What would change your mind?

Quote from: Solarwind on November 14, 2020, 02:38:59 PM

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?

16 inches?

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.

You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?

You've seen exactly what I've explained

You mean what you have repeatedly asserted without any justification at all.
And what was then refuted.
What was clearly explained to be wrong, with you then coming up with whatever excuse you can to ignore that refutation, even though you cannot show a single thing wrong with those explanations.
Instead you just continue to appeal to the same lies.

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.

So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.

As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth, with the radius of Earth being 1 Ym, then you would certainly see it.

Remember, this Earth with a radius of 1 Ym is basically indistinguishable from a FE.
So the only way for the scope to not matter is if you claim it would be impossible to see the horizon without Earth curving upwards.

The fact you do see one should tell you you are not living upon a globe.

You mean the fact that you continually avoid the simple logical argument which conclusively shows you are wrong shows that you are wrong and you know it.

You'll see what I've proved for myself.

That you have no sense of integrity at all and will continue to repeat the same lies even after they have been proven to be lies beyond any sane doubt?

Can those people tell fact from fiction?
Same thing here.

Well finally you said something I can agree with.
You cannot tell the difference between facts, that of observable reality; and your own delusional fantasies.

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.

And it conclusively shows you are wrong.
But you cling to your fiction and continue to lie by saying it is magically proves Earth is flat, while ignoring the evidence which shows otherwise.

The evidence clearly shows you are wrong.
The fact that water is clearly observed to obscure the bottom of distant objects, objects beyond the horizon, objects which are well above water level, with the observer well above water level; shows beyond any sane doubt that the surface of that water is curved.

Denying this fact in favour of a fantasy of Earth being flat is just pathetic, especially when you cannot provide an explanation for this clear, repeatable observation.

The water is flat and that's all the proof that is required.

Stop lying.
The water is not flat.
Again, simple observations show you are wrong.

Why do you feel the need to continually repeat the same lies while being completely incapable of dealing with the evidence and logical arguments against you in any rational, honest manner?

The Earth cannot be a sphere in its entirety.

Why?
You have no evidence or arguments to support that claim at all.
Instead you just continually dismiss reality or ignore it, or ridicule it.
You have less than nothing.


Again, here is the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are blatantly lying to everyone:
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.

You are yet to show a single problem with it.
Now why don't you stop lying and admit you are wrong, or do the impossible and point out exactly which point of that logical argument you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, complete with a justification?

Until you actually deal with this argument, every time you claim the horizon shows Earth is flat, you are lying to everyone and showing you have no concern for the truth at all.

You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?

No, that would still be you.
Still no explanation for the mountains of evidence showing you are wrong, nor any rational objection to the logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.

Sure seems like you are the one who is struggling.

Quote from: Stash on November 14, 2020, 03:40:35 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on November 14, 2020, 02:38:59 PM

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?

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 14, 2020, 10:38:08 PM

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.

You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?

Yes, I do require some help. I am struggling.

How many stamps have you licked this week?

What is your complaint with Earth curvature being 8 inches per square mile? Do you feel 8 inches is not enough? I could understand 2 inches not being enough, which is a complaint you've probably heard many times, but 8 inches?

Eight inches is plenty to do the job, sceptimatic......on a planet with a curcumference of 40,075 kilometers.

Why are you struggling with this?

The water is flat

Over what distance scale are you talking here?  An inch, a foot, a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles etc?  Simply saying water is flat is totally meaningless and therefore proves nothing.

Also a quick question for you.  Who was the first person in history to propose that the Earth is a sphere and when?  By definition that person had not had anything 'indoctrinated' into them because they were the first person to propose it.  So on what basis do you think they might have proposed that the Earth is a sphere?

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 12:58:14 AM

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.

So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.

As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,

It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.

The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.

Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.


You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.

Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.

You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 14, 2020, 03:40:35 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on November 14, 2020, 02:38:59 PM

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?

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

So you accept the 8 inches per mile squared, right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:35:02 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 14, 2020, 10:38:08 PM

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.

You appear to be struggling. Do you require some help?

Yes, I do require some help. I am struggling.

How many stamps have you licked this week?

What is your complaint with Earth curvature being 8 inches per square mile? Do you feel 8 inches is not enough? I could understand 2 inches not being enough, which is a complaint you've probably heard many times, but 8 inches?

Eight inches is plenty to do the job, sceptimatic......on a planet with a curcumference of 40,075 kilometers.

Why are you struggling with this?

Do you accept 8 inches per mile squared on your global Earth?

Quote

The water is flat

Over what distance scale are you talking here?  An inch, a foot, a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles etc?  Simply saying water is flat is totally meaningless and therefore proves nothing.

Also a quick question for you.  Who was the first person in history to propose that the Earth is a sphere and when?  By definition that person had not had anything 'indoctrinated' into them because they were the first person to propose it.  So on what basis do you think they might have proposed that the Earth is a sphere?

How about you enlighten me and explain how and why.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 02:42:19 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

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

Strange isn't it?

How about you enlighten me and explain how and why.

How about you just answer the question put to you.

Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.

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

Address the video.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 12:58:14 AM

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.

So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.

As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,

It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.

The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.

Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.


You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.

Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.

You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.

What daft reason have you given that the horizon destroys the globe?

Is it looking level in front of you, you would only see sky, or is it the main fact the horizon we see is straight? The earth is always curving down away from you, imperceptibly. Relatively speaking, we are like the size of microbes on a basketball.

There is something wrong with you, sceptimatic. You need professional help.

How do you believe your waist size? You measured it? How the hell do you think humankind knows the circumference of this planet? We measured it.

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 02:42:19 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

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

Strange isn't it?

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

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

My guess is that you're all about A.

Aren't you forgetting something...  In Sceptis world it is all about self-verification.  So unless you happen to have built a replica SLAC or LIGO in your back yard and done the experiments for yourself, then nothing they have done counts as evidence or proof of anything!  If by any chance you have of course then please.. tell me how and where you got the funding!

I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to live your life only believing 'stuff' that you can personally verify yourself.  Just in case all those who write the worlds text and reference books are (for whatever reason) lying to us.

Unless of course someone some day wrote a book in support of flat Earth.  That would be accepted unconditionally and without question.  To prove that point an example from the past (mid-19th century) of course is ENAG by our dear old friend My Rowbotham.  The FE 'bible'.

Aaah
But the simulation shows the visuals match reality.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 12:58:14 AM

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.

So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.
As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,

It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.

Yes, the reality is very simple, all three factors above matter.
Repeatedly lying and it doesn't, with no justification at all, just shows you don't care about the truth at all.

You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.

Except in the plenty of examples you have been provided which clearly shows it doesn't.
Again, all the evidence indicates the horizon is a physical phenomenon due to an actual edge of Earth, not perspective or convergence.
You are yet to provide any justification at all for your outright lie that it cannot be anything other than a magically level horizon.

The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.

Wrong again. A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.
The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE. So like so many of your claims, the reality is the exact opposite. The fact that we have a horizon at all totally destroys your FE nonsense.

Additionally you haven't stated reasons. You have stated outright lies which are effectively just repeating the same assertion again and again.

You have provided no reason at all for why a RE cannot have a horizon.
The closest you have come to doing so is effectively claiming a RE would be invisible as you would see nothing but sky.
But that will killed when you admitted that looking straight down would result in you seeing Earth.

Saying Earth curves down doesn't mean there can't be a horizon. That is the very thing that results in a horizon.

So just where is your explanation that a RE cannot have a horizon?
Once more, you have been provided with a logical argument which clearly shows that your claims about a RE not having a horizon, it being impossible and it not appearing in a level scope to be nothing more than blatant lies.
If you want to have any chance of honestly pretending that you have provided reasons you need to deal with this argument, otherwise, claiming you have justified your position is also a blatant lie.

Once more:
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 once more, the fact you continually avoid this argument, being completely incapable of a single thing wrong with it, shows you almost certainly know that you are blatantly lying to everyone. It shows you almost certainly know that the RE does have a horizon, and that when close to Earth it will appear to be level.

Now why don't you stop just repeating the same lies and deal with the argument, either identifying what point you think is wrong and why it is wrong; or by admitting you have been lying to everyone and that a RE would produce a horizon which would be visible in a level scope depending on the conditions?

You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it.

Yes, eventually curving down such that it obstructs the view to the more distant parts of it, creating a horizon.
This is different to a flat surface, where it doesn't obstruct the view at all, making a horizon impossible.

Again, this shows a FE can't have a horizon while a RE must have a horizon.

Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.

Again, only true with a FOV of 0, which would simply mean you see nothing.
As soon as you have a non-0 FOV you need to consider just where the horizon would be.
And that is something you have repeatedly refused to do, likely because you know it shows you are wrong.

Again, if you have a FOV of 180 degrees, just what do you think you would see on a RE?
Still nothing but sky, even though you have already admitted that you would see ground when looking straight down (which is included in the 180 degree FOV?

You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned

Yes, you live in a fantasy land, with no connection to reality.
It isn't simply my belief that we live on a globe. It is what all the available evidence indicates, with no evidence indicating otherwise.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 02:42:19 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

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

You can talk about it either way. The problem is the author is wrong.
It is a 32 inch "drop" from one end to the author. But that doesn't mean the ends are 16 inches above the middle.
Instead they are only 8 inches above the middle.

Also, FEers talking about the drop from one end to the other is a reason many claim you can see things that should be hidden. In those cases they should be talking about the drop from the horizon to either end.

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 02:42:19 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

16 inches?

Yes. Or the equivalent of 2.66667' of drop from one end to the other.

I think he is trying to point out that it doesn't match the "8 inches per mile squared"

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

You can talk about it either way. The problem is the author is wrong.
It is a 32 inch "drop" from one end to the author. But that doesn't mean the ends are 16 inches above the middle.
Instead they are only 8 inches above the middle.

Also, FEers talking about the drop from one end to the other is a reason many claim you can see things that should be hidden. In those cases they should be talking about the drop from the horizon to either end.

Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.

And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.

Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.

And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.

My understanding of the "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." is this:
Consider the middle of the pipe passing tangent to a circle of radius r, centred on Earth. (This is the only way to make it symmetric so the same is true for both ends, but I think is also not how it was designed)
This gives us an image like this:

The blue line is the circle of Earth, the purple line is one of the beams, the grey lines are drawn to the centre of Earth, with r being the radius, the distance from the centre of Earth to the middle of the beam. The ends are an extra distance h away from the centre.
That extra distance should be ~8 inches.
The other option for the setup is more like this:

h1 is 8 inches, and h2 is 32 inches.
Now one end is the closest part to Earth's centre, the middle is 8 inches further away and the other end is 32 inches further away.

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2020, 01:19:55 PM

Yeah, I began wrestling with that a little while ago myself. If standard is 8" of drop for the first mile and you were standing in the middle it's only 1 mile to each end, therefore, like you said, 8", not 16". The other thing I started scratching my head about was the phrase, "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." In thinking about, I'm not sure what that even means.

And I definitely could have phrased my observer to target explanation a little differently. Bilsin simply refers to it in most cases as "hidden". Which has its own set of complexities. But meaning the portion obscured by the horizon. "Drop" gets a little wonky in its myriad interpretations.

My understanding of the "farther from the Earth’s center than the middle of the pipe." is this:
Consider the middle of the pipe passing tangent to a circle of radius r, centred on Earth. (This is the only way to make it symmetric so the same is true for both ends, but I think is also not how it was designed)
This gives us an image like this:

The blue line is the circle of Earth, the purple line is one of the beams, the grey lines are drawn to the centre of Earth, with r being the radius, the distance from the centre of Earth to the middle of the beam. The ends are an extra distance h away from the centre.
That extra distance should be ~8 inches.
The other option for the setup is more like this:

h1 is 8 inches, and h2 is 32 inches.
Now one end is the closest part to Earth's centre, the middle is 8 inches further away and the other end is 32 inches further away.

All makes sense now. Thx for the explainer and especially the visuals.

Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.

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

I really wonder what you imagine the edge of a large sphere looks like in your mind. Just a fuzzy nothing? Invisible? So weird.

Has sceppy ever explained what his version of the horzion is?

I miss Ron

Has sceppy ever explained what his version of the horzion is?

Yes, he has - Flat. The horizon version available for everybody to see, is, in sceptimatic's view - the flat earth horizon. According to him, what we see, is the flat earth horizon. We are the ones with the problem - apparently - crapping on with some garbage, earth is a globe.

This is how radicalisation works - it rewires the brain.

Sceppy
You were shown a literal simulation of earth in a 3d generator point of view at different altitudes which very closely matches the observed reality of those who actually been outside.
How about you address the video instead of waving it away.

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

Address the video.

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 04:53:45 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 12:58:14 AM

It doesn't matter what scope you use, you will never ever....ever, see any horizon line on your globe.

So you are back to claiming the horizon wouldn't exist and instead you would just magically see sky?
If not, then like I have shown repeatedly, it is highly dependent upon 3 factors:
The radius of Earth
The height of the observer
The FOV of the scope.

As a simple extreme example, a scope with a FOV of 180 degrees, with you basically right on the surface of Earth,

It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up by trying to use a FOV right on a surface. The reality is very simple.
You will always have level converged sight to your horizon. It has to be that. It cannot be anything else.....ever.

The fact we have an horizon at all totally destroys the globe you think we live on for reasons I've stated, time and time and time, again.

Whether you globe is a super large ball you can stand on or the one you claim is real, which you believe is around 24,000 miles in circumference or whether you believe it to be a million miles in circumference, you are not getting any horizon line. It's impossible.


You ball of any size would always curve downwards and away from you. That's it. You lose your chance of any horizon for this.

Assuming it was possible to have a sky envelope the globe you think you are on, then you would look directly level in front of you and see nothing but sky.

You do not live on a globe,a s far as I'm concerned but I respect your right to believe you do.

What daft reason have you given that the horizon destroys the globe?

Is it looking level in front of you, you would only see sky, or is it the main fact the horizon we see is straight? The earth is always curving down away from you, imperceptibly. Relatively speaking, we are like the size of microbes on a basketball.

There is something wrong with you, sceptimatic. You need professional help.

How do you believe your waist size? You measured it? How the hell do you think humankind knows the circumference of this planet? We measured it.

You didn't measure it, at all.