What would change your mind?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:25:39 AM

level sight.

Stop appealing to level sight. It just confuses you.

Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.

Again, tell us exactly why a round Earth (like the one you live on, unless you don't live on this planet) should be invisible; why if you are looking directly at this ball, you see nothing but sky.
Once more, this is not about looking straight out level. This is about looking directly at Earth.

This all about looking out horizontally level. It is my argument that kills off your globe.
You trying to alter that to claim looking at a basket ball from distance proves edges, is pointless.
Deal with what you believe you are stood upon, which is your global Earth.
Let's see you address this.

Because if you can see Earth, that means there will be a horizon for this round Earth (unless it is placed so far away that limited visibility through the atmosphere would render it a blur) as there will be a border between where you can look towards Earth and where you cannot.
Everything available shows you are wrong.
Simple pictures of balls show you are wrong.
Basic math shows you are wrong.
The picture of the hill shows you are wrong.

None of it shows I'm wrong.

I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?

And once again, it does not matter how big it is.

How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.

 But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:



If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.

No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.

Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.

And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?

Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.

Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.

No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.
That is not intrinsically tied to level sight.
It has also already been dealt with, repeatedly, with you ignoring it repeatedly.
Once more, at an elevation of 2 m, the horizon would be ~2.7 arc minutes below level. That is pretty much indistinguishable from level, and kills your argument.
The fact that it is observed to be lower the higher you go further kills your argument.

But you moved on from simply claiming that the horizon wouldn't be dead level for a RE, and instead started falsely claiming you would not see the edge at all, that a horizon would not exist on a RE at all as you would see nothing but sky. You repeatedly refused to answer where such a horizon would appear on a RE other than saying that it wouldn't exist. As otherwise, your arguments are all dead.
That is because once you admit there is an edge of a RE, a division between where you can look at the land/sea and where you can't and instead only get sky, the question then becomes where is it. And when you do the math, that turns out to be very close to level and thus would likely be seen when looking level.

So this is well beyond just talking about level.

This is now talking about if a round object, like the very real round Earth, has a horizon, if it has an edge between where you see it and where you see what surrounds it (e.g. the sky). And that is not tied to level.

And that means I am dealing with what I KNOW I am standing on. A round, roughly spherical, visible object.
I see no reason why a RE should be invisible.
I see no reason why a RE should magically behave differently to a basketball and magically not have an edge.
I provided the math to calculate where the horizon would appear. I pointed out just how close that would put it to level, and thus match what is observed. I provided pictures showing that it drops as you get higher.
So I have dealt with it.
Your straw-man of the RE has been refuted.

Unless you are looking at with an extremely small FOV, or from very far away, if you are looking level, you will see the horizon on the RE. All you have offered in response to back up your strawman is repeatedly asserting the same strawman.
Your nonsense has been dealt with, and not just by me. Your claims have been addressed, and not just by me.

Now it is time for you to start justifying your claims, to start answering the questions that are asked of you instead of continually deflecting.

So, when you are looking straight down at a round Earth, do you think you see it, or is it invisible?
Can you actually answer that question, or do you need to continually dishonestly deflect to pretend you can disprove the RE, when in reality you have nothing.

So again, looking straight down towards a RE, do you see Earth, or do you just see sky?
If you think the latter, then why doesn't the same apply to a basketball.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.

So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.

So that means before you even get to doing the experiment you need to calculate where the horizon should be for a RE, something you refuse to do as you know it destroys your argument.

For example, if you have a cylinder that is 30 cm long and 1 cm in radius, then the FOV (assuming your eye is right on it) is 3.8 degrees. Many times larger than the ~5.4 arc minutes. In order to get it to 5.4 arc minutes, you would need to view it from over 12 m away.
You then also start running into issues of the limit of human vision.

If you honestly wanted to do it, the simplest way is to get a water level, and go to a high mountain, like the pictures you have already been provided with which clearly show the horizon below level.

Quote from: Stash

I'm not asking whether you think the earth is a globe or not. I'm asking how big your version of earth is. Regardless of what you or I think the shape of the earth is. Why can't you just simply answer how big your earth is in your theory?

And once again, it does not matter how big it is.

I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?

Quote from: Stash

How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

If you're looking up or down,you lose your horizon.

Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?

Quote from: Stash

 But a million things you interact with or relate to everyday have not been "verified by you." So that's hardly an argument for anything. And because you provide no evidence that the horizon always raises to eye level, I provide you evidence that it does not. My evidence versus your non-evidence. I win:

If you would like to counter, provide some evidence. Otherwise your statement is shown to be patently false. That's the way evidence works.

No need to counter. It's already been done.
The horizon is there in the picture. That's your true horizon.
The liquid in the tubes are a level liquid that are not part of the horizon line.
I can't even understand why this is used.

It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:

Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.

I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?

Quote from: Stash

And yet for like the fourth time, you still haven't answered the question. It's a simple Yes or No. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. Why can't you just answer that?

Your question was answered. You chose to overlook it because it doesn't suit you.

Sorry, I may have missed it. Maybe you can type the few characters again. If I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the CN tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would. A simple 3-2 character response requested. Yes or No.

I'll make it even easier, a one character answer:

1 = Yes
2 = No

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:41:15 PM

Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.

No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.

No we are not.
Twist is anyway you like but you simply waste your posts.

We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.

Don't waste your time trying to use anything that you can't correlate with your global Earth.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.

Quote from: robinofloxley

And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?

Absolutely not.

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size? Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size? Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:

It makes no difference what size it is.

If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.

OK, well if size is not the problem, it must be something else. Something special about the earth which makes it different to other balls? Nope, because according to you:

Quote from: JackBlack

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.

This is a general statement about balls. You're claiming if you stand on a ball, any ball, any size, you don't have edges. So it's nothing to do with size and the edge issue applies to balls in general, not specifically the earth.

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 11:11:43 PM

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.

So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.

I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV,horizontally converged.......hence your horizon line.

Impossible. Absolutely impossible on a globe Earth.

I'm not asking why or why not it matters. I'm simply asking, how big your earth is in your theory? Why won't you answer this?

I don't know how big Earth is.
It also does not matter.
What does matter, is what's observed and the simple logic of that.

Still not answering the full question: How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye?

It is right there in the picture, the horizon is below the eye level line. Thanks for recognizing that:



[/quote]I recognise a true distant horizon to the eye and 2 tubes with level liquid in.
You're proving nothing otherthan cementing the reality of Earth absolutely not being a globe.

Whoever used these tubes and liquid level and focusing them under the true horizon,made a massive error.
Why?
You see....if you wanted to prove a globe Earth that showed a reality...those two tubes with level liquid would need to be above any edge/line.
This so called experiment is an absolute abomination.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 11:11:43 PM

Here's something to use.
If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Take a picture of it to verify it for yourself as a keepsake to help you understand that this could not happen on a globe that you think you are living on.
It simply couldn't.

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.
And yet, you have your horizon.

On a globe, this would not be possible, because you would always be looking level while the Earth curved under your vision, which would leave you viewing......sky.......not any horizon.

It's so simple.
No need to argue this. Anyone can do it and prove it for themselves.

I'll do you one better, even though it's already been shown to you and directly refutes your notions, how about an image on a ball surface that shows a horizon line? Would that settle it?

Yep, as long as the image being taken is actually on the ball and levelled, using a wall or closed in background that would be your space.

Make absolutely sure you make the focus......level on that ball.
Let's see if you can produce this in an honest way.

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?

It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.

Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?

They do if you're stood on one.

Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:

It isn't a problem.

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?

You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 12:16:17 AM

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?

It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.

This is a completely circular argument. Your reasoning why the earth can't be a globe is because it's flat? Seriously?

Water is level. Level is not flat.

Quote from: robinofloxley

Do balls suddenly vanish from view when they reach a certain size?

They do if you're stood on one.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Quote from: robinofloxley

Apparently, size is not the problem - according to you:

It isn't a problem.

You just agreed that balls vanish beyond a certain size. Now size doesn't matter. Which is it? Can we have just a little bit of consistency please.

Quote from: robinofloxley

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?

You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Any ball you can stand on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 01:29:07 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?

You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?

No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 11:16:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:41:15 PM

Level sight is what we're dealing with, so how about you address it.

No, we are dealing with if you would see an edge of a round object.

No we are not.

Yes, we are, as you are claiming on a RE you wouldn't see any horizon.
That claim is an outright lie, as repeatedly explained to you.
So now, to get to the bottom of the lie you are being asked an extremely simple question you repeatedly refuse to answer as you know it will expose your lies.

Or do you now accept that the a round Earth would have an edge, a visual line below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky?
If so, WHERE IS IT? At what angle below eye level?
If not, then answer the question:
When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?

We are dealing with level sight On Earth against sea and sky, with no obstructions.

And as we have already been over countless times, what is observed matches with what is expected for a RE.
When close to sea level you have a horizon which is imperceptibly below eye level, with it appearing to get further below eye level as you get higher.
So if you just want to deal with that, then accept that a RE WOULD have a horizon and when close to sea level it would basically at eye level, and thus what is observed matches reality.

If you wish to claim you only see sky then tell us how far below eye level the horizon is on this round Earth you live on.
If you cannot answer that simple question then tell us if looking straight down you would see a RE or not.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 21, 2020, 11:21:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 11:11:43 PM

Why do I say to use a roll holder?
It's because it takes out any argument about field vision and replaces it with tunnel vision.

So you also don't understand FOV?
A roll holder still has a FOV.
It still is not 0.

I've never denied FOV.
But your sight is now tunnelled to that FOV.
Your horizon line is your field of vision from as far as you can see, top to bottom in that FOV

Like I said, you don't understand. If the horizon was as far as you can see, top to bottom, that requires a FOV of 0.
You are denying the fact that that tube would still produce a FOV which is not 0 and thus allow the horizon to appear in that FOV for a round Earth.
So good job showing yet again you either don't understand or are just lying.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 12:16:17 AM

So we have someone standing on a ball shaped, 400 foot high hill, which is visible and has clearly defined edges. Why then would a ball earth not be visible and have clearly defined edges? What is special about the earth that makes it behave so fundamentally differently to other balls? Is it to do with size?

It's not a globe. It's flat, where water is concerned. That's what is so special and different to balls.

It is quite clear what that question was asking.
You are claiming a RE has no visible edge, that all you see is sky. Yet we observe plenty of balls where that isn't the case.
So why would a RE be so vastly different to all the balls we have seen?

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:01:45 AM

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Balls suddenly vanish at a certain size, but only if you are standing on them. What is this magic threshold size?

Any ball you can stand on.

Quote from: robinofloxley

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 01:29:07 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

So please explain, since I'm not getting this at all, why can you stand on one ball and see an edge and yet stand on another ball and edges are impossible?

You can't stand on any ball and see an edge to that ball.

Apart from the ball shaped hill. Did you forget about it? Do you want me to post the photo again?

No need to post anything.
Just understand what I said.
The picture is a nonsense for the reasons I stated.

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?

Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:34:21 AM

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...



So, to repeat:

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes
Can you see the sky? - No
Can you see the earth's horizon? - No

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 03:16:21 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:34:21 AM

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...



So, to repeat:

Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

Lol, a photo of a hill is fake?

Poor sceptitank.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 03:16:21 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:34:21 AM

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...



So, to repeat:

Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 22, 2020, 02:26:58 AM

When looking straight down at a round Earth do you see Earth or sky?

Define what you mean by straight down and also define what you mean by, round Earth.

And more avoidance of a simple question.
You didn't seem to have any issues with making bold proclamations before without any clear definition. Why change now?

For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.

Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?

The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

No he isn't.
In effect the photo has 2 "horizons". One is the edge of the hill, the other is the edge of the round Earth.
For the first "horizon", below (visually) it you see the hill and things directly on the hill. Above (visually) it you see the land and sky surrounding the hill.
This photo shows that a round Earth would have a horizon, and thus the question is where it is.

Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

Try following your own advice, rather than repeatedly clinging to a refuted strawman.

What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..

This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 06:41:27 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 03:16:21 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 02:34:21 AM

Is the top of the hill ball shaped? - Yes
Is the photographer standing on it? - Yes
Is the ball shaped hill visible? - Yes
Does it have edges? - Yes

What is the difference between standing on the top of a 400 foot ball and standing on the top of a 400 foot ball shaped hill?

You've certainly stated a lot of nonsense for some reason.

First of all you are using a hill and the surroundings, plus the sky as your point making.
The issue with this is, you are using a hill against a flat Earth horizon and everything leading up to it.

Totally pointless.

Now let's see you stand on a ball with a wall or curtain in your line of sight....or something that would be your space around that ball as you believe the ball is spinning in this space.

Now show me the edge of your ball when your sight/scope is horizontally level.

OK, so go back to the hill. Hang a massive curtain 150m or so in front of the camera so you can no longer see the distant fields, the sky or the earth's horizon. All you can see is the hill, the edge of the hill, the fence posts and a couple of trees. Even better, just imagine a foggy day with visibility down to a few hundred metres. It's going to look something like this...



So, to repeat:

Come back to me when you have some proof of reality, not looking up a hill.

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.

Get back to me when you can be honest.

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.

Make sure you stick to it.

For simplicity:
By round Earth, I mean an Earth which is perfectly spherical (we can deal with hills and oblateness and the like later, especially as you continually claim it is this curvature which causes an issue).
As for looking "straight down", hold a camera 2 m above the surface of this round Earth, having the camera pointing down, that is towards the centre of Earth, such that the centre of Earth, if it was visible, would be directly in the centre of the camera's FOV. Have nothing between the camera and Earth to obstruct the view.

Then, if this camera takes a picture, is Earth visible? Or do you only see sky?

.

Let me make this crystal crystal crystal clear for the last time.
Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.
You see your horizon.
You would not see this on your supposed globe.
Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.

The issue you are having isin trying to convince me that what we see on Earth, is due to it being the globe you believe it is, so you are using it when you should really know it's impossible.

Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.

You and others attempts to twist it away is pointless with me buit feel free to keep doing so and I'll respond accordingly.