What would change your mind?

Quote

Of course it is. I wouldn't expect anything else from people like yourself who are massively indoctrinated, unconditionally into a global mindset.
There's plenty of you and I used to be one of those, so I'm under no illusions.

Quite simply.  Prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong and I and everyone else here will convert to your way of thinking. That's all we ask and all we have ever asked.  Trouble is, so far you haven't.  Nowhere near it.  That's why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.

I don't care what you convert to, or not. You are unimportant to me. Feel free to go your own way.

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.

A level scope offers zero transition in the way you're trying to cover. But will offer transition on a flat sea with a curved (concave) sky.

Your effort assumes a convex earth and a concave sky. Can you see the major problem here?

this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?

what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD




here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.






let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.

A level scope is just a smaller view of what's in front of you, without the scope. Lines around you are still converging to the eye line, aka the horizon. You will still see ground or sea meeting sky, through the scope. A level scope changes nothing.

Using the horizon calculator, for an average person who stands 1.7 meters tall, at sea level, the horizon is 4.7 kilometers away. Using the earth curve calculator, that horizon line is in fact 1.73 meters lower than what it would be, if the sea were perfectly flat.

If you were to make your toilet tube perfectly level, sceptimatic, with perfect cross hairs, and the centre of your eye line to line up with the horizontal hair, you will find the actual horizon line to be just underneath the horizontal hair of your toilet tube. The 1.73 meter difference would be almost imperceptible at a distance of 4.7km, using the naked eye.

You could prove this to yourself.

You are unimportant to me.

Well at least that's one thing we've established we have in common.  Now you keep droning on about proof so tell me one thing which you are satisfied has been 'proved' and something you accept as being real and true.  Just one thing?!?

Or do you live in The Matrix or something?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 13, 2020, 02:18:25 AM

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.

A level scope

Notice how that in no way addresses any of these points.
At no point do I bring up a level scope there.
The only part where that would be involved is when you actually get to the location of the horizon, a mere 2.7 arc minutes below level, meaning if the FOV of your level scope is greater than 5.4 arc minutes, you would see that horizon.
But you hadn't gotten to that point.
You were only up to the point of establishing beyond any doubt that the horizon actually would exist for a RE.

Now again, care to actually address the argument rather than running off on yet another deflection?

Can you point out any actual issue with those 4 points, or those which follow it?
Here they are again:
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.

And in case you don't know, the actual way to bring up a problem with this argument is not to just spout something irrelevant.
To actually show a problem with it, you should pick the first point you disagree with, clearly indicate that point, and say why you disagree with it (including providing a justification) and what you think it should be.

e.g:

Your claim that you would not see such a transition/horizon on the RE through a level scope is wrong, instead it would depend upon your elevation and the FOV of the scope.
This is because for a RE the horizon would be located at an angle below level of arctan(r/(r+h)) where r is the radius of Earth and h is the height of the eye above its level surface.
When you are close to the surface, this angle would be quite small, for example, at 2 m, it is a mere 2.7 arc minutes.
Thus if the scope has a FOV which includes that angle the horizon would be seen for a RE.
It is only if the FOV of the scope is smaller than 2 times that angle that the horizon would not be seen.

Notice how it clearly identifies what claim is wrong (you didn't have numbered points in an argument so I couldn't use that), it also provides a justification for why it is wrong (admittedly it is incomplete as it doesn't have the diagram to support the trig, but that can be left for if you argue that point), and clearly indicates what it should be instead.

eg2:

Your claim that it always curving downwards would prevent it from appearing in a level scope is wrong.
There are 2 competing effects, one of which you rely upon to have a flat surface appear in a level scope even though it is below you. For a FE you just perspective causing things to appear higher, thus ground at the same level as the ground below you can appear in a level scope, even though the ground directly below you cannot.
This effect of perspective/convergence will still occur for a RE and thus there will be 2 competing effects.
The effect of Earth sloping downwards making it appear lower will compete with the effect of perspective causing objects to appear higher.
Thus the overall effect will depend on the magnitude of each.
When close to the observer, the effective of perspective is greatest and Earth is sloping downwards the least, with the obvious possibility of perspective having a greater effect, bringing it into view of a level scope.
Thus without considering the magnitude of each effect you cannot simply ignore one and focus entirely on the other to claim that the horizon would not appear in a level scope.

Again, clearly pointing out what the issue, why it is wrong (with justification), and what it should actually be.

And just to further drive the point home, no where in your claims have you in any way appealed to the radius of Earth. As there is no dependence on the radius, your arguments would apply equally to a round earth with a radius of 1 mm, and to a round earth with a radius of 1 Ym (10^24 m).
The big problem with that is that for the "known" region of Earth, that 1 Ym radius earth is pretty much identical to a FE. (and as an aside, this is why the ancient Earth models were initially flat, with them working just fine, because their "known" region of Earth was pretty much identical to the level of accuracy they could use)
The bulge at the centre for a width of 2l (i.e. from the middle, it is a distance of l to the edge), and radius r is given by l^2=b*(2*r-b).
Assuming b is small enough, 2*r is much larger than b, and thus 2*r-b is roughly the same as 2*r.
This allows a first order approximation of l^2=2*r*b, and thus b=l^2/(2*r). (This is the origin of the 8 inches per mile squared).
So putting in l of 20 000 km, to match the radius of the alleged FE, and r of 1 Ym, we end up with b=0.2 nm, roughly the size of an atom.

There is no way you would ever be able to distinguish that tiny difference with the topography of Earth.

Thus if your argument holds for a RE of any size (as it must), then it would also apply to this RE of massive radius, and as this massive RE is indistinguishable from a FE, it must also apply to a FE.

The only way to not have it apply to a FE is if you admit that it is dependent upon the size of Earth, which then requires doing math to see if it would apply to a RE with a radius of 6371 km.

Your effort assumes a convex earth and a concave sky.

No, my effort assumes a round Earth, which has sky all around it, like a shell.
If you want to call that concave, I don't really give a damn, as that is what the RE model is, the solid and liquid Earth, with a gaseous atmosphere around it.

The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.

The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.

Just remember sceptimatic, if I insult you and your intelligence, it's only to elicit an emotional response. It's difficult at times for me to comprehend you aren't a robot, and you actually tie your own shoe laces.

The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone,

Is that an exuberant utterance or a factual statement?

this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?

what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD




here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.






let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.

It's the truth.

The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Just remember sceptimatic, if I insult you and your intelligence, it's only to elicit an emotional response. It's difficult at times for me to comprehend you aren't a robot, and you actually tie your own shoe laces.

You are fine, you don't insult my intelligence, you simple fuel your own ego for your own reasons and I'm absolutely fine with that. You carry on.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 13, 2020, 11:45:26 AM

this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?

what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD




here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.






let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.

You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon.    I’m not even sure what you think we should see?

Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground).  At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon.  Simple.

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

The horizon for a RE, and just how close it is to level.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 13, 2020, 04:35:52 PM

The flat earth mantra is that the average Joe doesn't possess the skills with simple means, to prove the earth is a globe. That's a total crock.

It's the truth.

No, just because you don't understand and refuse to do the simple test to prove beyond any sane doubt that Earth isn't flat doesn't mean that an average person can't.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

The globe earth has been proven a dozen times in this thread alone, by simple means a child with common sense could apply.

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Then explain how the horizon appears so far below eye level, and at a distance which varies depending on height.

While technically that doesn't show the full globe, it does show the required curvature.

And of course, after having your counter completely destroyed, you still ignore the extremely simple proof that you are wrong.
Yet again, just which point in the following line of reasoning do you think is wrong? Why do you think it is wrong, i.e. what is your justification for that false belief of yours? And what do you think it should be? I was even nice and provided examples of how to rationally object to an argument.
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.

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it.  If so how?  Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual.  That is the difference between proof and opinion.  Proof is general and while opinion is individual.  An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth.  That is generally what you do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2020, 01:53:47 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 13, 2020, 11:45:26 AM

this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?

what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD




here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.






let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.

You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon.    I’m not even sure what you think we should see?

Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground).  At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon.  Simple.

By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.

Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.

Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.

The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2020, 01:53:47 AM

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

The horizon for a RE, and just how close it is to level.

How close it is to level is neither here nor there. It would never be level and if we want to go down the route, going by your 24,000 mile circumference (approx) that you stick to, then we go with a fall of 8 inches per mile squared, unless you want to mess with that figure, which, if you feel the need....do so.......but.....you will still know there would be a remarkable drop over distance and a drop over a short distance....always, in that case.


You know this and you cannot get away from that, no matter how hard you try.

You will never get any horizon on your globe but we do have one on this Earth, which means...at the very least.....the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

Quote

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it.  If so how?  Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual.  That is the difference between proof and opinion.  Proof is general and while opinion is individual.  An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth.  That is generally what you do.

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.

Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.

The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.

Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.

Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.

The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

This is so amazing.
Amazing i say!


From what i gather you had two complaints
1
The horizon should be visibly curved at ground level (which has been explained to you why not)
2
If the water curved away from us we should see the sky (which is exactly what we see and exactly what you described above)



Then you are shown a simulation of both and still seem confused.


Amazing!

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 14, 2020, 02:08:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2020, 01:53:47 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 13, 2020, 11:45:26 AM

this is amazing!
how do you manage to put on pants?

what are you talking about?!
if earth were a giant tube or cone you could expect to see the sky, at the horizon, to concave itself against the horizon.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F512917845048249388%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mbWRoICwDkQsL8sveTVwy&ust=1605382663232000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMDtitqigO0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD




here's a nice simulation
the model that you said was impossible, because... 3d software possibly doesn't exist in your world even though you like to quote startrek is the basis for all nasa.






let us know if THIS is the hang up becuase it appears to be slightly different than my initial thought.

I have no idea what you're trying to show me.
Maybe you can explain what this video is supposed to show.

Where the white and grey ball meets the black background is the “horizon”.

You keep saying that on a globe earth we shouldn’t see a horizon.    I’m not even sure what you think we should see?

Clearly if you look down you see the ground and if you look up, you see the sky (whatever the shape of the ground).  At some point, ground stops and sky starts, and that’s the horizon.  Simple.

By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.

Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.

Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.

The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

With enough magnification on a level scope and/or enough height, then sure the horizon would be below your field of view.  But you’d need a very very powerful scope or a lot of height.

The horizon is still there though.  Aim the scope down slightly and you’d see it.

Is that all you mean?

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.

Really.  What sort of distance scales do you mean here?  Describe to me how water can provide direct proof of a flat Earth surface.  In line with your own rules have you managed to personally verify it? Remember you said you should only believe something if you can personally verify it (e.g. your reply #280). So since you have already accepted it as proof then obviously you have already personally verified it. So how did you do it and what results did you get?

If it was that simple and obvious don't you think the entire world would agree that the Earth is indeed flat by now.  Instead of the Flat Earth Society this would be the Round Earth Society.  Is that really the best you can do?!? Water proves absolutely nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.

But if it makes you happy to believe otherwise then that's fine with me. 

I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.

And look at just how close the horizon is to level.

Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.

No, no one can.
That is because, as repeatedly shown, the horizon is not the convergence point.

Surely you can understand the horizon is a physical distance away from you, regardless of what optical systems you use, with the distance depending upon the height. That is not the convergence point. That is a physical horizon, just like shown in that animation.

Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.

Keep what I said before in mind.
There are 2 competing effects. Convergence/perspective brings Earth up to the level sight.
That is needed for your FE to produce a horizon in that level sight.
You have no reason to ignore it with a RE, and doing so, without any appeal to the size of this Earth, works equally well for the FE.

This means, unlike your repeated lie, your ability to see the horizon on a RE through your level scope is dependent upon the size of Earth, the height above it, and the FOV of your scope.

When close to the surface, without an absolutely tiny scope (so tiny you would only be able to see a fraction of the moon), you WILL SEE THE HORIZON of a RE through your level scope.

Now stop just repeating the same lies.

Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless.

No, it isn't. Because this shows your claim that the horizon would not exist for a RE to be pure garbage.
It then raises the question of WHERE IS THIS HORIZON?
A question you repeatedly avoid because you know an honest answer to it will show you to have been lying for this entire thread.

Does this mean you accept the RE should have a horizon?
If so, at what angle would it appear below level?

The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

All the available evidence shows otherwise, and all you have to counter it is repeating the same lies again and again while ignoring or dismissing that evidence and the rational, logical proofs that you are wrong.

How close it is to level is neither here nor there.

It is of extreme impotance.
The only way to make it of no importance at all is if you have the scope perfectly level with no uncertainty at all, and have a FOV of 0, in which case you can't see anything at all, and with the horizon being a finite distance away, you wouldn't see it on a FE either.

you will still know there would be a remarkable drop over distance and a drop over a short distance....always, in that case.

No, there isn't.
For the horizon when viewed from 2 m above the level surface, it would be 4 m below. A mere doubling of the distance below for a FE.
I wouldn't call that remarkable.
And if perspective can bring that 2 m to be at eye-level, why can't it bring the 4 m to appear at eye level?
Both are quite clearly BELOW, one 2 m below and the other 4 m below.
One 2.7 arc minutes below, one 1.4 arc minutes below.

The only way out for you is to accept some uncertainty in your measurement of level, and/or some FOV of your scope. But this can then allow both to be seen, not just the FE.

You will never get any horizon on your globe

Again, if you wish to claim that with any shred of integrity you need to deal with the logical argument presented. Point out exactly which step in the process you disagree with and provide a justification for why.
Until you do, this simple logical proof shows you are wrong.
It shows conclusively that you do have a horizon on a RE, and under normal circumstances you will see that horizon through a level scope.
Repeating the same lie with no refutation of the argument presented shows you have no case and don't give a damn about the truth at all.

Here it is again:
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.

Do you have any rational objection to the argument, or are you only capable of repeating the same lies and deflection?

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable.

Yes, such as how, when standing above water, looking towards a distant object which is also above the water level, the bottom of it is obstructed, clearly showing that the water is curving such that the bottom of the object is behind the water, with the water obstructing the view. Clearly showing, beyond any sane doubt, that Earth is round, not flat like your fantasy.

Your horizon line is the next best proof

Yes, the horizon is the next best proof that Earth can't be flat.
If Earth was flat, the horizon should be the very edge. Instead of getting a clear horizon you should have the sea and sky blur into each other, either due to limited resolution of optics, with better optics allowing you to see further, or due to the air scattering the light so it would look like a foggy day. You certainly shouldn't be able to so easily observe it to be so far below level from a high mountain, like the photos and simple tests show.

So yes, 2 very simple proofs that Earth is round, and clear disproofs of Earth being flat.
Yet rather than accept either of these you just repeat the same lies and deflections.

Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.
The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not

So you know it isn't flat and are just lying to everyone? If not, you don't know what is it not, you just delude yourself into thinking you do.
Your 2 clear proofs show beyond any sane doubt that Earth cannot be flat.

Considering the same effect can be observed basically everywhere the rational conclusion is that Earth is roughly a sphere.
Then the question is just how close to a sphere is it.

Quote from: Solarwind on November 14, 2020, 03:37:09 AM

Quote

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it.  If so how?  Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual.  That is the difference between proof and opinion.  Proof is general and while opinion is individual.  An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth.  That is generally what you do.

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.

Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.

The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

"The only issue now is to figure out exactly what earth is in its entirety....." One of life's little mysteries for you, isn't it? The shape of this planet.....

That post I did, listing some of the many geosystems operating on this planet, (you know, the post you totally ignored) takes into consideration many physical aspects that make up the totality of this world - all of which could not exist if earth were flat, and domed, as you so fantasize.

You aren't going to fare well if earth is ever faced with a danger from outer space, are you? Your world view will implode.

Humor me. What do you do for a living, sceptimatic?

This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one.  How would you do it accurately?  You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally.  Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.

Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source?  After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.

Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level.  How do you verify that the laser is level?  Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.

If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel.  However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction.  So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance).  That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.

If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface.  To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away.  By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred.  This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first.  Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously.  That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter.  If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface  Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.

This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one.  How would you do it accurately?  You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally.  Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.

Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source?  After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.

Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level.  How do you verify that the laser is level?  Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.

If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel.  However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction.  So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance).  That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.

If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface.  To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away.  By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred.  This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first.  Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously.  That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter.  If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface  Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.

Speaking of lasers, a couple of large engineering endeavors that required taking into account "level" and "curvature":

"SLAC’s linear accelerator must be extraordinarily straight to ensure that electrons and positrons don’t bump into the walls as they zip along. (The design required the accelerator pipe to be within one-eighth of an inch from perfectly straight along the entire two miles. To put that in perspective, the ends of a perfectly straight, two-mile-long pipe would be about 16 inches farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe, due to the Earth’s curvature.)"
https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thought-leaders/phil-kesten/accelerating-science-for-more-than-50-years.html

"Beam Tube Installation

LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a  level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?

Jack black, you need to accept nothing will change sceptimatic's argument, and make him say the words you so desperately want him to say : "I admit defeat. Earth is a globe."

He's radicalized. He probably thinks 77 virgins await him, for believing what he does. Who knows, and who cares.

You can use a telescope that will not let you see ocean beyond the horizon, but will let you see an aircraft in the sky well beyond the horizon.

Sceptimatic probably licks stamps for a living in a post office somewhere..... let it be.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2020, 04:45:39 AM

By all means argue this till the cows come home but understand that I keep telling people it's all about a level scope looking out to your horizon.
Surely you can understand a level scope looking out to eventually meet sea and sky as your convergence point.

Keep this in mind when you try and use it with your globe which will always be curving DOWN and away from your LEVEL sight.
This means you would never see the sea meet the sky or level ground for that matter.

Trying to use the eyes down to the ground and slowly raised argument as if you see some kind of edge, is pointless. You're acting like you are sitting at a table looking at a basket ball, similar to what JB and the rest of those following his train of thought.

The Earth is absolutely not a globe we supposedly walk upon.

This is so amazing.
Amazing i say!


From what i gather you had two complaints
1
The horizon should be visibly curved at ground level (which has been explained to you why not)
2
If the water curved away from us we should see the sky (which is exactly what we see and exactly what you described above)



Then you are shown a simulation of both and still seem confused.


Amazing!

You're getting far too excited.
You've seen exactly what I've explained and you are trying your best to bring up stuff to go against it....and failing.

This "amazing" stuff may make you feel better but it gives you zero proof against what I'm saying.

Put some more effort in.

With enough magnification on a level scope and/or enough height, then sure the horizon would be below your field of view.  But you’d need a very very powerful scope or a lot of height.

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe. The fact you do see one should tell you you are not living upon a globe.

The horizon is still there though.  Aim the scope down slightly and you’d see it.

Is that all you mean?

Aiming your scope slightly down means you are not using a level scope. Are you missing something?.

Quote

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.

Really.  What sort of distance scales do you mean here?  Describe to me how water can provide direct proof of a flat Earth surface.  In line with your own rules have you managed to personally verify it? Remember you said you should only believe something if you can personally verify it (e.g. your reply #280). So since you have already accepted it as proof then obviously you have already personally verified it. So how did you do it and what results did you get?

Start again and look back. You'll see what I've proved for myself.
If you do not, or can not do those simple experiments for yourself.  FOR YOURSELF....then you will always be arguing it, which is fine by me as I do not require your input to have my iown proof's and belief's.

If it was that simple and obvious don't you think the entire world would agree that the Earth is indeed flat by now.

People harass and even physically assault sopa actors in the street if their character has done something that isn't agreed with.
Can those people tell fact from fiction?
Same thing here. Sever indoctrination and saturation of the mind that skews it in the direction the indoctrinator wants to take it.

  Instead of the Flat Earth Society this would be the Round Earth Society.

But it is the flat Earth society forum, not the round Earth society forum.
You are here spending all your time trying to tell what you think are nutters, that you believe it's a globe. Why?

  Is that really the best you can do?!? Water proves absolutely nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.

It's not a case of it being the best I can do. It's a case of, it's there right in your observable face and testable for that very same face...and repeatable for that very same face of your and anyone else's.

Denying flatness/levelness of water in favour of a hump, is bemusing and a stark reminder to myself how easily it was for my young self to be basically conned into a belief that some imaginary force that cannot be explained (gravity) can bend water around a globe...a spinning globe...in a vacuum of space and even pull in a big moon rock ball...and so on and so on and so on.

I'm just glad I had the time and the mind to question this stuff, because, once upon a time I believed what you did.

But if it makes you happy to believe otherwise then that's fine with me.

It makes me content to question and muse over my own stuff.

Your 2 clear proofs show beyond any sane doubt that Earth cannot be flat.

The water is flat and that's all the proof that is required.
Rough terrain is not an argument.

Considering the same effect can be observed basically everywhere the rational conclusion is that Earth is roughly a sphere.
Then the question is just how close to a sphere is it.

The Earth cannot be a sphere in its entirety. You can have gradients at certain points, like mountains and such but certainly not on a sphere that also supposedly holds water with some magical mysterious made up load of nonsensical mumbo jumbo such as gravity and all its add ons to nudge it in the faces of those who are willing to swallow it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2020, 04:55:19 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on November 14, 2020, 03:37:09 AM

Quote

It's never once been proven. It's been argued to be a globe but never proven to be one.

Equally it has never been proved that the Earth is not a globe either has it.  If so how?  Perhaps you think it has but genuine proof is independent of a single individual.  That is the difference between proof and opinion.  Proof is general and while opinion is individual.  An individual can reject certain evidence that counters their belief and regard the rest as proof that their opinion is the truth.  That is generally what you do.

Like I said before. Water is your direct proof. Observable, testable and repeatable. Your horizon line is the next best proof of no globe.

Basically it only requires one but there's two nailed on proof's.

The only issue now is to figure out exactly what Earth is in its entirety because I know what it's not.....and it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

"The only issue now is to figure out exactly what earth is in its entirety....." One of life's little mysteries for you, isn't it? The shape of this planet.....

That post I did, listing some of the many geosystems operating on this planet, (you know, the post you totally ignored) takes into consideration many physical aspects that make up the totality of this world - all of which could not exist if earth were flat, and domed, as you so fantasize.

You aren't going to fare well if earth is ever faced with a danger from outer space, are you? Your world view will implode.

Humor me. What do you do for a living, sceptimatic?

Any danger to this Earth will happen from inside or maybe outside, as and when it happens. I don't know what's outside of this cell but I can certainly guess it and it's not a space vacuum with so called stars and planets but may very well be bunched cells just like our very own.

However, I won't go into that as you struggle with flat water.

As for humouring you. You get enough humour from your own self so I have no need to add anything to that and spoil it all.

This whole idea of using water to apparently 'prove' Earths flatness is quite an interesting one.  How would you do it accurately?  You would certainly need a laser aimed horizontally.  Oops we can't use that word because if Sceptis insistence that there is no such thing as a 'horizon' immediately means the term 'horizontal' has no meaning any more.

Next if we are passing the laser over water (remember Scepti has told us that water is our direct proof) how then do we make sure that the screen or other detector that we are going to use to track the laser beam is exactly the same height as the laser source?  After a certain distance the laser source is going to disappear from direct view. That distance will depend on the elevation of the laser source above the water.

Anyway going with the majority view that the horizon does exist as the visually flat and level borderline between the land (or sea) and the sky (as per JBs repeated perfectly correct description) we will aim the laser so it is dead level.  How do you verify that the laser is level?  Well I guess you would have to put a spirit level on the device used to produce the laser.

If the Earth is flat then the laser and the ground will initially at least be, parallel.  However the laser light will be passing through the atmosphere and so will be subject to atmospheric refraction.  So in order to do this scientifically we would have to carry out the experiment in a vacuum where there would be no air and therefore no refraction over distance).  That introduces a problem with where we can do the experiment.

If the Earth is not flat then our laser beam will be a tangent line to the Earths surface.  To test that we could set up another laser source along the same longitude or latitude line and some distance away.  By some distance I mean several tens of miles or even a couple of hundred.  This second laser would also be a tangent line but the laser would be an an angle to the first.  Thus if observers were situated at each laser source but neither could see the other one directly , but a detector was located at a calculated height above the Earths surface related to the distance between the two sources would be able to detect both lasers simultanously.  That would prove the Earths surface was curved and would enable us to measure the circumference and hence the diameter.  If the Earth is flat then the lasers would both always be parallel with each other and with the Earths surface  Hence the both laser sources would remain in direct view of each other no matter how far apart they are.

Do you accept the 8 inches per mile squared with your globe?
If not then what do you accept as your downward curvature?