What would change your mind?

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

Course you can see the edge of your table. You can also see the edge of a basket ball or tennis ball on that table....etc....etc....etc.

Why?
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever. But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?

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

Please tell us how far that is.

It depends how you're looking at it and from what vantage point.
We are dealing with you supposedly being stood atop your globe looking horizontally level.
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 17, 2020, 04:22:18 AM

One last post then.... 

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

There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You think you know more about facts than I do, then?

No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

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

Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

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

It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.

Am I close?

You're very close!

What do you mean there are no physical facts for what I, or others here, are arguing? You mean physical facts I have verified myself?

Like, standing on a beach with a telescope and watching boats rise from under or behind the horizon as they get closer and the opposite occurring as they go out to sea? Like, watching planes still in the sky, well past the horizon? Like watching the entire eastern horizon slowly move down as the sun appears to rise? Like watching clouds at sunset illuminated from underneath by the sun's light? Like watching the same sunrise twice by changing my altitude quickly? These are physical facts. All easily recorded on camera or video camera.

God gave me eyes so that I can see, sceptimatic. No indoctrination or school teacher words, or internet perusing from me. Just simple observation.

So, have you observed the same facts, and interpret these observations differently, or have you never taken the time to observe these facts?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:11:27 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 17, 2020, 04:22:18 AM

One last post then.... 

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

There's no fact in any of what you're saying. It's acceptance from schooling, whether kid to adult indoctrination camps or by your own bookshelf/internet perusing.
There's no physical facts from yourself relating to what you're arguing....and you know it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You think you know more about facts than I do, then?

No. You will know many facts in your life that I won't know and so will I and everyone else.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

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

Nope. It just depends on what it is we both investigate to become factual.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

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

It's hard to internet judge a character.
I'll use weak evidence of your forum name.
I'll say you set up equipment for stage performers that fill the stage with smoke and such.

Am I close?

You're very close!

What do you mean there are no physical facts for what I, or others here, are arguing? You mean physical facts I have verified myself?
Like, standing on a beach with a telescope and watching boats rise from under or behind the horizon as they get closer and the opposite occurring as they go out to sea?

You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.

Like, watching planes still in the sky, well past the horizon?

You see planes in the sky because it's much clearer to see at an angle, up from below. Less atmosphere.
You don't see past any horizon. Your horizon does not exist when looking at a plane. It only exists when you look directly at it.

Like watching the entire eastern horizon slowly move down as the sun appears to rise?

Down?

Like watching clouds at sunset illuminated from underneath by the sun's light?

Like reflective light bounce?

Like watching the same sunrise twice by changing my altitude quickly? These are physical facts. All easily recorded on camera or video camera.

Changing altitude would ensure you could only see one sunrise if you were on a globe. Your globe would have to be spinning towards the sun, meaning your sunrise has already happened and height elevation would do nothing to change that.....so have a think on this.

And if you want to use seeing a sunset twice, then your Earth would be spinning away from it, meaning you are angling away from it, meaning, if you were to see your sunset as you spin away from it, any elevation would create more of an angle as you spin away, meaning you would never see another.

So something is very wrong.

That something is, Earth cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon.

God gave me eyes so that I can see, sceptimatic. No indoctrination or school teacher words, or internet perusing from me. Just simple observation.

God?
Do you have any proof for this?
You many argue that any or all of what you argue, is your own self doing but the honest person in you should tell you your reliance is basically on acceptance  of stuff you cannot prove.

So, have you observed the same facts, and interpret these observations differently, or have you never taken the time to observe these facts?

Only the facts which I've stated, such as level/flat water and stuff like that.

They're all I really need to push me on to where I'm at, because they give me the scope to understand something very clearly...and that is....we are living on/in something other than a spinning globe we've been indoctrinated into accepting as a truth, which cannot be and this ensures that many other things require questioning, which is what I'm doing.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 17, 2020, 04:28:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:41:56 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 16, 2020, 10:24:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 12:07:34 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 12:13:00 PM

A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.

If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.

Quote from: JackBlack

The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.

It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


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

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

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

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

Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?

Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.

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

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

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


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


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


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

Im trying to understand how you think things are.

If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?
 

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 17, 2020, 04:28:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:41:56 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 16, 2020, 10:24:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 12:07:34 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 15, 2020, 12:13:00 PM

A horizon is 100% consistent with a RE.

If you mean your global Earth then, of course it is....to you, because you've been conditioned to believe your Earth is a globe, so naturally you believe the horizon is part of it. I understand that.
The issue is, your belief of it, is wrong, in my opinion.

Quote from: JackBlack

The fact that it is a physical horizon, a literal edge of Earth, rather than just a result of perspective or just the sky and ground/sea blurring into one another means it can't be at all from a FE.

It isn't a physical horizon. That's just the point.
It's a vanishing sea to sky line to the eye level. A convergence. A line over area.


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

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

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

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

Directly focusing out level, you would see the sky....assuming you were stood on this globe.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a simple question, why can’t you answer it?

Let me make it even simpler, because this is what we were dealing with.

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?

The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see? 

There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet? 

You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?

Im trying to understand how you think things are.

If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?

Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.

Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?

The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see? 

If it were possible, you would see sky, only.

There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet? 

They would not meet.

You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?

Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:40:38 PM

Im trying to understand how you think things are.

If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?

Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.

Ive read through carefully.  I still do not understand, so am asking you.  If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 18, 2020, 12:18:22 AM

Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?

The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see? 

If it were possible, you would see sky, only.

Quote from: Unconvinced

There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet? 

They would not meet.

Quote from: Unconvinced

You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?

Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.

Just sky?  I can’t see the ground at all?  I’d be standing on an object 12000 km across and it would be invisible?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 17, 2020, 01:47:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Have you ever seen this thing working?

How about because it appeals to dilithium, something which is impossible.
Or transparent aluminium.

It may be impossible to physically manifest

And that is the big issue.
It is not physically possible, so we know it is fiction.
You are yet to present any problem with the RE.
Your repeated, refuted, lies alleging problems are not any actual problems.

And again, you just ignore the same argument which clearly shows that you are wrong. Why?
Why not grow up and deal with this argument? Either by doing the impossible and saying what you think is wrong with it, or admitting there is nothing wrong with it and your prior statements were outright lies?

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.

There's no fact in any of what you're saying.

No, that would be you.
You have been provided with plenty of facts.
These include pure logical facts based upon logical reasoning which clearly show you are wrong, as well as facts based upon observation from physcial reality which also clearly show you are wrong.

Us accepting the fact that Earth is round is not just because that is what we are taught in school, but because that is what all the available evidence clearly demonstrates.

You are the one without any facts at all.
You are the one resorting to repeatedly lying by repeatedly making false, baseless claims, and just dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.
You are the one that clearly doesn't care about facts or truth or reality.

This gets a bit tedious.

Yes, I can see how repeatedly being refuted can get tedious for you.

have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?

Sure, because it is far more rational to assume the entire world is conspiring against you, fabricating evidence to show you are wrong, than it is for you to be wrong?

Back in sane land, we accept that the entire world is not trying to deceive us on the shape of the world, especially as plenty of us have taken these measurements ourselves.

And again, that is why having the water level visible in the shot is far superior.
But you dismissed that as well.

Again, other than it clearly showing that you are wrong, what is your justification for dismissing this along with all the other evidence like it provided as fake?

You see how simple that is and if you are an honest person you would try it for yourself

Again, plenty of us have. YOU ARE WRONG!
How hard is it for you to understand that?

Let's just deal with that first mile.

Why just the first mile?
Why not all the way to the horizon?
We know that if we were to look out level we wouldn't see the first mm in front of our foot because we don't have a large enough FOV, but the horizon is roughly 5 km away at that height, and that is a tiny drop. A mere 2.7 arc minutes, clearly visible through all bar the tiniest of scopes.

I'm going to continue to use 2 m as the eye height.

How in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?

The same thing you need to bring your ground below you up into view, PERSPECTIVE (aka convergance).
See, those 2 m at a mere 0 m would be 90 degrees down.
But at 1 km it is only ~0.1 degree below level.

See, perspective (aka convergence) makes things below you appear higher than they are.

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

No, any logical person should easily see how you ignore the math and logical arguments that show you are wrong, and complete ignore perspective to pretend if something is below you can't see it.

And guess what else they see?
The fact that your argument does not need Earth to be round at all.
So lets go back to it shall we.
Rather than dealing with the first mile, we will only deal with the first cm.
So looking out level, you have no chance of viewing the ground directly below you and to 1 cm in front of that point (not unless you have a FOV of 180 degrees).
So with not seeing this ground directly below you, and it remaining the same distance below your line of sight, how in the hell are you ever going to bring anything into view other than sky?

Notice how your argument works equally well for a FE?

Thus your argument shouldn't be that the horizon refutes a RE, but that it refutes a RE and a FE.
But no, you know your argument is pure BS, and you know that perspective can make something below you appear quite close to eye level, just by it being far away.
But you choose to ignore this when it comes to the RE, because you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend there is a problem for the RE.

If you disagree, feel free to tell us what magically brings the ground below you into view on your FE and why that can't work for the RE.

Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever.

Yes, like the sky that surrounds Earth.

But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?

What we don't get is why standing on it should magically change it.
I can easily simulate standing on it level, extremely close to the surface by just placing my line of sight like that.
Why should it magically change?

You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.

Again, that has been shown to be nothing more than a blatant lie.
Why do you keep repeating it?
I even provided you with a visualisation of it to clearly show that you are wrong, and you were provided with a video also showing you are wrong.

You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.

Nope.
If that was the case it would appear as a point and grow from that, without any part being hidden.
The fact it appears from the top down shows it is coming from behind the horizon with the horizon obstructing the view to the lower portion.

You see planes in the sky because it's much clearer to see at an angle, up from below. Less atmosphere.

As already pointed out, if it was the atmosphere limiting visibility you would have a blur, not a horizon.
So again, we know that is not the case.
The horizon is a physical edge of Earth which obstructs the view.

Changing altitude would ensure you could only see one sunrise if you were on a globe. Your globe would have to be spinning towards the sun, meaning your sunrise has already happened and height elevation would do nothing to change that.....so have a think on this.

So you also have no idea how a sunrise happens on the very real Earth?
Similar to the above, we clearly see the sunrise occurring earlier the higher you are.
This is because the time of sunrise depends on the distance to the horizon.
So you can have a sunrise, then go lower, and have another.


You are aware altitude can change both ways right? Either increasing or decreasing?

So something is very wrong.

Yes, you.
You either have no idea what you are talking about, or are yet again blatantly lying to everyone.

That something is, Earth cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon.

Again, WHY?
You are yet to present any justification as to why Earth cannot be the globe that it is.
All you can offer is the same repeated pathetic lies.

Only the facts which I've stated, such as level/flat water and stuff like that.

You mean the lies you have stated, which are refuted by the facts, facts based upon logic and evidence?
Including evidence clearly showing water is not flat?

They're all I really need to push me on to where I'm at

Yes, it is quite clear that those lies are all you need as you have no interest in the truth.
But people like me actually care about the truth, and wont just accept those blatant lies.
Instead we expect evidence and logical justification.

many other things require questioning, which is what I'm doing.

No, you're not questioning anything.
You are just repeatedly dismissing and rejecting reality, attempting to replace them with blatant lies.

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:40:38 PM

Im trying to understand how you think things are.
If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?

Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.

No you didn't.
You post merely falsely attacked the RE model.
It provided no justification for how the FE magically gets out of the problem you have set for both the RE and the FE.
Like me, he has realised that your argument works just as well on a FE.

You claim you can't see the ground/sea through a level scope on a RE because it is below you.
But guess what? On a FE, the ground/sea is still below you, and thus by your absence of reason you shouldn't see the ground/sea through a level scope on a FE either.

So you have refuted yourself.

Either you can't see the horizon through a level scope for both a RE and a FE, and thus Earth must be concave, or your argument is pure nonsense with you leaving out a massive part of the problem which allows you to see things at an altitude below you through a level scope.
Which is it?

Quote from: Unconvinced

There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet? 

They would not meet.

Again, forget the level scope.
We know that looking down we see the ground and looking we see sky.
And you have even admitted that is the case for a RE.
So just what do you think will happen visually when you look up?

Again, you start looking down seeing ground, and slowly raise your head.
Just what do you think you would see?
Do you accept that just like all other balls you reach a point where you would see the ball (i.e. Earth, i.e. ground/sea) and the surroundings (i.e. sky), with an apparent dividing line between them?
And that as you raise your head more and more that dividing line appears to move lower in your vision with you seeing more sky and less Earth?
And that after you raise your head enough the line disappears from view and you see nothing but sky?

Or do you think it magically just flashes to sky, where lifting your head above a point, even just a tiny bit, will magically change it so you see only sky, even though Earth should still clearly be in your FOV?

Or do you think you get a region of darkness instead?

Quote from: Unconvinced

You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?

Sky

No, that is the sky.
Look down lower, low enough such that you can see both ground/sea and sky.

Again, the argument I presented quite some time ago, which you are yet to show any problem with, clearly shows you are wrong. 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.

Care to try to address it this time, even if it is just by admitting you are wrong?

if it were magically possible for that scenario

No need for any magic.
All you need to do is go outside, unless that requires magic for you.
You can do it with the very real RE you live on.

The only magical part of this scenario is your claim that there is no horizon, especially with no explanation of what is there instead.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 03:52:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 11:52:43 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 15, 2020, 06:42:00 AM

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

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

Address the video.

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

This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection

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

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

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

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

Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.

Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.

But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?

You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.

This is simply not true, as you well know. If a ship was simply emerging out of a convergence line then the whole ship would be visible as it emerged from the convergence.  Draw the path of the rays of light from your eye as an observer to all parts of the ship and then extrapolate beyond the ship, they will converge to your vanishing point.  You simply wouldn't see just the upper part of the ship first and then the whole ship if the Earth was flat. All parts of the visible parts of the ship are at the same distance and so they would all emerge at the same time if the Earth was flat. 

https://flatearth.ws/disappearing-ship

As you can clearly see from this link, the ship does emerge from under the horizon, contrary to what you claim.

Quote from: Stash on November 17, 2020, 12:42:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 16, 2020, 09:43:07 AM

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

Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
 The diagram is there.

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash

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

I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.

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

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash

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

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

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

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

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

The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.

And what silliness might that be?

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

I'm looking at an overhead topdown view of a facility I have read about - There are many references and cross-references evidencing the existence and exact location of said structure. There are two wing like structures that span out from a hub, measuring in google maps sets the arms at 4km each in length. They seem structurally uninterrupted in that distance.

What else are you looking for?

Quote from: Stash on November 17, 2020, 01:20:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2020, 10:18:45 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 12, 2020, 06:37:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2020, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on November 12, 2020, 04:08:43 AM

Quote

I have the right, just as you have, of dismissing anything if I do not see proof.

I see.  So whenever we present evidence or proof of anything it has to be Sceptimatic compliant proof does it.. OK. In other words it is only proof if you accept it as such.  Well that eliminates a lot then straight away doesn't it.  Such as anything that proves that you are wrong for example or anything which suggests the Earth is not flat.

When you present proof you will have me snookered. Until you provide proof you will always be looking for evidence to get to it. You have provided absolutely no real proof, only so called evidence which is basically pseudo-science.

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

How is it pseudo science when what has been provided is essentially your experiment; a leveled tube (or other shape) to look through. Result at altitude = horizon below eye level. What's pseudo science about that? The only difference is that the result is not what you want.

No. The difference is the one's that are presented, are bogus. They're a con job. How do I know this for sure?
Anyone can prove this with the set up I gave.
You denying it means nothing to me.

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



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

This gets a bit tedious.

Oh yes, I'm sure. And for all of us.

So a level has been set from the side view and then we are shown a view through the simple tube scope and have to accept the level has not been tampered with......right?

Yes, that is correct, the level was not tampered with. You'll never take my word for it, and that's fine. I know the experimenter and I could assure anyone that he would never fudge an experiment. Nor would I. It makes no sense to. But I know how paranoid you are so all that is neither here nor there.

Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?

Quote from: JJA on November 17, 2020, 05:59:12 PM

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

Course you can see the edge of your table. You can also see the edge of a basket ball or tennis ball on that table....etc....etc....etc.

Why?
Because you have something to act as backing for it, such as a wall or a sky or whatever. But you're not stood on any of them and looking horizontally level in front of you. So what don't you get about this?

What I don't get is how you think the edge of the table will magically vanish if you get down close enough to it?  I can stand on a table and see the edge.  I can lay down on a table and see the edge.  There is nowhere I can't see the edge.  You seem to imagine at some point I can't see the table any more? What?

How does that make any sense?

Have you yet to find anyone who agrees with you that you can't see the edge of an object if you're standing on it?

Quote from: JJA

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

Please tell us how far that is.

It depends how you're looking at it and from what vantage point.
We are dealing with you supposedly being stood atop your globe looking horizontally level.
You would see sky and nothing else, assuming you an visualise it, which obviously you're having great difficulty doing.

So you have no numbers, just some vague assertion that you can't possibly see the edge of something big.

You are claiming that if you are standing on a large sphere, you can't see it, even though your feet are touching it.  If I look down, I will see it.  If I look up, I won't.  If I look level, I see both the sky and the Earth.

That's just insane.

Maybe you need to draw a picture of what you think you will see standing on a globe Earth and looking at the horizon.  Because you certainly can't describe it with words.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2020, 12:43:11 AM

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:40:38 PM

Im trying to understand how you think things are.

If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?

Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.

Ive read through carefully.  I still do not understand, so am asking you.  If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?

On your globe you would...yes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2020, 12:45:37 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 18, 2020, 12:18:22 AM

Why can’t you answer this question without some daft scope nonsense?

The question was, if I stand on big ball several thousand km across and look straight ahead with nothing else, what do I see? 

If it were possible, you would see sky, only.

Quote from: Unconvinced

There’s ground below me, sky above me, what should it look like where they meet? 

They would not meet.

Quote from: Unconvinced

You claim there would be no horizon, so what is there instead of a horizon?

Sky.....if it were magically possible for that scenario....which it isn't.

Just sky?  I can’t see the ground at all?  I’d be standing on an object 12000 km across and it would be invisible?

Yep, if you were looking horizontally level.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:04:16 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 03:52:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 11:52:43 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 15, 2020, 06:42:00 AM

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

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

Address the video.

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

This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection

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

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

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

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

Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.

Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.

But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?

Pick any point and explain ity, then we can deal with it.
You can do that, right?

Quote

You see ships emerging from the convergence line (horizon), not from under it or behind it.
The fact you see it is, it emerges into view from the vanishing point, not from up a globe.

This is simply not true, as you well know. If a ship was simply emerging out of a convergence line then the whole ship would be visible as it emerged from the convergence.  Draw the path of the rays of light from your eye as an observer to all parts of the ship and then extrapolate beyond the ship, they will converge to your vanishing point.  You simply wouldn't see just the upper part of the ship first and then the whole ship if the Earth was flat. All parts of the visible parts of the ship are at the same distance and so they would all emerge at the same time if the Earth was flat. 

https://flatearth.ws/disappearing-ship

As you can clearly see from this link, the ship does emerge from under the horizon, contrary to what you claim.

The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.

URMGRD!
the human field of view is 200degrees left-right and 130degrees up-down.
insanity!


also, stash
you're falling into the technical mumbo jumble trap of sceppy.
get him to answer the video.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 09:54:40 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 17, 2020, 12:42:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 16, 2020, 09:43:07 AM

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

Have you ever seen this thing working?
How do you know this enterprise is not real?
 The diagram is there.

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash

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

I have a massive interest in truth seeking but I don't have a massive interest in just accepting what is told that cannot be proven, regardless of diagrams without physical proof.
You seem to accept anything so you won't see anything from my side.

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

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 11:36:22 PM

Quote from: Stash

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

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

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

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

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

The measurement they used tells you everything about the silliness of it.

And what silliness might that be?

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

I'm looking at an overhead topdown view of a facility I have read about - There are many references and cross-references evidencing the existence and exact location of said structure. There are two wing like structures that span out from a hub, measuring in google maps sets the arms at 4km each in length. They seem structurally uninterrupted in that distance.

What else are you looking for?

You are simply accepting this without proof.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 18, 2020, 04:54:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:04:16 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 03:52:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2020, 11:52:43 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 15, 2020, 06:42:00 AM

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

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

Address the video.

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

This is a classic sceppy distracting and deflection

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

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

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

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

Pick out a certain piece of it and explain what you think is happening, then I'll give you my opinion.
Over to you.

Keep dodging
The video is self explanatory.
So you clearly dont get it.
Pick a point.
Youre clearly dodging for all to see.
All these other monkeys have fallen into your endless trap of miscommunication and vague dsscriptions.

But this video is clear and concise as it is a scale model.
I pick from start to end.
So what is wrong with it?

Pick any point and explain ity, then we can deal with it.
You can do that, right?

i pick the whole video.
you can do that right?
pick anything wrong with it.
one thing to discredit the video.
go!
or keep dodging.
looks like you're dodging.
pathetic.

The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.

Why then is only half (the upper half) of the ship visible?  Convergence relies on distance and since the lower part of the ship is same distance from the camera as the upper half then if your convergence line idea was right then you would be able to see the whole ship. If the Earths surface was flat. 

Convergence means to come together, to converge (ultimately to a point source) so if the Earth was flat the whole ship would remain visible as the distance between camera and ship increased.  The ship would simply get smaller and smaller until it became too small to be recognisable as a ship.

If you take the Earths surface as being flat then we can think of it as the adjacent side of a triangle.  The camera is at point A and at a height AB above the surface. So the height of the camera is the opposite side of the triangle.  The ship is at point C so the line BC is the adjacent side of the triangle and represents the Earths surface. Line CA is therefore the hypotenuse and the line of sight from the camera to the ship.  As the distance of the ship increases, it will simply appear smaller and smaller as angle ACB gets less and less.  If an object (be it a ship, a building, a tree or whatever) is sitting on the adjacent side then all parts of it will exist above the line BC and hence will remain wholly visible to the camera at A.  Since we can see the top half of the ship as a clearly extended (non-point source) object it follows that if the Earth is flat then we would be able to see the lower half of the ship at the same size scale and above the level of the water surface.

At no point would any part of the ship vanish from the direct line of sight of the camera.  Unless of course the adjacent side (BC) started to curve away. In which case the the ship would disappear, lower half first or reappear, upper half first which is exactly what we observe. The hypotenuse side (BC) would become a tangent to the curve at that point. For a ship travelling along the line of the horizon (as in the photo) the lower half would remain invisible to us.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Definition-of-vanishing-points-and-the-horizontal-vanishing-line_fig5_304530575

Quote from: sobchak on November 18, 2020, 12:57:05 AM

Ive read through carefully.  I still do not understand, so am asking you.  If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?

On your globe you would...yes.

Again, you are missing the point.
Your argument applies equally to the FE and the RE.
What you need to resolve it is a concave Earth.

You are claiming that because you don't see the ground directly below you, you have no chance of seeing it through a level scope.
That argument does not need a RE.
On a FE, the ground/sea directly below you is still not seen through a level scope, and thus according to your absence of reason you still stand no chance to see the ground further out through a level scope. Instead you should see nothing but sky.

So again, what magic are you appealing to which will allow you to see ground/sea through a level scope on a FE, but not a RE? Even though in both cases, that ground/sea that you are seeing is at a lower altitude and physically below your line of sight?

if you were looking horizontally level.

Again, stop repeating the same refuted lie.

Forget about just looking out level.
Doing so is just making you confused, as you are jumping too far ahead of yourself.
This is because you are claiming you would not see the horizon at all on a RE, that you would never see the ground/sea and sky meet.
But that has no requirement to be looking level. That would apply regardless of where you look.

Start identifying what happens visually between the ground/sea and sky on the RE.
Once you have honestly and rationally done that, you would realise that that is the horizon.

Then identify where that would be in your vision.
Again, if you do it honestly, you would find the angle depends on the radius of Earth and the height of the observer.
So in addition to that, your ability to see it would depend on the FOV.

Again, the logical argument I provided, which you are yet to point out a single problem with, shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
It clearly shows that under normal circumstances (e.g. within a few m of Earth), if you were to look out level, you would see the horizon, even through a decent scope.

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.

The ship emerges from the vanishing/convergence point.

Repeating the same lie doesn't help your case.
It has been explained why we know that isn't the case.

Once more, if that was the case, the ship would appear as a point and simply become more resolved, with the entire ship (above the water line) being visible at once. You would not have the top of the ship appear while the bottom is obscured by the horizon as is repeatedly observed.

Also, that would then make it entirely dependent upon optics, where as the ship disappeared you would be able to use better optics to bring it back into view. But again, that doesn't happen. No matter how good the optics that you use are, once the bottom of the ship is obscured by the horizon, it cannot be brought back into view except by reducing the distance between you and the ship, or going to a higher altitude.

And we see the same with buildings, where we can easily observe that the bottom of them is obscured by the horizon. Again, this is not an effect of convergence. If it was, the building would merely shrink, with all of it remaining above the horizon, until it shrunk so much that it was an unresolved point.

It follows doesn't it JB that if we knew the actual height of the ship then by knowing the rate of curvature of the Earths surface with distance, we could calculate how far away the ship would need to be for us to be able to see only the very top of it.

We could then use GPS to verify and confirm the calculated distance.

just stick to the video.
to resolves everything.
no need to endless type words when sceppy doesn't even speak english.

Quote from: sobchak on November 18, 2020, 12:57:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2020, 12:43:11 AM

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:40:38 PM

Im trying to understand how you think things are.

If you looked out at an unobstructed view of the ocean, standing at five feet above the level of the water, it seems that from what you are saying, using your level sighting tube, you would also only see sky, as you are looking five feet above a flat surface?  Or is the water not completely flat in your mind, but sloping upwards?

Read through what I've just said. I explained it quite clearly.

Ive read through carefully.  I still do not understand, so am asking you.  If the water is flat, if you are five feet above it, and are using your level sighting tube, will you not only see sky since you are looking five feet above the water?

On your globe you would...yes.

What about in your world?  If the water is flat, and you point your level sighting tube five feet above the surface, wouldn't the level line of sight always be above the water and you could not see the water?   

It follows doesn't it JB that if we knew the actual height of the ship then by knowing the rate of curvature of the Earths surface with distance, we could calculate how far away the ship would need to be for us to be able to see only the very top of it.

We could then use GPS to verify and confirm the calculated distance.

Almost.
Due to refraction, and how it varies, the distance required will vary.
However, we can use an estimate for standard refraction (where you pretend Earth has a radius 7/6ths of what it actually does), to calculate where it should be in standard conditions.

But the important part is that the bottom disappears, which is exactly what you expect for a RE, and the complete opposite of what is expected for a FE.

Agreed. You could work out the errors caused by atmospheric refraction to arrive at a figure for the distance which is very close to the actual value.

Scepti can dress this up as much as he likes and however he likes but if the Earth was flat you would always see the whole ship. It would just get smaller and smaller until its image size on the camera sensor reduces to a size less than its resolution. I.e. less than the size of one pixel. Angular resolution of CCDs/CMOS chips is quoted in terms of arc seconds per pixel.