What would change your mind?

  • 1519 Replies
  • 18200 Views
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1440 on: November 19, 2020, 04:51:26 PM »
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.

Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.

So, where do we go from here?

The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1441 on: November 19, 2020, 08:22:22 PM »
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1442 on: November 19, 2020, 09:21:23 PM »



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?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1443 on: November 19, 2020, 09:25:04 PM »


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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1444 on: November 19, 2020, 09:31:41 PM »
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 globe, and the complete opposite of what is expected for a FE.
It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.

The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
The higher part of the ship is still reflecting light back to your eye, which is why you still see that.

This is not happening on a globe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1445 on: November 19, 2020, 09:35:40 PM »
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.
Atmospheric horizontal density ensures you lose the light from the ship, in parts or in whole, depending on distance from the eye.
It's the entire reason why telescopes do not see farther, only magnify what the eye can see, by what light is reflected.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1446 on: November 19, 2020, 09:37:55 PM »
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.

Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.

So, where do we go from here?

The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind. I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1447 on: November 19, 2020, 10:30:48 PM »
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1448 on: November 20, 2020, 12:26:31 AM »
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?

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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
The sky curving down doesn't help.
The ground is still below that line of sight.
How does it get into view of the level scope?

The only way out is for you to admit that something below your level line of sight can still be seen in a level scope.
But that would mean admitting that your argument against the RE is wrong.

It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.
Again, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It is entirely due to rational thought and evidence.
It is what I would expect for a globe, because that is exactly what the model shows, just like the simple image I provided.
And it is entirely consistent with what is observed in reality.

The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
Just like I pointed out before, that wouldn't cause it to disappear beyond the horizon. That would make the bottom vanish, so you would have something like this:


All that would happen is the bottom would vanish. The top wouldn't magically be lowered.

So again, observations match the globe, not your FE fantasy.

It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind.
Yes, because you have no interest in ever admitting you are wrong as you don't give a damn about the truth.

I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
Is that why you are completely incapable of providing anything to support that baseless lie of yours and completely incapable of rationally refuting the arguments and evidence presented against you?

Here is the argument you have been refusing to address for ages:
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.

If you truly knew Earth was not a globe you would have no problem either admitting you were outright lying before and that you can see the horizon through a level scope for a RE, or you would do the impossible and refute the argument.
But instead of doing that, you just continually ignore it as it shows beyond any doubt that your lies about the RE are nothing more than outright lies and you know that to be the case.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1449 on: November 20, 2020, 03:40:40 AM »


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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.

Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening.  I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky.    Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1450 on: November 20, 2020, 04:52:54 AM »
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.

If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.

If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.

Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?

Imagine two little microbes sitting on a beach ball. Separated by a distance so the are just out of direct view of one another. Now one starts walking towards the other while the other remains motionless. What happens? What would they see as the distance between them gets les and less?

Now how does that compare to a ship coming towards you from just beyond the horizon?

Scepti would insist that you see what you see because it has been 'indoctrinated' (his favourite word) into us. But he will see exactly what we see. He simply has a different interpretation based on what he believes. Remember whatever Scepti believes is true and real regardless of what anyone says or what photos we post or what videos we post.

But if what he believes was true then neither he nor us would see what we see. So someone is wrong.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2020, 05:03:39 AM by Solarwind »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1451 on: November 20, 2020, 05:55:27 AM »
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?

Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
« Last Edit: November 20, 2020, 05:58:05 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1452 on: November 20, 2020, 05:57:17 AM »
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?

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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
The sky curving down doesn't help.
The ground is still below that line of sight.
How does it get into view of the level scope?

The only way out is for you to admit that something below your level line of sight can still be seen in a level scope.
But that would mean admitting that your argument against the RE is wrong.

It's what you expect because you've been conditioned to expect and accept it being global.
Again, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It is entirely due to rational thought and evidence.
It is what I would expect for a globe, because that is exactly what the model shows, just like the simple image I provided.
And it is entirely consistent with what is observed in reality.

The bottom disappears because the bottom reflects less light back to your eyes, from it, which means, you lose it.
Just like I pointed out before, that wouldn't cause it to disappear beyond the horizon. That would make the bottom vanish, so you would have something like this:


All that would happen is the bottom would vanish. The top wouldn't magically be lowered.

So again, observations match the globe, not your FE fantasy.

It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind.
Yes, because you have no interest in ever admitting you are wrong as you don't give a damn about the truth.

I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.
Is that why you are completely incapable of providing anything to support that baseless lie of yours and completely incapable of rationally refuting the arguments and evidence presented against you?

Here is the argument you have been refusing to address for ages:
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.

If you truly knew Earth was not a globe you would have no problem either admitting you were outright lying before and that you can see the horizon through a level scope for a RE, or you would do the impossible and refute the argument.
But instead of doing that, you just continually ignore it as it shows beyond any doubt that your lies about the RE are nothing more than outright lies and you know that to be the case.

Yoyre falling into his facts trap.
He needs to address the video.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1453 on: November 20, 2020, 06:04:15 AM »
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.

If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.

If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.

Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?


Sceptimatic obviously doesn't have a geometrically consistent description of what is going on here, and he obviously doesn't have a grasp of geometry in general.  But sometimes it seems like it goes beyond simply a poor grasp, and into the realm of some sort of mental defect, where three dimensional spatial reasoning is simply not possible.  Why is he unable to even conceptualize what the view from a vantage above a sphere would look like?  Why do simple concepts such as perspective and triangulation ~completely~ elude him, even when slowly and carefully spoon-fed.     

The world he lives in is imagined completely without measure, angle, span, width or height.  Vague in shape, and impossible to quantify.  I think he likes it like that, as those geometric concepts are alien to his thinking and he can not get his head around them at all. 

What would it be like to be completely baffled by geometry?  Wouldn't any solution to the sights we all see be equally inscrutable?  If they are all equally inscrutable, wouldn't anything work just as well as anything else?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1454 on: November 20, 2020, 09:10:10 AM »
Quote
Why is he unable to even conceptualize what the view from a vantage above a sphere would look like?  Why do simple concepts such as perspective and triangulation ~completely~ elude him, even when slowly and carefully spoon-fed. 

Because he has a clear phobia when it comes to anything spherical. We can see things as we want them to be or as they really are.  He goes on and and on about 'globalists' being indoctrinated etc etc but in reality it seems to be he who has indoctrinated himself to just believing one thing. Apparently we only believe what we are told but science is about going out there and looking for the best explanations for what we see.

I will accept what I read or what I am told if it makes logical sense in relation to my personal experience.  If it doesn't then I will question it. Scepti simply questions anything which doesn't fall within the framework of his belief system.  Looking out at the horizon and seeing the top half only of a ship would strongly suggest to you I'm sure that the lower half of the ship is hidden below the horizon. But that contradicts Sceptis beliefs so he has to make up an alternative explanation for it.  Horizontal atmospheric density no less. Which means what exactly?  Atmospheric density decreases with altitude.

So when Scepti says he 'questions something' what he actually means is he doesn't believe it.  Everyone questions things. That's how we learn. That's why lecturers and teacher encourage their students to ask questions about anything they don't understand.

I don't know about you but one thing I see a lot of nowadays, increasingly in fact is off shore wind turbines.  Rarely can you look out to sea from the coast and not see any.  They are arranged in grids and so if they are far enough away you can see the bases of them gradually disappearing below the horizon.   Take this photo for example:

http://www.seakeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/OWF-on-the-horizon-2337x1000.jpg

Can you see the group of 7 on the left.  All are identical and have yellowish bases as you can see.  However there is far more of the base visible on the turbine on the  left of the group compared to one on the  right of the group. That's because the one on the far left is nearest to the observer and then they get progressively further away as we move to the right.  If the Earth was flat you would still be able to see the whole of the base section. The angular size of the base section would get less as the distance increased. The same effect can be seen for the second group nearest the ship, which is actually sitting on the horizon. 

According to Sceptis earlier claim, we should be seeing the lower half of the ship less clearly due to what he calls atmospheric horizontal density.  But to me the lower half of the ship looks as clear as the top half.  As you would expect surely since the lower half of the ship is (obviously) the same distance away from the camera as the top half is. Scepti can try and conjure up alternative explanations for why the ship in the first photo is only half visible but to me it is a blatantly obvious case of the lower half is obstructed by the ocean.  Atmospheric distortion/refraction/density/scattering is completely irrelevant.  Distant objects look more hazy and misty than objects near to the observer but in the case of the photo the ship is at the same distance.  So if you can see the top half then you would also be able to see the bottom half.
 
This ship is also viewed side on as was the ship in my previous photo example.  The difference in the first photo is that the ship was further away and so the lower half was hidden below the horizon. 
« Last Edit: November 20, 2020, 01:18:44 PM by Solarwind »

*

Stash

  • 6279
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1455 on: November 20, 2020, 11:56:36 AM »



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?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1456 on: November 20, 2020, 11:55:24 PM »
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.
So you know you are wrong and have been lying to us all?


Go and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 05:22:53 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1457 on: November 21, 2020, 12:13:00 AM »


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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.

Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening.  I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky.    Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?

So what's happening?

It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.

Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.

On a globe, looking through a level scope,as I mentioned, you take away your ability to use your eye in this manner. It changes your convex view into tunnel vision.

As you believe your Earth curves down, then in 3 miles you lose 6 feet and that would be laid level to the ground view, so imagine at upright eye level of, say, 5 feet to eye level, looking out.
You're seeing nothing below but will be seeing sky, only.....if it were possible to be on a globe...which it is clearly not.

Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
It only appears a real line because your eye level convergence makes it so.

It's atmospheric, not lines on a basket ball whilst sat back looking at it on a table top.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1458 on: November 21, 2020, 12:35:10 AM »
God and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
I have, you are wrong. You are continually lying about what should be seen.
So perhaps you should stop wasting everyone's time by lying about what is seen? Especially when you can't provide any evidence at all showing what you claim.

Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening.  I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky.    Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
Yes, and the question is why? More specifically why does this magically happen for your FE but it is impossible for the RE?
This is because your argument against the RE having its horizon appear through an eye level scope works equally well for the FE.

It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?
And now you are just conflating terms.
The fact that it reaches a horizon shows that it is curving down.
If it didn't curve down we should see it continue.

So what's happening?
It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.
Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.
If this was the case, the sky at night would be bright. As it isn't it is quite clear there is no magical bringing together done by the eye.
Likewise, the fact your eyes don't magically remove the black regions of images shows that is not how it works at all.

How your actually works is that it receives light from a range of angles. This light coming into your eye, goes through the lens, and hits the retina and photosensitive cells causing your brain to detect light from that angle and mark that as bright in your vision.
Cameras work in much the same way, but instead of photosensitive biological cells, they typically have metal oxide semiconductors which are photosensitive. But the dependence on angle is the same.

On a globe, looking through a level scope,as I mentioned, you take away your ability to use your eye in this manner.
HOW?
How does Earth being round magically change it all?
Once more, nothing in your argument has any need of a RE. For both a RE and a FE, that level ground is physically below your level line of sight.

The sole distinction is how far down the ground you are trying to see is. But again, you have made no appeal to that. Instead you appeal to the fact that it is below you.
If that is all it takes, then it would be impossible to see any ground through a level scope, even on a FE, because that ground is still below you.

Again, this is not a difficult concept to understand.
Your argument applies equally to a FE and a RE.
You are intentionally ignoring a very significant aspect when you discuss the RE so you can pretend reality doesn't match a RE, but in reality, it just doesn't match your pathetic strawman of a RE.

so imagine at upright eye level of, say, 5 feet to eye level, looking out.
You're seeing nothing below but will be seeing sky, only
And again, that would apply equally for a RE and a FE.
For a FE, the horizon would be 5 feet below, for a RE it would be ~10 feet below.

Now again, how can the FE magically have it be brought back into view but the RE can't?

Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
You mean don't try to bring reality into it by bringing in the fact that the horizon is physically real, as it is clearly not a result of optical limitations or even brightness.

Again, all the available evidence shows it is a real line.
The fact that using better optics, such as spotting scopes or binoculars and so on don't push it further away shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence.
The fact that it is observed to be below the convergence point shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of convergence.
The fact that it is a clear line rather than a blur shows beyond any doubt that it is not the result of the atmosphere.
The fact that it is independent of light level and independent of the light sensitivity of cameras shows beyond any doubt it is not the result of not enough light.
The fact that the bottom of objects are obscured by it shows beyond any doubt that it is a physical barrier that stops you seeing beyond it.

So again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.

And yet again, you ignore the simple logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you have been outright lying to us all for the entire thread:
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1459 on: November 21, 2020, 01:03:58 AM »
We all see the same thing when we look out towards a clear horizon.

If an object, be it a ship, a tree, a building or whatever lies just beyond the distance of the horizon we only see the top half of it.

If a moving ship is coming towards us we see the whole of the ship gradually come into view. The lower half of the ship initially hidden from view below the horizon line.
Now going purely by what you see, how would you best explain that? What does it look like is happening and why?
You see your own convergence line, like I said.
Light to darker.
Anything that moves into your convergence line will be large enough to rise above that line and show into the light which reflects back to your eye. You see an elevation above your line of the object (ship).
It's what you would expect on the Earth I believe but not what you would expect on your globe.

Going by what you suggest, your ships hull should appear first if it's coming up your curve. You know this doesn't happen because you know in your logical mind you cannot have curving water in a sea like that with ships and such just pushing up it.


Quote from: Solarwind
Imagine two little microbes sitting on a beach ball. Separated by a distance so the are just out of direct view of one another. Now one starts walking towards the other while the other remains motionless. What happens? What would they see as the distance between them gets les and less?
As one walked towards the other, just like you walking up a slight gradient towards your friend on the other side of the gradient, you would eventually see their head if you angle your walk and keep your eyes angled.

But let's put this into the perspective of what you're led to believe.
Walking up that gradient to see someone who is down the other side of it, would not happen if you walked perfectly straight and level, because that would mean you were angled backwards whilst your friend, or microbe was also angled backwards....but would be level to how you see it in normal life...as of right now.

Makes no sense.


Quote from: Solarwind
Now how does that compare to a ship coming towards you from just beyond the horizon?


Quote from: Solarwind
Scepti would insist that you see what you see because it has been 'indoctrinated' (his favourite word) into us. But he will see exactly what we see. He simply has a different interpretation based on what he believes. Remember whatever Scepti believes is true and real regardless of what anyone says or what photos we post or what videos we post.

But if what he believes was true then neither he nor us would see what we see. So someone is wrong.
You are definitely wrong.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1460 on: November 21, 2020, 01:05:08 AM »
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?

Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
Still waiting for you to make one. It seems you've put up a vidoe and can't explain he argument.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1461 on: November 21, 2020, 01:10:25 AM »



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?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1462 on: November 21, 2020, 01:12:19 AM »
God and do a legitimate experiment and see for yourself. Anyone can do it so don't keep wasting your time telling me I'm a liar. It's only winding you up.
I have, you are wrong. You are continually lying about what should be seen.


Then you should have no further need to carry on. Just accept your own stuff and be done with it.
Meanwhile I'll stick to what I'm doing.

*

Stash

  • 6279
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1463 on: November 21, 2020, 01:42:00 AM »



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?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

That's not the question I asked. I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong right now. I'm simply asking if I do the experiment you have devised and showed you an uninterrupted documentation of it and the result was that you are wrong, would you actually admit it?
I am totally willing to do all that and if it shows I am wrong, I will completely and utterly agree to and publicly admit I was wrong. I'm just asking for the same pledge from you.
What say you?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24643
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1464 on: November 21, 2020, 02:00:09 AM »



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?
Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?
I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

That's not the question I asked. I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong right now. I'm simply asking if I do the experiment you have devised and showed you an uninterrupted documentation of it and the result was that you are wrong, would you actually admit it?
I am totally willing to do all that and if it shows I am wrong, I will completely and utterly agree to and publicly admit I was wrong. I'm just asking for the same pledge from you.
What say you?
I'm going to be totally and utterly honest with you. 100% and no less.

If you follow everything I mentioned and you show me a truthful discrepancy in what I'm saying...I will definitely accept I could be wrong.
But remember one thing.
I have done it and I know a few people that have...and there is exactly what I'm telling you of a level.

So here's what I propose.
If you're willing to do this simple experiment and have easy access, which, living in Ireland, you most certainly will do, then show me it all and I will scrutinise it.
If I'm not happy about certain stuff (assuming you find disagreement) then can I ask you to amend what I find questionable?

I'll promise you right now I will do it all honestly and will not deliberately send you on wild goose chasing.

I'm not sat typing in this forum just to be an arse. I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself. This is where I'm at.

Fair enough?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 02:01:59 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1465 on: November 21, 2020, 02:47:09 AM »
You see your own convergence line, like I said.
The problem is, reality is not like you repeatedly lie.

We do not see a convergence line.
We see a physical horizon that objects can go behind.

Once more, if it was convergence you would be just as capable of seeing the bottom as you would be able to see the top.

But instead of admitting it is a physical horizon, as that destroys your FE fantasy, you resort to any excuse you can.

It's what you would expect on the Earth I believe but not what you would expect on your globe.
And it has been clearly explained why it is not what you would expect on a FE, and actually what you would expect on a RE.

You have no explanation at all for why the ship appears to sink, and why buildings appear to have sunk, such that if you put a scaled down version next to them, their base appears below water level.
This makes no sense at all on a FE.
Again, if it was an issue of light, you would have a region of darkness.
If it was the atmosphere scattering the light, it would be a blur.
If it was convergence you would simply have the building/ship appear smaller, without the bottom magically obscured.

The best you have come up with to explain why it happens on a FE is that your vision is pure magic and will magically stitch out the region of darkness, even though it clearly doesn't in plenty of other cases.

Going by what you suggest, your ships hull should appear first if it's coming up your curve.
Why?
That makes no sense at all.

Consult the diagram I provided before, the highest part of the ship would come into view first, unless it is an incredibly long ship.
Remember that 8 inches per mile squared you love bringing up?
That means if you have 2 parts of the ship, where 1 is 8 inches above the other part, in order for the lower part to appear first, it needs to be 1 mile in front of the higher part.

Again, you you are presenting a strawman of the RE, not what the RE model actually indicates, and you are just making up whatever crap you feel like, with no justification at all.

Can you even attempt to justify why you think the hull should appear first? Preferably by using math or a diagram?

you cannot have curving water in a sea like that with ships and such just pushing up it.
And again you present a strawman which shows a complete lack of understanding just what "up" is.
The surface of water on the very real globe, is LEVEL!
That doesn't mean flat, it means that if you take water from one spot on this surface and move it to another, there would be no change in energy.
This means the boat is not going "up". It is going along a level surface.
Just like if you were on a merry go round, the horse in front of you would always be going left. That doesn't mean they are going closer to the centre.

As one walked towards the other, just like you walking up a slight gradient towards your friend on the other side of the gradient, you would eventually see their head if you angle your walk and keep your eyes angled.
And as the math before has shown, that angle is basically 0.

But let's put this into the perspective of what you're led to believe.
Walking up that gradient to see someone who is down the other side of it, would not happen if you walked perfectly straight and level, because that would mean you were angled backwards whilst your friend, or microbe was also angled backwards....but would be level to how you see it in normal life...as of right now.

Makes no sense.
You are right about one thing, your objection makes no sense.
You wouldn't be walking straight and level.
You would be walking level, following the curve, without turning left or right.
Yes, you would both be angled away from each other, but again, the question is how much? That would vary with distance, and when close, the angle would be basically 0.
Do you really think you would be able to see a tiny fraction of a degree tilt away from you?

Then you should have no further need to carry on.
I will continue to "carry on" by pointing out your blatant lies, while you continue to make them and refuse to justify them.

Yet again, you have ignored a simple logical argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Why not just admit you are wrong?
What do you hope to gain by repeatedly lying to everyone?
Here it is again, still just as unrefuted as before:
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.

If you follow everything I mentioned and you show me a truthful discrepancy in what I'm saying...I will definitely accept I could be wrong.
Considering you wont even accept that you are wrong when a simple logical argument clearly shows it, why would we believe you would accept you are wrong?

And even now, your answer still appears to be "no", with you instead looking for any excuse you can to dismiss the experiment.

I have done it and I know a few people that have...and there is exactly what I'm telling you of a level.
And what altitude where you when you did the experiment? How accurate was your measurement?

I'm not sat typing in this forum just to be an arse. I'm trying to get to the truth, for myself. This is where I'm at.
Stop lying,
If you were after the truth you would have dealt with the argument provided to you right near the start and either admitted that one of the very first claims you made in this thread was an outright lie, or have done the impossible and refuted the argument.

Your actions show you have no interest in the truth at all.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1466 on: November 21, 2020, 04:50:57 AM »
Quote
If I'm not happy about certain stuff (assuming you find disagreement) then can I ask you to amend what I find questionable?

What do you mean in this sentence exactly?  Sounds a bit like you are laying down the rules and conditions of how Stash does the experiment already to me.   'Amend' what exactly?  The results he gets if they are different to the ones you expect him to get?  Or amend how he does the experiment so that it becomes 'Scepti compliant'?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1467 on: November 21, 2020, 05:54:36 AM »


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?
Yep...and this is why the sky curves down, not the ground or water.
This creates the atmospheric vanishing/convergence pint/line.

Im sorry, I really don't understand what you think is happening.  I look out at the ocean, it ~appears~ that the water goes all the way up to a line at eye level, and above the horizon line there is clear sky.    Can you be a little more clear about what you think I am seeing?
When you look out to sea from any elevation, it appears that the sea rises UP to meet your eye....right?
It never appears to curve down away from your eye....right?

So what's happening?

It's all about light to your eye. Look at your eye and understand that your sight looks down, up, right and left, all around. Basically you see a wide view over distance, bringing everything within that eye lens together, as much as the light can reflect back by your very own ability to see what is naturally magnified by the atmosphere at any particular time and in any particular atmospheric change.

Because the sea is darker compared to the sky, you see the reflected light from that sky and lose the reflected light from the sea, meaning your light to dark convergence point becomes your horizon line.

Don't get mixed up with a belief that the horizon is physically real.
It only appears a real line because your eye level convergence makes it so.

It's atmospheric, not lines on a basket ball whilst sat back looking at it on a table top.

Iíve read and reread this, thought about it, really trying to parse and figure it out.  But Iím honestly at a loss to understand what you are saying.

Maybe itís just me though, and it is clear to others?  Does anyone here understand what he is saying the horizon ~is~?  What is he saying I am seeing when I look out over the ocean? 

Help would be appreciated.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1468 on: November 21, 2020, 06:45:20 AM »
No
Sceppy needs to address the video that he said it was impossible to make.
Pick a point and let's discuss. What's scaring you?

Trying to deflect still.
The entire video stands alone on its own merit.
ANY POINT!
Still waiting for you to make one. It seems you've put up a vidoe and can't explain he argument.

Any point in the video.
It is a scale model.
Whats wrong with it?
Keep pathetically dodging.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1469 on: November 21, 2020, 10:03:45 AM »
Sceptimatic, this is a stalemate.

Nobody here will ever change your mind, and you will never change anybody else here's mind, on this topic.

So, where do we go from here?

The only thing left, is to discuss each person's life journey for arriving at the view they hold, if that even has any bearing.
It's only a stalemate to you because you cannot change my mind. I know there's no globe we supposedly walk upon, so I'm still playing.

No.
It's a stalemate because nobody here can change your mind and you cannot change anybody else here's mind.

You "knowing" there is no globe we walk on is the biggest joke you've posted thus far.

You know what Antarctica looks like from visiting there yourself or flying over in a plane, do you? On your ridiculous model, whichever way you promote it, Antarctica should be some kind of ice wall encircling a circular shape. The fact you believe the earth is shaped like the hubcap of a 1950's motor car is comedy gold in itself.

You don't know there is no globe you walk upon, so my suggestion to you, sceptimatic, is wake up to yourself.

Are you excited your "game" is leading this idiotic discussion to reach page 50?