What would change your mind?

  • 3703 Replies
  • 91485 Views
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1500 on: November 23, 2020, 10:22:36 AM »
Haha oh my goodness.
WhT are you on about?
Its not curving up, its curving down.
Who said its curving up?

Do you know what a circle is?
Draw a big circle.
Draw a small stick figure person at 12oclock and one 9oclock.
Draw a straight line from one head to the others foot.
Let me know if they can see each others feet without the circle getting in the way.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1501 on: November 23, 2020, 11:41:59 AM »
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it.  10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough

11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference.  The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles.  I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing.  That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1502 on: November 23, 2020, 12:20:01 PM »
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.

No curving up is required.

You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:

Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?

Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.

And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?
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.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1503 on: November 23, 2020, 12:54:29 PM »
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it.  10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough

11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference.  The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles.  I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing.  That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.


haha
Depending on how big a stick figure he draws i tried to give myself the best possible chance with this guy.
this guy!!
oh man...

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1504 on: November 23, 2020, 01:51:31 PM »
I know... all these years I've been looking out towards the horizon and convinced that it curves down.  But all these years I've been wrong.  The horizon curves up!  How silly of me not to realise.

Quote
If you think you see a physical horizon by looking out to sea then you carry on.

OK tell me what it is I'm seeing then.  I just looked up the word horizon on dictionary.com and this is what I found.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/horizon?s=t

Just to verify that, I thought I would try a different site completely.  So I looked up the word horizon on another dictionary website.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/horizon

So that's two definitions that seem to agree with what JB is saying but not what Scepti is insisting.  Here is JBs description of the horizon:

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.

Just to be sure lets just try a third website:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/horizon

Seems pretty similar to the previous two dictionary site definitions to me.

So how might a fourth site - dictionaryaccordingtosceptimatic.com define the horizon as I wonder?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2020, 03:53:04 PM by Solarwind »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1505 on: November 23, 2020, 02:03:26 PM »
can someone post a photo of traintracks converging, but turn the photo 90degrees?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1506 on: November 23, 2020, 02:08:01 PM »
Here you go...


*

Stash

  • 6992
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1507 on: November 23, 2020, 02:24:32 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.

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.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1508 on: November 23, 2020, 09:14:44 PM »
Haha oh my goodness.
WhT are you on about?
Its not curving up, its curving down.
Who said its curving up?

Do you know what a circle is?
Draw a big circle.
Draw a small stick figure person at 12oclock and one 9oclock.
Draw a straight line from one head to the others foot.
Let me know if they can see each others feet without the circle getting in the way.
A circle would not get in the way.
A ball would.

So what are you trying to say?
And cut the , my goodness out for crying out loud. Just have a pop at me like you do. I almost thought this was your wife. ;)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1509 on: November 23, 2020, 09:17:38 PM »
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it.  10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough

11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference.  The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles.  I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing.  That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.

It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1510 on: November 23, 2020, 09:19:49 PM »
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.

No curving up is required.

You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:

Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?

Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.

And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?

Your picture shows an angled view.

We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?


*

Stash

  • 6992
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1511 on: November 23, 2020, 09:25:28 PM »
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it.  10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough

11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference.  The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles.  I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing.  That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.

It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.

But what if I pointed super high powered flood lights at the bottom of the object that is seemingly not illuminated? Would we all of a sudden be able to see it?

And why wouldn't the light fade from light to darkness instead of creating a distinct hard line of visible to non-visible?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1512 on: November 23, 2020, 09:28:32 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.

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.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:


Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1513 on: November 23, 2020, 09:34:06 PM »
It doesn't even need to be 12oclock and 9oclock does it.  10oclock or even 11oclock would be enough

11oclock to 12oclock is one 1/12 of the circumference.  The Earth is 40,000km so 40,000km/12 = 3,333 miles.  I don't think anyone would claim to be able to see directly something over 3000 miles from where they are standing.  That's a bit like me standing at Lands End and expecting to see the Empire State Building.
Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.

It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.

But what if I pointed super high powered flood lights at the bottom of the object that is seemingly not illuminated? Would we all of a sudden be able to see it?

And why wouldn't the light fade from light to darkness instead of creating a distinct hard line of visible to non-visible?
The light is a gradual convergence over distance to your sight.




Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1514 on: November 23, 2020, 11:39:57 PM »
A circle would not get in the way.
A ball would.
A circle is to make it 2D, rather than 3D.
A circle would stil get in the way.

So what are you trying to say?
Exactly what you have admitted, the ball, which is curving down from any observer, obstructs the view to a distant object.
There is no need for it to curve up.

Atmospheric horizontal mass in front of you will obscure your vision from reflected light, the farther you see, which means you lose the objects farther away from the light source, which means you lose the bottom of the objects, leaving the top in the reflected light back to your eye.

It's the reason you have your horizon...and none of this could happen on your globe.
It has already been clearly explained why this is pure BS. Why do you repeat the same lie?
What would actually happen in that case is for the ground to blur into the sky like a foggy day. It would not produce a clear horizon.
But more importantly, it wouldn't cause the distant objects to appear lower, such that they appear to have their base well below the horizon.

And we know that isn't the case, because more sensitive optics don't help and it is still clearly resolved rather than a blur.

So no, that is clearly not the reason we have a horizon as it doesn't match what is observed at all.
The reason we actually have a horizon has been explained to you repeatedly, it is because Earth is round.
Here is that argument yet again, the same argument you still refuse to address as you cannot find a single issue with it and know that it shows you to be just repeating the same pathetic lies:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

And again, you attack the globe, but that makes no reference to the globe or lack thereof. Even if we accepted your nonsense as how the horizon works, the only thing to prevent that happening on the globe would be the physical horizon of the globe obstructing the view.

If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.

No curving up is required.

You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:

Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?

Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.

And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?

Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lies.
You already tried that and had it refuted.
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.

Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?

And once more, until you actually accept the fact that the RE does have a horizon and start to discuss where it would appear, we are not dealing with level scopes.
The only other reason to discuss level scopes before that, is the plentiful evidence showing the horizon is below level.

*

Stash

  • 6992
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1515 on: November 23, 2020, 11:43:08 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.

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.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:


Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.

So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1516 on: November 24, 2020, 12:26:22 AM »
Here you go...



Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?

*

rvlvr

  • 2034
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1517 on: November 24, 2020, 02:05:32 AM »
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
I believe you are correct, sir.

It appears the video of a guy on plane was somehow faked/falsified as well. Funny how that seems to happen every time there is evidence that'd make what scepti claims to be utter nonsense.

*

Stash

  • 6992
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1518 on: November 24, 2020, 03:17:13 AM »
So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
I believe you are correct, sir.

It appears the video of a guy on plane was somehow faked/falsified as well. Funny how that seems to happen every time there is evidence that'd make what scepti claims to be utter nonsense.

Yes, it's extremely well documented that he is not the "truth-seeker" he claims to be. Any and all results that are contrary to his wishes will be subjected to claims of manipulation, cons, or what-have-you. No matter how transparent the effort. That's ok, I wouldn't expect anything else - The only result of such an experiment that I am more than 100% sure of is his reaction to it.

*

rvlvr

  • 2034
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1519 on: November 24, 2020, 03:36:34 AM »
Which scenario is more probable: all the pictures, videos, and other evidence shown to sceptimatic are faked or that sceptimatic is wrong?

I'd imagine the vast majority would choose sceptimatic being wrong. Yet, as happens with conspiracy theorists, it will just steel his resolve. So it is pathological.

Sceptimatic's hubris knows no bounds. Something very warped, there.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2020, 03:48:09 AM by rvlvr »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1520 on: November 24, 2020, 06:10:35 AM »
The fact is that you can only change some ones mind if they are willing to have it changed.  Some people only want to see things according to a particular point of view, no matter what evidence is presented to them.  If that suits them then we can have no argument with them since we are all entitled to our individual opinions.

Conspiracy theorists are the classic example.  They simply set the conditions for 'evidence; that they will accept.  Knowing perfectly well that those conditions mean that no one can prove (to them) that their beliefs, opinions (call it what you will) can be proved wrong.

The more they dismiss things which are quite plain, clear and obvious to us, and the more ludicrous their claims become so the more the 'non-believers' will argue back unsuccessfully.  That simply reinforces their belief that they are right.  I don't reply back to anything Scepti says because I think I will change his mind anymore.  I simply reply back because I kind of enjoy the 'banter' if you can call it that.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2020, 06:12:45 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1521 on: November 24, 2020, 09:29:59 PM »

My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.
Show me the level view from left to right.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2020, 09:36:16 PM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1522 on: November 24, 2020, 09:31:48 PM »


So basically what you're saying is that if I don't get the result you want there would have to have been some manipulation involved?
No. I'm saying, make sure you do it so there's no possible chance of manipulation and in a way that I can't pull it up.
Why are you arguing it?
Just go and do your experiment, legitimately, like you said.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1523 on: November 24, 2020, 09:34:19 PM »
Here you go...



Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.

I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1524 on: November 24, 2020, 09:55:11 PM »
Here you go...



Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.

I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?

He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?

How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1525 on: November 24, 2020, 09:56:23 PM »
Here you go...



Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.

I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?

He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?

How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?
Mr bully boy, do you have anything to add without silly bullying attempts to boost your own silly ego?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1526 on: November 24, 2020, 11:14:10 PM »
Here you go...



Can sceppy address this photo and let us know if his understanding of "curving up" changed?
Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.

I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?

He's trying to show you you are on the wrong track. See it now?

How about you tell us all what the horizon on a globe earth should look like?
Mr bully boy, do you have anything to add without silly bullying attempts to boost your own silly ego?

Mr. Sensitive, that railway track photo reveals nothing of the shape of the earth. (Until you zoom in and can see the end of the tracks curving in)

Do you have to call everyone who asks you a question you can't answer, a "bully"?

I've added plenty - the horizon on a flat earth or globe earth may look identical to the naked eye.

But:

As distance is increased on a flat earth, all objects shrink, and on a globe earth, all objects sink. As distance is decreased on a flat earth, all objects enlarge, and on a globe earth, all objects rise from the ground.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2020, 11:18:22 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26169
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1527 on: November 24, 2020, 11:58:10 PM »

As distance is increased on a flat earth, all objects shrink, and on a globe earth, all objects sink. As distance is decreased on a flat earth, all objects enlarge, and on a globe earth, all objects rise from the ground.
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1528 on: November 25, 2020, 12:26:51 AM »
If the water is not curving up then stop using that to play, hide the buildings. You can't have it both ways.
And again you don't understand.
The water is not curving up to hide the buildings.
From the observers POV, the water curves down away from them.
This eventually hits the horizon, where their line of sight is tangent to the curving.
But it continues to curve down and the building is then in this section.
The horizon obscured the bottom portion of the building.

No curving up is required.

You have already been provided a picture of this, here it is again:

Notice how it just curves down away from the observer?

Now you might claim that it curves up away from the building, but remember, up and down is relative, just like left and right.

And yet again you ignore the simple argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
When will you decide to address it?

Your picture shows an angled view.
We are not dealing with an angled view. You know this so why are you using it?
My picture shows a level view, with a FOV of 90 degrees.
It includes 45 degrees below level and 45 degrees above.


Now how about you address the point made rather than looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it and pretend to have a point?
Show me the level view from left to right.
Do you mean what the person sees?
If so, that was also provided before.
If you mean a side on view showing the setup, that is what that picture is.
And again you just look for excuses rather than dealing with the argument that was presented.
Again, this is to presented this time to show how curving down can obstruct the distant buildings.
How about you stop looking for excuses and start addressing the issues?

And again you ignore the extreme simple argument showing one of your earliest claims in this thread is an outright lie.
Are you really incapable of honestly and rationally engaging with it?
If you can't show anything wrong with it this means you have no justification for your claim, and no actual objection to the RE.
Here it is again, care to address it this time:
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.

Curving up?
You people use curving up.
You people use a hump to argue half lost buildings.
No, we use curving down from your position. Not curving up.
Just like the diagram I presented.

So what are you trying to show me with railway tracks.

I see a convergence.
What am I supposed to see?
You should be seeing that things below you (like the RE) can appear higher. That you can see the rail "below" your line of sight, even though you cannot see the part directly below you.
Thus your argument for why you shouldn't see the horizon on RE IS WRONG!

Also, while you should see the tracks converging, you should also notice that they end before they converge. Further evidence against the horizon being the convergence point.


How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?
They aren't raising from the ground, visually the ground is rising.
This has also been explained to you, with you unable to show anything wrong with it so you just ignore it to pretend you weren't refuted yet again.

On a globe, there are 2 competing effects.
Perspective making things below you appear higher, and the curvature of Earth making everything appear lower the further away it is.
In a region close to you, up to some distance depending on several factors, perspective wins, causing Earth to appear to rise up towards the centre of your FOV.
In a more distant region, the curvature wins, and things just appear to get lower and lower.

The horizon is the point where the 2 effects are equal.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1529 on: November 25, 2020, 02:10:00 AM »
Quote
How can all objects rise from the ground on your globe when it's supposed to be curving away and DOWN, from you?

You mean to tell us that you really can't figure that out?  It's not that hard and I think we've already given you more than enough explanation (including diagrams) of how this works.  We cannot learn it for you.  That much you need to do yourself.

Is your definition of a sphere/globe the same as everyone elses?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2020, 03:39:33 AM by Solarwind »