon stays the same.

No you wouldn't.
On a flat Earth you'd expect the horizontal atmospheric stack to create a bigger and bigger barrier to your vision as you look through it horizontally level.
This will ensure your lens of your eye loses light back to it, more from below than above due to different densities of matter....meaning land/water against less dense sky.

I've explained all this in this post. Take some time to get what I'm saying.

Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

Quote from: Sceptimatic

Without using books can you tell me how you know the sun is 860,000 miles in diameter and 93 million miles from Earth?
How do you calculate that?

Well I know the method that shows these figures are true but I don't have the facilities to do it myself.  So does that mean (in your view) that I should not believe anything that I cannot do or check for myself or any of the information in my books that I cannot verify for myself as being true? 

Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.
Let's go through this to see if you can verify it through the, on the plate method.

I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
 Seriously?

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..


It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.

Pretty simple really.

 

I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.

I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.

Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.

First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away.  What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false. 

Quote

Ok, you can reference how it's done and you can show me.

First explain to me why you find it so hard to accept that the Sun is 865,000 mile across and 93 million miles away.  What do you know about the Sun which makes you think those figures are false.

Considering I have my own alternate Earth theory it's not hard to figure out why I think what I think.
However, how about you show me how you came to accept the sun as you are told.

Very basically, tell me how the distance and size was arrived at......based on whatever.

Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.

Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.

We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves.  That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand.  For that reason I don't need to repeat it.  The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.

So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.

Quote from: Stash on September 19, 2020, 02:28:28 AM

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.

I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example.  It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.

Yes but you must have grounds for having an 'alternate Earth theory' and reasons for why you think an alternative theory is necessary. I would be interested to know what those are.

Is it because you have your own figures from your own research which conflict with existing 'Earth theories' and so yours must be right and the figures quoted by conventional science are wrong.

We cannot limit our beliefs or understanding to what we can verify for ourselves.  That would be ridiculous and I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

The information about how the distance between the Earth and the Sun has been determined is freely out there for everyone to read and understand.  For that reason I don't need to repeat it.  The difference between you and me is that I learn from what I read and accept the methods described as true and genuine while you obviously don't. That's down to personal choice.

So if you think you can do better and provide valid reasons why you think that then go for it.

The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.

You seem to have accepted everything based on peer pressure and indoctrination.
You won't tell me how you know the sun is the size it supposedly is and the distance it supposedly is, because it makes no sense to you but you have accepted it.

If you think it makes sense then simply tell me how and why.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 19, 2020, 02:28:28 AM

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.

Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.

I don't think it is always a case of not understanding something - perspective for example.  It is rather more a case of 're-inventing' or manipulating the law of perspective so that it fits in better with their flat Earth belief.

The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.

Quote from: JJA on September 19, 2020, 05:43:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 19, 2020, 04:16:08 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 19, 2020, 02:28:28 AM

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

This is because you don't understand how perspective works.

What does the center of the lens have to do with anything? You could point the camera in any direction and choose where the center is, or even crop the picture after.

Read his post.  He is following the perspective lines of the building.  A straight line extended to infinity will meet at the vanishing point.  This works no matter where the camera is pointed.

How you can't understand perspective baffles me, I was taught all this in 4th grade art class.

Understand that your horizon is your very own central point of your eye lens and nothing other than that.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 19, 2020, 03:58:25 AM

I've been thinking about this. I'm not sure there's any one thing which would instantly change my mind, however there are things which could make me seriously question my beliefs.

Yesterday I went to the beach. The beach runs approximately E-W. Behind the beach is a 100 foot high cliff. It was a very clear day with a very sharp visible horizon. Standing on the beach I could look almost due East and turn all the way around through North to to due West. I could see the horizon at every point. The sea was calm. There is an offshore wind farm and there were several container ships visible.

From the beach, judging by the size of the container ships nearest the horizon, I can't see that far, maybe 5 miles. I know on a clear day from a hill or mountaintop I can see way further than that, so why I am seeing a pin sharp horizon 5 miles away? Why can I see the whole of one container ship sitting on the horizon, but I can only see the very upper part of another, further away. Why do some of the wind turbines appear to have sunk to the waterline? Why is it that when I walked back up the cliff, I could see more of the container ships and the turbines?

All of these observations are trivially explained if we're on the surface of a large globe, but none of the FE explanations I've ever heard convince me. It's always an appeal to bendy light or some sort of perspective effect or a 4D earth or something. Lots of arm waving, but nothing substantial to back it up.

If someone could come up with a coherent scientifically sensible FE explanation for what I clearly saw with my own eyes yesterday, I'd certainly listen.

I've just explained why you can see what you can see on a flat Earth and why you would never see what you see on a globe.
Read through it carefully.

Well that's the problem. I've read it through carefully and I don't see anything convincing at all. You claim for example, if I stood on a ball, I wouldn't ever see an edge. Completely disagree. If I don't see an edge, what do I see instead? If I hold a ball up in front of me, I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?

The manipulation is geared to push a global mindset which is a total untruth.

Well you would say that wouldn't you.  In your mind the world is flat (about the only place where it is).  Tell me... why is the Earth flat in your view?

According to FE Wiki the Earth is not a planet.  OK so what is it then?

I see a circular edge, it doesn't matter how large or small the ball is or how close or how far away it is either, so what's the magic size or distance where the edge just somehow disappears?

Yes that edge that we see is called the horizon.  It's just that from ground level the amount of surface we can see is far too small a fraction of the Earths surface as whole that we cannot directly see any curvature at all.  This seems to be evidence enough that the Earth is flat.

As we move away from the Earth surface (in other words increase our altitude) so the amount of surface we see increases.  Eventually the horizon starts to appear curved in all directions and that is the first point when we say we can see the true edge of the sphere that is Earth.

The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.

You talk about 'global nonsense' yet you don't seem to be able to provide any evidence that shows how it is nonsense.  I know you do but that is just your opinion at the end of the day.  If the Earth really is flat then perhaps you could explain to me how equatorial mounts work perfectly well in the southern hemisphere.  I will assume you know what an equatorial mount is and how it works.

So go on then.. I challenge you. If you can convince me that it really is nonsense to think the Earth is a sphere then I will bow to your better knowledge.  But I doubt very much you will.  And don't go on about going out and finding out for myself etc etc... you tell me why you think I (and presumably everyone else) should start thinking the Earth is flat.

After all this is what this discussion is all about isn't it.  Providing evidence that will change our minds.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 18, 2020, 08:30:04 AM

I don't understand if you're just stubbornly arguing your point, Septimatic, as a personal challenge, or you actually believe what you type. It makes absolutely no difference though, from whence motive your words derive.

Scenario: A man standing on the roof of the top deck on a Navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the horizon. A straight continuous horizontal line all around him. Yes, it is at his eye level. He uses his telescope and can still only see to the distance of the horizon, at his eye level, but magnified.

The man is part of a mission to locate the wreckage of a crashed plane. No wreckage can be seen from his vantage point in 360 degrees of checking the ocean.

So, the man ascends from the ship deck in a helicopter. The higher he goes, the further he can see in all directions. The much higher altitude enables him to locate the wreckage which was earlier hidden by the horizon.

Altitude changes the viewer's viewing distance to the horizon, Septic.

Yep, altitude certainly does change the viewing distance, but to view anything in that sea you have to alter your level and actually angle your view to the object. Your horizon has altered way past that identity of the object, because your reflected light back to your eyes is now more distant to that vanishing point....but.... you will only ever see it by reverting to a level sight.
Guess what?
Your globe will not provide that horizon....only sky.

Quote from: Smoke

On a flat earth, the horizon distance from the viewer never changes. If earth were flat, I could stand on the beach on the east coast of Australia at night, and with a powerful enough telescope (maybe an observatory) could watch events happening in Los Angeles at night.

No you couldn't. The atmospheric stack puts paid to that.

Quote from: Smoke

If you ever watch the sunrise from a beach, if you start up high, the moment you see the first ray of sunlight over the horizon, if you jump down and look east with your head on the beach, you can watch the first ray of sunlight again.

Which verifies a flat Earth and absolutely destroys your globe..

Quote from: Smoke

The earth is curved. You live on a giant ball.

The sky is curved/concave..but the sea is level and flat when calm. We do not live on any giant ball.

Quote from: Smoke

Don't despair, Septic! The beauty of living on a globe, and special thanks to the creator, is wherever you are in the world, you can literally be physically on top of the world if you so choose. If you are standing on the ground, because of earth curvature, the rest of the world is literally under your feet. How does that make you feel? Special?

You should be asking yourself that because it's you that is indoctrinated into that global belief. Does it make you feel special?

You make for a fascinating psychology study, Septic! You come up with a convenient reason for everything, don't you, which falls quickly apart when applying the smallest degree of logic.

It's really amazing how your "atmospheric stack" puts paid to a person on the east coast of Australia not being able see Los Angeles, if using a powerful enough telescope. Yet, anyone can see the sun or stars crystal clear as they peak over the horizon - through the same "atmospheric stack." 

The beach experiment at sunrise, verifies a flat earth and destroys the globe??? Oh, do tell! I'm looking forward to hearing your pseudo scientific explanation for this one!

When you say the earth is flat but the sky is curved / concave  what do you mean? Is it curved or is it concave? Are you alluding to the mysterious dome you crazy cats worship? If concave, you've lost me. You do realise the sea is level on a curved surface being the earth, thanks to Earth's gravity?

Being on a globe Earth does make me feel special. Being on a flat earth, does make you look special.

Reading your posts is like reading comic book physics from the 1890's, where the writer makes it up as he goes along.

I'll tell ya what though. Post up your photos of you standing on the edge of the Earth, looking over the side.

Flat Earthers are good at making comments like 'global nonsense' or as Wise would say 'angry globalists' but they have yet to provide one grain of verifiable evidence that a flat Earth exists anywhere other than in their minds.

Sure you can think what you like but all the evidence up to now tells me that we live on a sphere.  We all see the same evidence of course so it all comes down to how we interpret that evidence. Show ten different people the same painting and ask them independently and anonymously what they see and you will get ten different answers.

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

It was already explained to you before.
Unless you have significant distortion, straight lines remain straight.

As you continually appeal to convergence, that is showing the point of convergence.
The point where parallel appear to meet.
The only reason to not pay attention to them is if you wish to claim they aren't level, and instead they all point up.

But to any honest, rational individual, these lines are almost certainly level, and thus point to the convergence point, aka eye-level.
So this picture, just like the ones provided earlier by me, show that the horizon is not at eye level.

Meanwhile, the centre of the lens could point in any direction.

So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?

I wouldn't put it like that.
I would say from the horizon, Earth curves downwards 603 ft (equivalent to 30 miles), thus obscuring 603 ft of the tower.
There is no magical raising of it before him.

Can't you see this?

No, we can't see your strawman because your strawman in no way reflects what you would expect for a RE.

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely

You mean imperceptibly, not severely.
For 39 miles, i.e. ~63 km, the angle it is tilted away if ~0.6 degrees.
Nothing sever about that.
You are yet to explain just how you expect to notice this imperceptible tilt.
(Note: it is imperceptible as it is tilting away from you, not to the side).

It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.

It makes perfect sense, and you are unable to show any actual problem and instead just repeatedly make loads of pathetic strawmen.

What makes no sense is for this to happen on a FE.
For a FE, you would have the base of the tower at the water level, not 603 ft below it.
If there was some magic preventing you seeing it, you would have a region of darkness.
It would be like this:

Again, the fact that we observe the night sky with large regions of darkness shows that your eyes shouldn't just magically glue the 2 regions together and remove the dark portion.

So yes, it is pretty simple, and the FE idea you are putting forward doesn't match reality.
What does match reality is the RE, something you are yet to refute nor provide any evidence against and instead just repeatedly attack with strawmen and insane claims like claiming such an Earth would be invisible (i.e. not take up any portion of a 360 degree FOV including up, down, front and back).

The difference between me and you is, I took the time to question the global nonsense to come to the conclusion of it being just that.

You mean you dismiss it as nonsense and repeatedly ridicule it as you have no rational argument against it, while we actually understand it and know that it matches what we observe and thus accept it.

That isn't peer pressure and indoctrination. It is actual genuine understanding rather than an attempt to dismiss it using whatever dishonest BS you can come up with.

You cannot have any horizon line on a globe. You simply can't.

Again, that is equivalent to saying you can never see the edge of a ball.
It is pure nonsense.
Stop just asserting the same lie and actually answer the questions raised because of that lie.
The questions you have been avoiding as the show you are wrong; as they show that a RE does have a horizon and for the most part it will be visible even when you are looking out level due to just how small the difference is between level and the angle to the horizon.
The questions that are so damaging you had to take the path of claiming balls are invisible.

So nice and simple question 1, which can be expressed in a few different, but basically equivalent ways:
You have a ball. This ball has a radius of r. You are a distance of h away from the surface (if you would prefer you can use a distance of d to the centre, I don't really care).
Consider a full 360 degree FOV. This FOV includes looking directly towards the centre of the ball, looking directly away from the ball, and at right angles to this line and all the angles between, but for simplicity is kept to 2D. And the reference 0 degrees will be looking directly towards the ball.
What portion portion (angle) of this FOV does this ball take up?
What is the angular size of this ball?
What angle is the edge of this ball located at.

Quote from: Stash on September 19, 2020, 02:28:28 AM

Where is the horizon here? At eye level (follow the converging perspective lines)?

The only point you should be looking at is the dead centre of the lens that is taking that picture.
Why you've drawn lines along the building, baffles me.

Center of the lens makes no difference. In fact a lens itself makes no difference. Eye level is eye level.

As pointed out, the converging perspective lines meet at the vanishing point at eye level. Notice how the horizon line is below eye level. It is observably below yet you claim it is not. How can that be? This is all literally taught in art class right after you've graduated from finger painting.

Quote from: Stash

Take some time to explain what causes the horizontal atmospheric stack to obscure the bottom of the CN Tower and the skyline from view by replacing it with water:

So you think there's a 603 feet hump in that water to make the tower and the observer below sea level by that amount?
 Seriously?

Nope. This is what I referred to before as you not being familiar with conventional science you rail against.

If a person was looking through a horizontally level scope with a 603 feet central bump between his vision, with a cn tower being 603 feet down on the opposite side, the person will see absolutely nothing other than water.
And if that scope was tilted even slightly, it would hit sky.
Can't you see this?

Nope again. You don't seem to understand a simple concept like your field of view. Two factors are involved in obscuring your FOV, dip (aka drop) and bulge.

Not only that but the actual tower on the other side of that bump would have to be tilted severely, not to mention the person would also be tilted up that gradient..

How severely? My calculation says an infinitesimal 0.564454° given the distance and earth size and dip. What does your calculation say that adds up to severely?

It makes no logical sense for that to be a globe.
The light at the base of those buildings is massively omitted by the inability of the light to get back to the person's lens.Basically it's the vanishing point behind the horizon line.

Pretty simple really.

Talk about making no sense. What's this light business you're on about? What is causing 600 feet of the tower to be dark? Are you saying that if there were spotlights pointed at the darkened 600' of the base of the tower you would all of a sudden be able to see it?

And as for seeing the horizon on a ball, it's an absolute mystery why you would say you can't:

It's not only simple sunsets, sunrises, and curvature of the sea, Septic has to ignore in his belief. He also has to ignore sea currents, the proven shape of Antarctica, the proven shape of each country and each sea and ocean, air currents, weather patterns, etc.

Where oh where is his photo of himself standing on the edge of the earth peering over the side? I'm not asking for much.

Also, on flat snow globe earth, is the sun inside or outside the perspex dome?

(Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Septic, I'm trying to flush Wise out of retirement)

The problem is that there is literally so much data and so much evidence available now about the precise shape of the planet. Such data and information is gathered by all sorts of organisation both publicly and privately owned. 

Of course conspiracy theorists will never go away no matter what but we now live in an age when serious flat Earth believers are just burying their heads in the sand by choosing to dismiss all the mountains of evidence that shows that they are wrong. But then that's what they thrive on isn't it - denying the evidence presented by the majority view.

That is not to say of course that science has never been wrong.  Of course it has and science will never (I hope) reach a position where all the questions we have about the Universe have been answered.  It is the challenge to discover the unknown that makes it exciting. But certain things like the shape of the Earth and all the other planets we have conquered.

So the incentive for continuing the belief in flat Earth quest is certainly not science based.  Which is why it is a bit of a fallacy for some flat Earthers here to describe themselves and flat Earth 'scientists'.  Their belief has got nothing to do with science.

I'm still waiting for sceptic to explain to me how an equatorial mount could possibly work in the southern hemisphere.

The shape of the earth isn't a question of science first. It's a question of geography first. The science came second, and complemented what geographers had already confirmed.

This site will continue to have its flat earth threads ofcourse, but the best kept secret is it's the threads that have nothing to do with flat earth, that are the best threads.