What would change your mind?

  • 3097 Replies
  • 55427 Views
*

rvlvr

  • 2025
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1560 on: November 27, 2020, 03:15:13 AM »
I would love to hear that. And also who is on this subterfuge and conspiracy.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1561 on: November 27, 2020, 04:30:08 AM »
no
not what i meant.

look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).

Right, something like this?






Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.

You keep askj g where the "hump" is.
Its right there.

Draw a line from foot to foot.
See the "hump"?

Red man cant see the black mans feet from where hes standing

*

JJA

  • 3280
  • Math is math!
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1562 on: November 27, 2020, 04:35:01 AM »
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.

I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?

He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like.  :o

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1563 on: November 27, 2020, 04:46:22 AM »
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.
No, the doging is entirely be you, such as dodging this photo and issue yet again.
You claimed the RE relies upon Earth curving up to hide the distant objects.
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up.
Pathetic semantics.
The meaning is clear. You are claiming things that we have not said to pretend that is a problem with the RE.
You were the one who said it rises up, not us. You did this to pretend there was a contradiction, when there was none.
You do this because you have no rational objection to the RE model.

This diagram shows you are wrong.

How about you own up to your mistakes for once?

While you are at it you can also admit your claims about the horizon are pure BS?

Unless you have found a problem with the argument you have been repeatedly ignoring:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.

And once more, due to how you continually avoid simple questions and simple arguments, it is quite clear we are not the ones with the problem here.

You people seem to think you can see over a curve from a horizontally level stand point, looking through a lens...so show me.
You mean like the diagram I have already provided?

A globe, told and sold, is the biggest lie told to us.
Is that why you are completely incapable of pointing out a single fault with it and instead need to repeat the same refuted lies and repeatedly ignore/dismiss the refutation of those lies?

It sure seems like you are the one trying to sell us a lie here.

Exactly the same principle.  Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball.  Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface.  Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see.  Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.

What happens?  The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball.  What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum
Again, WHY SHOULD THAT MAGICALLY CHANGE ANYTHING???
Yet again you go for pathetic dismissal rather than any rational objection.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1564 on: November 27, 2020, 05:20:45 AM »
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.

I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.

But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.

But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.

Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1565 on: November 27, 2020, 05:27:03 AM »
Exactly the same principle.  Take a beach ball or a basket ball or even a gym ball.  Now stick a lump of blu tak on it somewhere on the surface.  Now hold the ball at arms length in front of you such that the blu tak is hidden beyond the top edge on part of the surface you can't see.  Now rotate the ball directly towards you slowly so your hands represent the axis of rotation.

What happens?  The blu tak seems to rise up from the visible edge of the ball.  What is so hard to understand about that?
When you're in your space vacuum, as you think it is..and looking back at your supposed Earth, as you're told and shown manipulated/composite images of, then come back to me with this argument.

In the meantime deal with actually being stood on your global Earth, as you believe...and show me how you can see down a curve from a horizontally level stand point with your scope.

Why are deliberately ignoring the explanations given?  Do you like being seen as dishonest or something?
I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1566 on: November 27, 2020, 05:28:07 AM »
You keep on going on about we think this and we are told that.  What you haven't explained at all yet is why you are so sure you are right and why we are all wrong.
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1567 on: November 27, 2020, 05:29:43 AM »
no
not what i meant.

look at video giggle tits lady
1:99 where she rotates the person, fails to rotate the lighthouse, and fails to apply correct line of site (where she thinks people only see in 1dimension, not even 2!).

Right, something like this?






Address the very clear video and very clear picture.
Keep dodging you dodgy dogdger MF.
Show me what I supposedly need to explain with this stuff because there's nothing that shows anything other than failure to explain.
he dodging is by you people.

You keep askj g where the "hump" is.
Its right there.

Draw a line from foot to foot.
See the "hump"?

Red man cant see the black mans feet from where hes standing
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1568 on: November 27, 2020, 05:32:28 AM »
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.

I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?

He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like.  :o
You think you're stood on one, so tell me about this hump?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1569 on: November 27, 2020, 05:34:31 AM »
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.

I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.

But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.

But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.

Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1570 on: November 27, 2020, 05:40:23 AM »
Quote
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.

Well let's just pretend that I am a complete dummy like yourself (your previous admission not mine) and try starting from the beginning.  Then I will let you know when I start struggling.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1571 on: November 27, 2020, 05:44:59 AM »
No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.

I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?

He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like.  :o

Exactly, it is like he can not hold shapes in his mind at all. 

It is so strange that I keep coming back to maybe this just being an act, and he gets off from getting people riled up and pulling their chains.  There are people like that out there like that, and this would certainly be a reasonably chosen forum to do it on, no?   

Its hard to know really what to think - I would feel sorry for someone as intellectually limited as he presents himself to be, but would be amused if he was just an incredibly persistent and reasonably well-played troll.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1572 on: November 27, 2020, 06:02:22 AM »
Quote
You have no horizon on a globe

What is your definition of the word horizon then?  Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2020, 06:06:05 AM by Solarwind »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1573 on: November 27, 2020, 06:30:12 AM »













 So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.

Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.
JackB has taken the time to draw two identical pictures where the 2nd shows it rotated (because its a ball) to show your "hump" which is not a hump like a pear, but just the body of the ball being in the way.
Remeber.
This is a really big ball.
Like really really big.


Or youre trolling.
Cant tell.

*

JJA

  • 3280
  • Math is math!
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1574 on: November 27, 2020, 09:25:54 AM »
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.

No I didn't. I said that you people claim it rises up. I've said time and time and time again that your global Earth would curve dowan and away from you. There would never be any hump.

I think skepti seems to be imagining there must be some kind of 'hump' that goes upward, as if he's standing behind the ball and not on top of it?

He's clearly having trouble visualizing complex concepts like, you know, what a ball looks like.  :o
You think you're stood on one, so tell me about this hump?

Uh, you are the one confused with all this 'hump' stuff.  You seem to have attached some special meaning to 'hump' that you haven't explained to anyone else.

There are plenty of pictures being provided, but all you are doing is talking about humps.  I see lines, curves and angled.  Please define what this hump is, maybe draw a circle around it?

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1575 on: November 27, 2020, 11:18:26 AM »













 So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.

Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.
JackB has taken the time to draw two identical pictures where the 2nd shows it rotated (because its a ball) to show your "hump" which is not a hump like a pear, but just the body of the ball being in the way.
Remeber.
This is a really big ball.
Like really really big.


Or youre trolling.
Cant tell.

maybe we can bother jackB to zoom waaaaay out and show the full size of this circle/ ball?



can sceppy confirm what he knows so far?

that things far away converge?
both horizontally AND vertically?


[/quote]





have you even watched the video?
please confirm.



« Last Edit: November 27, 2020, 11:24:05 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1576 on: November 27, 2020, 01:48:11 PM »
It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
Again, it isn't us struggling.
We have made the problem with your lies clear, yet you continue to ignore these problems and pretend there is none.

But if you truly think it is us struggling, then what we are "struggling" (by which I really mean we are repeatedly showing you are wrong) with are a few key points:
A - What is wrong with the argument I have presented to you, which you have repeatedly ignored?
According to this argument, you are wrong, as the RE would have a horizon and when close to the surface that would be imperceptibly different from level. You have repeatedly ignored this argument, and haven't shown a single thing wrong with it.

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.

Can you point out exactly what is wrong with this argument?
And again, before you appeal to a level scope, that is dealt with at the end. If you need it explicit:
9 -  Thus looking through a level scope with a vertical FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, standing 2 m above Earth, will allow one to see the horizon through this level scope, furthermore, looking through one with a FOV of 2.5 degrees would have the horizon appear to only be 1.8% of the FOV below level, and that still relies upon you having it perfectly level.


B - Just what is wrong the diagram I presented? It clearly shows an observer looking out level, with a FOV of 90 degrees, and still clearly seeing the horizon. It also shows how this physical horizon obstructs the bottom of distant objects.

Here is the diagram again:


And before you repeat the same lie, IT IS A LEVEL VIEW! That purple line is simply one line out of many in the FOV. The FOV is bounded by the brown lines, which is symmetric about the line extending horizontally from the observer, and thus it is a level view.

C - Why do so many photos, found from so many sources, clearly show the horizon to be below the convergence point, below eye level? And no, just dismissing them all as fake is not good enough. Clearly explain why you think they are fake, and no, them showing you are wrong is not good enough either.

D - The closest thing you have to an actual argument against being able to see the ground on the RE is appealing to the fact that it is below you and below your line of sight. But this argument applies equally to the FE. So what magic allows the ground to rise up into your FOV on a FE but doesn't allow the same for a RE?
You can't use perspective, because that would work for both.

E - What magic prevents us from seeing the bottom of distant objects on your hypothetical FE? All the available evidence indicates a real physical horizon, with the distant object having its base below that horizon, likely due to the curvature of Earth.
We know it can't simply be the atmosphere scattering the light, as that would merely create a blur which obscured the bottom of the object and blurs the sea/ground into the sky. It would not magically cause the entire building to appear lower.
We know it can't simply be limited resolution, as that would equally obscure the top and the bottom (technically it would obscure the top slightly more as it is further away). It also wouldn't magically lower the base, instead the entire building should just appear smaller, but still entirely above the horizon. And perhaps most important of all, using a better optics system doesn't allow more to be brought into view, even though it does allow small objects before the horizon (which limited resolution has rendered unresolvable) to be well resolved.
We know it can't simply be that the light reflected off the base isn't strong enough, as that would simply make it dark. It wouldn't magically lower the base to have it appear below the horizon. The best you would get is a dark band in your vision. It also would be dependent upon sensitivity to light, with more sensitive optics allowing you to see further down. That would mean simply changing the exposure setting on a camera should control how much is visible.

You will notice a common theme missing from all the explanations, what makes the building appear to have its base submerged?

Does that clear up the issues that YOU are struggling with, that YOU are struggling to come up with an excuse to dismiss to have it match your flat fantasy and reject the RE model you cannot find fault with, that you wish to pretend we are struggling with as you can't provide any rational objection?

I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.
Yes you are.
You are repeatedly lying about the RE.
You are repeatedly lying about reality.
You are repeatedly ignoring arguments and explanations presented only to then ask the same stupid already answered question again and again.
You are repeatedly misrepresenting what we have said or provided.
You are repeatedly dismissing evidence as fake and manipulated, even though the sole justification is that it shows you are wrong.

You are the one being extremely dishonest.
And that dishonesty seems to be the only effort you are willing to put in.

So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
And more pathetic dishonesty.
No, we are still using the same round Earth, constantly curving down from any point.
But if you rotate it, it looks like a hump.
That is because you kept on appealing to it curving up.

But thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.
The sole distinction between those 2 diagrams is that one has been rotated and had the lines turned into stick figures.
Do you see a hump in the second diagram? No. So why pretend anyone is appealing to a hump.
That is just to try to explain it to you, because you don't seem to understand how the RE model works at all, or how sight works at all.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1577 on: November 27, 2020, 01:48:45 PM »
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
The justification has been provided in multiple ways and all you have been able to do in anyway against them is just repeat the same pathetic lie.

If you wish to assert that the globe would not have a horizon, and have any shred of integrity, you need to deal with these multiple arguments which show beyond any doubt that the RE WOULD have a horizon.

And the simplest part is asking just what you think the transition from ground/sea to sky should look like on a globe, the very simple questions I started with.
Remember, you have already admitting that on a globe, looking straight down, you would see the ground. You were effectively forced into that to stop your position looking like pure insanity with you claiming the RE should be invisible. But now you have admitted that, and there is no backing out.
Likewise you accept if you look up you see sky.
So what happens between?

Unless you can actually address this and actually refute all the arguments showing beyond any doubt that a RE would have a horizon, all you are doing is showing everyone that you don't give a damn about the truth and are willing to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend that Earth is flat.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1578 on: November 28, 2020, 01:17:25 AM »
Sceptimatic's main argument seems to be, if you are looking across at the horizon of the sea meeting sky, from a beach or boat, you should not be able to see the horizon being at eye level. At the eye line which is also referred to as the horizon, on a globe curving away, you should only see sky, not the horizon line at eye level.

I think we've covered this before. In perspective drawing or art, it's just easier to make the horizon and eye line the one and the same.

But if you were to compare side by side, flat earth horizon with globe earth horizon at the same spot, flat earth horizon would sit slightly higher. Flat earth horizon and eye line would truly be one and the same.

But globe earth horizon actually sits slightly lower than the eye line, which means you are always looking ever so slightly down to see it.

Does that make you happy, sceptimatic?
Nope.
You have no horizon on a globe so the one you see is not on a globe...meaning you are duped.

Ok, so you're saying because we can all see a horizon out to sea for example, and that horizon is perfectly flat and horizontal, it can't be part of a globe earth?

So, what shape would I see then, if staring out to sea where the sea meets the sky, on globe earth? Are you saying we should see a curvature instead of a horizon? But, if you get your eye down low on top of a basketball and look across and spin the ball, the line you see in your vision will be horizontal - the basketball's horizon.

Agree?

While you're at it, please prove the Earth horizon always rises to yours or anybody's eye level. The horizon ALWAYS sits lower than your eye level, in reality. The real horizon ALWAYS dips.

Sceptimatic, you do know the statement, "the horizon always rises to your eye level", is a total crock of shit? The truth is, " the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."
« Last Edit: November 28, 2020, 05:05:37 AM by Smoke Machine »

*

Shifter

  • 16371
  • Blind to the truth
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1579 on: November 28, 2020, 05:45:28 AM »
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."

If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level  :P
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1580 on: November 28, 2020, 07:27:49 AM »
According to sceppy and giggle tits - people only see in 1 dimension.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1581 on: November 28, 2020, 03:35:48 PM »
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."

If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level  :P

"If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my......."

Shifter, in talking about going underwater, you have demonstrated going under the influence.

That bottle of port you were drinking has caused your blood alcohol level to rise to your eye level so that you can't type straight, while your eye level has sunk to sea level, which could be someone's horizon level. So, your eye level has sunk to horizon level, while your typing prowess has sunk to drunk level.

Meanwhile, are you ready to level with us, sceptimatic?




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1582 on: November 28, 2020, 10:21:16 PM »
Quote
You have no horizon on a globe

What is your definition of the word horizon then?  Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1583 on: November 28, 2020, 10:27:02 PM »


Im using your language.
Try following the converstaion,
From what i gather, You are expecting the ground to rise up in order to block far away things.

No, I'm not, so you need to pay attention.
You people use a hump to argue losing the bottom part of objects.

I've already told you where I'm at with your global efforts, in that, You will always look ahead, horizontally level and would always understand that your globe would curve way and down from your standpoint.
You would never be getting anything obscured by any rising hump, so why don't you explain your globe instead of making out I'm saying things that I'm clearly not.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1584 on: November 28, 2020, 10:32:53 PM »
maybe we can bother jackB to zoom waaaaay out and show the full size of this circle/ ball?
Yeah and also ask him to show me which part of that drawing is looking horizontally level  and point out how that is.

Quote from: Themightykabool

can sceppy confirm what he knows so far?

that things far away converge?
both horizontally AND vertically?
Yep,, I've already stated they converge many many times. Just not on a globe you think we walk upon.




Quote from: Themightykabool

have you even watched the video?
please confirm.


Yep, I've watched the video. What part do you want to discuss?
Let me know what it is I'm supposed to be seeing that supposedly shows your globe?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1585 on: November 28, 2020, 10:35:50 PM »

It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.

Of course we have a horizon. We just don't have one on what you believe, is your globe you supposedly walk upon.
We have the horizon because it is not a walking convex so called planet.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25454
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1586 on: November 28, 2020, 10:39:13 PM »
the horizon NEVER EVER rises to your eye level."

If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my eyeballs are under water and the other half out of the water, the horizon would have 'risen' to my eye level  :P

"If I walk to go underwater to the point my half my......."

Shifter, in talking about going underwater, you have demonstrated going under the influence.

That bottle of port you were drinking has caused your blood alcohol level to rise to your eye level so that you can't type straight, while your eye level has sunk to sea level, which could be someone's horizon level. So, your eye level has sunk to horizon level, while your typing prowess has sunk to drunk level.

Meanwhile, are you ready to level with us, sceptimatic?
Already levelled. Now you people need to actually do the levelling instead of getting the hump.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1587 on: November 29, 2020, 12:48:45 AM »
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon.
Of course we have a horizon. We just don't have one on what you believe, is your globe you supposedly walk upon.
We have the horizon because it is not a walking convex so called planet.
And again, you look for whatever pathetic BS you can to ignore the point.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that we do have a horizon on the globe..
We have a horizon solely because Earth is round.
If Earth was flat we wouldn't have a horizon.

Once more, it has been repeatedly explained to you that we do, with a diagram like the one below, and with solid rational argument you cannot refute.
Here is the argument you refuse to engage with because you know it shows that you have been blatantly lying this entire time.
Are you going to admit there is nothing wrong with it yet? Or do the impossible and point out just what is wrong with it?
Or will you continue with the pathetic childish antics of repeatedly ignoring this argument that shows you are wrong and just asserting 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.

Quote
You have no horizon on a globe

What is your definition of the word horizon then?  Simple direct question so you should be able to give an equally simple direct answer.
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.
So that's a no. You cannot answer a simple direct question.
All you can do is deflect.


You people use a hump to argue losing the bottom part of objects.
Stop lying.
You are the only one here pretending that.

The downwards curve of Earth is just fine at blocking the the more distant objects. We don't need it to rise up as a hump.

I've already told you where I'm at with your global efforts, in that
In that you are completely incapable of rationally defending any of your claims and instead you just repeat the same refuted lies and strawmen.

so why don't you explain your globe instead of making out I'm saying things that I'm clearly not.
Do you mean like we have done repeatedly, such as with the image you keep on ignoring because it so easily destroys your position?

Once more, we don't need a hump. Once more, look at this image:

The line in Red is the observer, with their level FOV indicated by the brown lines.

We clearly see Earth curving down from them.
We clearly see the purple line as well, this is a line tangent to Earth, and is the line of sight to the horizon.
We can clearly see that on the region of Earth between this purple line, and the brown line, Earth is visible.

But the region of Earth past where this purple line meets is hidden by Earth. Attempting to draw a line of sight to the observer from anywhere in the grey region below the purple line will have that line of sight intersect Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

An example is provided with the black line, the region of that black line below the purple line is shown in grey, as that is not visible by the observer.
We see that the downwards curve of Earth has obstructed the view to the bottom of the object, just like is observed in reality

Just what part of this extremely simple concept do you not understand?
Is it nothing at all and you actually understand it all and realise it clearly shows that you have been blatantly lying to us this entire time as you have no concern for the truth at all?

also ask him to show me which part of that drawing is looking horizontally level  and point out how that is.
I have done that repeatedly.
Yet you just continually look for whatever pathetic excuse you can to dismiss it and repeat the same lie.
The diagram above represents a person looking out level with a FOV of 90 degrees.

Yep,, I've already stated they converge many many times. Just not on a globe you think we walk upon.
Again, what magic stops convergence from working on a globe?
What magic prevents objects below you from appearing higher in your vision the further away they are?

*

rvlvr

  • 2025
Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1588 on: November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM »
Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

Re: What would change your mind?
« Reply #1589 on: November 29, 2020, 12:59:26 AM »
Quote
The clue is in the word. Surely you must understand that.

You don't need to go on about clues to me.  I know what horizon means but my definition seems to be different to yours.  So you tell me what your definition of horizon is.  Like I said, a clear and simple question for you to answer.

Try answering a question put to you for a change rather than just posting a comment in your usual condescending style.