What would change your mind?

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

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.

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line

How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it?  Theoretical means to hypothesize.  We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.  As I posted before, not one but three independent definitions of the word horizon.  It is the borderline between the sea or the land and the sky. Actually it is better to use the word boundary line rather than borderline.  The word theoretical was not mentioned in any of those definitions from three different dictionaries.

It is only you who has put the word theoretical in. 

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

I for one would like a diagram from you showing specifically what shape your Earth is. Or is that too complicated for you to draw? I don't need to draw a diagram of Earth myself because umpteen of them have already been drawn.  To see multiple examples simply type into Google (other search engines are available) 'diagram of Earth' and see what you come up with.  My own search just came up with 821 million results. All showing pretty much the same thing. But yours, Scepti is obviously different to any of those.

I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.  Yet we don't need to be told anything of the sort.  I don't spend my life sitting in a lecture room listening to someone telling me what the real world out there (outside the lecture room) is like and expecting me to take their word for it.  I actively get off my backside, go outside and observe things for myself. Then I make interpretations of those observations for myself. And all the evidence I have gathered for myself (distinct from what I have been told) tells me the Earth is most definitely a sphere.  As it does for 99.9% of the population.

Science doesn't 'indoctrinate' anything into us.  It actively encourages us to ask questions about everything we experience and to find out for ourselves using all the data and resources available to us.  That's what scientists do for a living.  You could say they spend their careers trying to prove themselves wrong.  And they are mightily pleased if they do prove themselves to be wrong. Because that provides them (and us) with an opportunity to learn.

When you say 'I question it' it just means you don't believe it.  Fair enough. Come up with something better and explain fully (with diagrams) why your ideas are right and everyone else is wrong. Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words.  Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs. You said before 'in my opinion' (post #1539).  Having an opinion doesn't mean your are right and doesn't prove anything does it.

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Plenty of people have asked for something.
An example I asked for was what a 180 degree FOV would look like for someone looking out level on the RE, clearly showing how it changes from ground below to sky above.

As another, since you seem to hate my diagram so much, draw what you think it should look like.

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.

This still isn't a definition like was asked for.
And that also makes no sense. You are saying it is a theoretical line, but saying it is true.
That is a contradiction which would mean there is no horizon.

So care to try to provide an actual definition?

And of course, you still ignored the argument that shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
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 you yet again ignored the picture clearly showing what one would expect on a RE; where the horizon exists, can still be in the FOV of someone looking looking out level, with a clear horizon, beyond which Earth is hidden, and the bottom of objects are hidden, just like reality.
Again, can you find any actual problem with it?

Quote

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line

How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it?  Theoretical means to hypothesize.  We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.

You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.

If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall  indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.

If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.

  As I posted before, not one but three independent definitions of the word horizon.  It is the borderline between the sea or the land and the sky. Actually it is better to use the word boundary line rather than borderline.  The word theoretical was not mentioned in any of those definitions from three different dictionaries.

It is only you who has put the word theoretical in. 

Really?

I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.

You do and you have.

  Yet we don't need to be told anything of the sort.  I don't spend my life sitting in a lecture room listening to someone telling me what the real world out there (outside the lecture room) is like and expecting me to take their word for it.  I actively get off my backside, go outside and observe things for myself. Then I make interpretations of those observations for myself. And all the evidence I have gathered for myself (distinct from what I have been told) tells me the Earth is most definitely a sphere.  As it does for 99.9% of the population.

Nothing you do or see, tells you the Earth is what you're told, so therefore your reliance on mainstream authority and peer pressure of those who also follow the trend, ensures you stay biased towards something (in this case, global Earth) without having, nor wanting, nor needing, the facts. Just so called evidence and storylines is all that appears to be required.

Nothing scientific about that.

Science doesn't 'indoctrinate' anything into us.  It actively encourages us to ask questions about everything we experience and to find out for ourselves using all the data and resources available to us.  That's what scientists do for a living.

I agree, science is all about finding truth's and to find truth's you have to ask questions and do experiments, whether they are insignificant to some or massively minor but meaningful to others.
As long as legitimate questions are being asked of science by genuine scientists, then we get to debate as to whether one bunch of questions against another, reveals legitimate answers from one, or a mixture of answers from most.

And this is where we're at, with likely a lot of dishonesty in the middle of it all that does not come from genuine scientists.

It's about distinguishing fact from the fiction or...at the very least looking for the best guess scenario, which becomes a genuine hypothesis/theory.

  You could say they spend their careers trying to prove themselves wrong.  And they are mightily pleased if they do prove themselves to be wrong. Because that provides them (and us) with an opportunity to learn.

In what we're arguing, those at the top are not playing any games of proving anything wrong. The real scientists do that and with this space and global nonsense, we are not dealing with real scientists...in my honest opinion.

When you say 'I question it' it just means you don't believe it.  Fair enough. Come up with something better and explain fully (with diagrams) why your ideas are right and everyone else is wrong.

I have come up with something better. What you think of it and what you think I need to explain, is irrelevant. You've spent most of your time trying to ridicule and got nowhere.

 Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words.  Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs.

Have a look in your mirror.

 You said before 'in my opinion' (post #1539).  Having an opinion doesn't mean your are right and doesn't prove anything does it.

When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual, then and only then will I be able to physically prove 99.9% of what I'm saying.

Weirdly you cannot prove any of what you argue for and all your stuff is handed to you, on a plate.

Plenty of people have asked for something.

And got it.

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.

You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.

It's a very simple request.

Quote from: Solarwind on November 29, 2020, 01:54:50 AM

Quote

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line

How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it?  Theoretical means to hypothesize.  We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.

You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.

If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall  indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.

If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.

This is amazing!

This is exactly what people see when they look out to sea.
Saw?

You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.

If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall  indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.

If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.

For some reason the word pedantic floated into my mind as I read this.  Would you prefer the use of the word linear (pertaining to a line in form) rather than actual line?

I have come up with something better.

Really?  You have come up with something better than all of science has been able to come up with so far on your own have you.. that's amazing? Just one question then.  What is better about what you have come up with compared to the collective efforts of science and technology? You must excuse my Scepticism at this stage but that is based on everything you have managed to come up with so far. This one claim of yours in itself is a classic case of Dunning–Kruger effect. Unless of course you can prove it.  But you've already said you can't.

When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual, then and only then will I be able to physically prove 99.9% of what I'm saying.

Sorry I haven't got that long left in my life to wait... so I will just have to pull your opinions apart instead.  Which lets face it is not hard to do is it.

Have a look in your mirror.

I do on a regular basis.  And wow I'm still as handsome as I ever was. 

You've spent most of your time trying to ridicule and got nowhere.

Now your turn to look in the mirror.

All this bravado from you. What is your main agenda here? Trying to convince us to accept your opinions about the shape of the Earth or just to try and keep outwitting everyone else who doesn't accept your opinions by throwing repeated derogatory comments at us in order to sustain your self-manufactured and over-inflated ego? Either way it ain't working up to now.

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?

I would say it is a line.
It exists in reality. It is made by the boundary between then 2 colours.

Quote from: Solarwind

I get it that you don't believe the Earth is spherical. That is clear and obvious to all. You say that the rest of us believe it is simply because we are 'told' that it is and that this idea has been 'indoctrinated' into us.

You do and you have.

Stop just repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence that Earth is round.
It is quite clear we are not just accepting what we are told.
Instead we are accepting what the abundant evidence shows.

Nothing you do or see, tells you the Earth is what you're told

Again, stop repeating the same lie.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence.
Just some related to this thread includes the fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level when you are at a high enough altitude.
Then there are the examples of the visual behaviour of objects near the horizon, where the bottom of the object is obscured, as it is hidden by Earth.

You have no explanation for how this happens on a FE.
You outright reject the first example, with no justification at all, and all the attempts at an explanation for the second have been refuted, with a clear explanation of why they are wrong, and no counter from you.


So no, what is clear is that you rely upon extremely dishonest and pathetic dismissal of all the evidence showing Earth is round so you can pretend Earth is flat, meanwhile you have literally nothing to back up that insane claim of yours other than outright lies.

Nothing scientific about that.

As long as legitimate questions are being asked of science by genuine scientists, then we get to debate as to whether one bunch of questions against another, reveals legitimate answers from one, or a mixture of answers from most.

And this is where we're at, with likely a lot of dishonesty in the middle of it all that does not come from genuine scientists.

That's right, all that dishonesty in the middle comes from you and others like you, with you dismissing evidence as fake and ignoring rational objections to your outright lies.

It's about distinguishing fact from the fiction or...at the very least looking for the best guess scenario, which becomes a genuine hypothesis/theory.

And that has been done.
Scientists have realised that Earth is round.
That was settled quite some time ago, and no actual challenge to it has ever been presented.

with this space and global nonsense, we are not dealing with real scientists...in my honest opinion.

There is nothing honest about your opinion.
You have had your lies exposed repeatedly, and you don't care and instead just keep on repeating them.

Quote from: Solarwind

 Remember a diagram is worth 1000 words.  Instead all you do is keep on posting the same old abstract condescending claims about everyone else on here who don't share your wild and totally unfounded beliefs.

Have a look in your mirror.

Why?
The RE side has provided diagrams. Diagrams which clearly show your claims to be outright lies.
Yet rather than rationally engage with them, you just deflect/dismiss in whatever way you can.

When I state facts, then you can pull it all apart. until I state my stuff as factual

You repeatedly spout your outright lies as facts.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that all the evidence that shows you are wrong are fake. You just outright dismiss them as a conjob.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the horizon always rises to eye level. You just outright state it as a fact, even though it is nothing more than a outright lie.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE would not have a horizon. You just outright lie and claim it would not.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the RE couldn't obstruct the view to distant objects. You just repeatedly assert it can't.
You are not saying it is just your opinion that the bottom of distant objects being obscured by the Earth is impossible on a RE and instead is entirely consistent with a RE. Instead you state it as a fact.

And all these outright lies of yours have been torn to shreds.

Weirdly you cannot prove any of what you argue for and all your stuff is handed to you, on a plate.

And there you go projecting.
Again, we have provided plenty to support the reality of the RE. We are not just taking whatever is handed to us on a plate.
Meanwhile, you cannot prove or even defend any of the nonsense you spout.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2020, 03:50:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 01:26:21 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Plenty of people have asked for something.

And got it.

Stop lying.
We haven't got anything like that from you.
Instead you just ignore the requests, or deflect with some other ridiculous picture rather than what we asked for.

On the subject of diagrams, I have repeatedly asked you to show what you think it would look like for a RE.
But it seems you cannot provide that. Instead you just repeatedly dismiss what is provided to you with no justification at all.

So I'll ask again, just what do you think a 180 degree vertical FOV level view on a RE would look like?

i.e. if an observer/camera is standing on a RE, looking out level, with a 180 degree vertical FOV (i.e. their FOV extends from looking straight down (seeing ground), through looking straight out level, to looking straight up (seeing sky)) then what do they see?
Can you draw this?
I even provided you a template to start:

The ground is there at the bottom and the sky is there at the top.
All you needed to do was fill in the middle.

Likewise, I asked you to provide a substitute for this diagram:

And this one which is related to it:

As you seem to reject them accurately showing what would be expected on a RE.


Just where do you think you have provided a diagram that people have asked for?

And then there are the non-diagram based things, like the argument I have repeatedly provided and asked you to either accept it and accept that you are wrong and that the RE would have a horizon and that it could easily be seen through a level scope depending on the circumstances (i.e. height of observer, FOV of scope), or actually clearly explain which step you think is wrong and why:
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.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.


And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.

Sceptimatic, if you were to graffiti your favourite public wall with two colors and used those colors to create a gradient between the two, there is no line. There is no line in a gradient. There isn't even a theoretical line. It's a gradient of colour.

With the horizon out to sea, it isn't a gradient. It's a clear cut line. You can take out your Nikon coolpix P900 camera with 83x zoom, zoom in on that horizon and get in close and personal with that line. You can examine the edge of that clear cut horizon line. You could cut your fairy bread sandwiches with that line it's that sharp and crisp.

It's no different to the same line created by the tops of mountains when viewed from a distance, with the sky behind. The horizon out to sea is a horizontal line of the height of sea water with sky "behind" it. The water is in the foreground and the sky in the background.   

The horizon line is thus, not a gradient between two colors as it is on the last wall you graffitied with your earth flat tag.

Sceptimatic, do you remember your comment about copying and pasting( #1492)?  Just to refresh your memory:

Strengthen them up by actually typing something instead of copy and paste all the time.

Now look at your reply #1591 as your 'answer' to my question where I asked you for your definition of the word horizon.  In bold type you said:

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface.

Now take a look at the Wikipedia page about what the horizon is.  To quote the first paragraph:

The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line, which can only be observed when it lies on the sea surface. At many locations, this line is obscured by land, trees, buildings, mountains, etc., and the resulting intersection of earth and sky is called the visible horizon. When looking at a sea from a shore, the part of the sea closest to the horizon is called the offing.[1]

Look at the second sentence. I have highlighted it in red.That is a word for word match for what you have said is it not?  It is almost as if you copied and pasted it as 'your' definition. So you don't like others copying and pasting text but its OK for you to do it. Right? What the Wiki page makes clear but you don't is what it means by 'theoretical' horizon.  The theoretical horizon is one created by the presence of a building, hill or other ground based feature which restricts our view of the true or natural horizon.  That makes perfect sense. You failed to mention that but started talking about gradients instead.

If we take the first sentence (the one before the sentence you copied and pasted) it says this:

The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky,

Notice the use of the word line twice in that sentence and the lack of the word gradient. Yet you insist:

You do not see any line.

The Wikipedia page seems to say we do. Othewise why would it use the word 'line' not once but twice?!?

Taking the Wikipedia page as a whole the word gradient is mentioned only once and in the context of a temperature gradient.  Not a gradient between two different colours as you are harking on about.

Oh, this is unbelievable! Unbelievable I say, preposterous even, and utterly unacceptable!   

Sceptimatic, would you like some lessons in quoting and referencing? Plagiarism will not be tolerated in this serious debate. 

In future, could you at least mix a couple of words around, so people like solarflatulence can't catch you out so easily?? 

solarflatulence

There is certainly a nasty smell coming from somewhere, but it ain't me!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 01:26:21 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.

You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.

It's a very simple request.

It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 04:38:03 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on November 29, 2020, 01:54:50 AM

Quote

The true horizon is actually a theoretical line. The true horizon is actually a theoretical line

How is it a 'theoretical' line when you can actually see it?  Theoretical means to hypothesize.  We can see the horizon so it is an observed line and not a theoretical one.

You do not see any line.
Letr me make this very simple.

If I was to spray paint two halves of a wall  indifferent shades of a colour...one lighter than the other, from a few feet away, I do not draw a line but I do belng two shades of colour that reflect back to my eyes.

If I move away a little bit they start to look like a line between the colours/shades.

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?
Have a good think on it and maybe you might understand the horizon (theoretical) line.

This is amazing!

This is exactly what people see when they look out to sea.
Saw?

Yep...and it's not on any globe that you adhere to.

All this bravado from you. What is your main agenda here? Trying to convince us to accept your opinions about the shape of the Earth or just to try and keep outwitting everyone else who doesn't accept your opinions by throwing repeated derogatory comments at us in order to sustain your self-manufactured and over-inflated ego? Either way it ain't working up to now.

My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.
Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 04:38:03 AM

Is it a line or is is a theoretical line?

I would say it is a line.
It exists in reality. It is made by the boundary between then 2 colours.

It appears to be a line from distance but is not a line. It's a theoretical line.

And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.

The flat sea to curved sky is easy to gain your horizon. It's simply reflected light onto the sea and against the sky to meet two converged contrasting colours of light back to our eyes.

You couldn't have any of this on your globe for two main reasons.

1. The curve down and away from your horizontally level view means there would be no mixing or reflection of sea to sky.
2. No matter how much the magic is cast out...you just aren't getting water to curve around your supposed big ball, unless you rely on story told, magical mysteries...which is what you do rely on.

Sceptimatic, if you were to graffiti your favourite public wall with two colors and used those colors to create a gradient between the two, there is no line. There is no line in a gradient. There isn't even a theoretical line. It's a gradient of colour.

With the horizon out to sea, it isn't a gradient. It's a clear cut line. You can take out your Nikon coolpix P900 camera with 83x zoom, zoom in on that horizon and get in close and personal with that line. You can examine the edge of that clear cut horizon line. You could cut your fairy bread sandwiches with that line it's that sharp and crisp.

It's no different to the same line created by the tops of mountains when viewed from a distance, with the sky behind. The horizon out to sea is a horizontal line of the height of sea water with sky "behind" it. The water is in the foreground and the sky in the background.   

The horizon line is thus, not a gradient between two colors as it is on the last wall you graffitied with your earth flat tag.

The line is theoretical....always.

My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.

Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.

You go on about looking for the truth.  Exactly what truth is that because you dismiss everything that we try to drum into you and you cannot prove that anything you believe to be the truth is actually true.  So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve here.

I'm not digging at anything.  I have simply pointed out a reality about you that you obviously are going to deny.  The truth is you didn't expect to get caught out.  Wrong again.

Quote from: JJA on November 29, 2020, 05:12:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 01:26:21 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.

You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.

It's a very simple request.

It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.

Well, your explanation is critically flawed, because you haven't studied sphere shapes. You can have a horizon on any sphere. Do you need a horizon photo from a basketball or beach ball to make you realise how foolish your statement above is?

A horizon is just a horizontal line, sceptimatic. Not a theoretical line inside a gradient. An actual line.

I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.

How did you get so indoctrinated, that you refuse to accept what your own eyes see? It's remarkable, really. Someone should do a study on you. An actual study, not a theoretical one.

Quote

My agenda is simple. I'm looking for the truth and reading other people's alternate thoughts. As simple as that. You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking and I'm ok with that.

Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.

You go on about looking for the truth.  Exactly what truth is that because you dismiss everything that we try to drum into you and you cannot prove that anything you believe to be the truth is actually true.

I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.
I don't have many facts but I do have many hypotheses/musings, alternate to what others have. That's as simple as it gets.

  So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve here.

It doesn't matter what I achieve here. I'm giving out my thoughts and people are trying to fathom them out and getting frustrated when I won't follow their path of thought.
My real achievement would be to have ordinary people think for themselves, without bullying and peer pressure by people like yourself...so they can freely explain their thoughts without being attacked by on the platter so called scientists.

I'm not digging at anything.  I have simply pointed out a reality about you that you obviously are going to deny.  The truth is you didn't expect to get caught out.  Wrong again.

Caught out about what?
All I see are people like yourself struggling like hell and getting frustrated then spending a few posts trying to ridicule before realising, once again, it has zero effect.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 09:19:05 PM

Quote from: JJA on November 29, 2020, 05:12:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2020, 01:26:21 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on November 29, 2020, 12:57:57 AM

Sceptimatic, please. Provide some diagrams. Following what you are saying without visuals is impossible for me.

What exactly would you like. Be specific and do not make it complicated to draw.

Draw or find a picture of what you think the horizon looks like on a round Earth.

You keep saying it wouldn't be a line, so show us a picture.

It's a very simple request.

It's not a simple request. The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.
You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.

Well, your explanation is critically flawed, because you haven't studied sphere shapes. You can have a horizon on any sphere. Do you need a horizon photo from a basketball or beach ball to make you realise how foolish your statement above is?

When you stand on the basketball and look horizontally level, get back to me and we'll discuss your findings.
Try not to keep referring to a basketball on a table or something whilst you stand back from it, as if you were in your fictional space.

A horizon is just a horizontal line, sceptimatic. Not a theoretical line inside a gradient. An actual line.

It's a theoretical horizontal line. It's a convergence of light to darker, or shades, by reflection back to your eyes..

I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.

Read through this again. It makes no sense.

How did you get so indoctrinated, unindoctrinated, that you refuse to accept what your own eyes see? It's remarkable, really. Someone should do a study on you. An actual study, not a theoretical one.

I simply started to question what was being indoctrinated into me and using my very own logic to find better fits.
What keeps you so naive?

Can we be sure it is not like this? Maybe this is what troubles sceptimatic.

The reason why is, you cannot have any horizon on a global Earth.
I've explained why, in so many ways.

No you haven't.
You have repeated the same false assertion many times, the same blatant lie which has already been refuted.

You have never provided any justification for why the RE cannot have a horizon.

Meanwhile, you have been provided with plenty of arguments that show beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon, arguments you refuse to even attempt to refute. Instead you either ignore them entirely or just find some pathetic excuse you can use to try to dismiss them, with that excuse typically being yet another lie.

Here is the same argument that you are yet to show any problem with:
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.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.

This argument shows beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon.
Every time you claim it doesn't you are blatantly lying to everyone.

If you want to claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon, while having any sense of integrity, you need to explain just what you think is wrong with this argument.

You people have tried to put forward, drawings that go against horizontally level focus and passing them off as just that when clearly they are angled views.

You mean we did put forward a clear diagram showing a level view, showing beyond any doubt that the RE does have a horizon. But as you were unable to find any fault with that, so instead you just lie and say it wasn't showing a level view.

And more importantly IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER!
It being a level view or not has no relevance on if it has a horizon.
Having to look down to see a horizon doesn't mean the horizon doesn't exist.

I'm looking for the truth

Stop lying, you have no interest in the truth.
If you did, you would have admitted that the RE does have a horizon, or you would have done the impossible and shown the problem with the argument, and provided a picture showing what you would expect instead of the horizon.

The fact you continually ignore the argument and refuse to provide any diagrams shows quite clearly that you have no interest in the truth.

You globalists are just part of the opposition to alternate thinking

Yes, we are the opposition to thinking that is alternate to the truth, that is because we actually care about the truth.

Even your weak digs add to the issues because it shows me that you are struggling to put forward, facts.

Really?
It sure seems like you are the one struggling.
Again, the fact you continually ignore all the arguments that show you are wrong shows that.
If you weren't the one struggling you would have provided the "correct" diagrams and pointed out the problem with the arguments we have provided.

It appears to be a line from distance but is not a line.

No, it is a line, a division between 2 points.
A line does not require it to be a single physical object.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2020, 01:55:52 PM

And likewise you have been asked what magic you use which allows the FE ground, which is below you, to come into a level scope and why this doesn't also work for the RE to allow the RE ground to come into a level scope?
This is because if you just relied upon how eyes work and normal perspective, it would work for both the RE and the FE, and for the RE it would be a question of if perspective making things below you appear higher beats the Earth curving down, and guess what? Before the horizon, it does.

The flat sea to curved sky is easy to gain your horizon. It's simply reflected light onto the sea and against the sky to meet two converged contrasting colours of light back to our eyes.

So your answer is convergence, i.e. normal perspective, which was already addressed?

1. The curve down and away from your horizontally level view means there would be no mixing or reflection of sea to sky.

Why?
This is just a baseless assertion.
Why does it curving down magically prevent it?

2. No matter how much the magic is cast out...you just aren't getting water to curve around your supposed big ball

This doesn't help your baseless claim, it just makes yet another argument.

I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.

And then trying to bury the truth and promote pure nonsense instead?

Because again, if you were genuinely interested in the truth you would deal with the argument presented, accepting the FACT that the RE DOES have a horizon.

When you stand on the basketball and look horizontally level, get back to me and we'll discuss your findings.
Try not to keep referring to a basketball on a table or something whilst you stand back from it, as if you were in your fictional space.

Again, why should it change anything?
The important part is your line of sight, and how that goes near the ball.
To simulate standing 2 m on a RE with a basketball that is 24 cm wide, you need to have your line of sight pass within ~75 nm of the surface.
If instead you stand 2 m on the basketball, that would be equivalent to standing 53 000 km above Earth. That is above geostationary satellites.

So no, standing on it is in no way comparable. Try again.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've already explained to you that if the earth were flat, the horizon line would be physically higher on the landscape, and in line with your eyeline. On a flat earth, the horizon would likely be a blurry strip of gradient, but it isn't.

Read through this again. It makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?
If Earth was flat the horizon would be due to convergence/limited resolution.
This means it would be blurry, and no matter how much you zoomed it, it would remain blurry.
And because of this it would always be at eye level, no matter how high you get.

Neither of those match reality.

using my very own logic

Well there is your problem. Try using actual logic, instead of pure nonsense you call your logic.

What keeps you so naive?

Projecting again I see.

Accepting the truth does not make one naive.
Accepting what all the available evidence shows does not make one naive.
Being able to provide rational arguments and evidence to defend one's position does not make one naive.
Even if all that truth is provided to young children, accepting it doesn't make one naive.

Us REers aren't the naive ones.

I'm looking for the truth. I'm trying to decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies and science from pseudo-science.

I disagree to an extent with JB.  I don't think you are a liar particularly. But I do think you are a denialist.  You are trying to convince yourself (I'm looking for the truth) that a 'truth' which you obviously passionately believe in and exists in your mind is the same as the truth as it actually is.  And that will never happen because it isn't and never will be.

I would love to make an alternative and major discovery in science which changes the world. But I am a realist and appreciate that is never going to happen. That doesn't stop me loving science as it is though because there is so much we don't know and so much to learn.

I get it that you don't like the idea that the Earth is really a globe because it goes against your instincts, beliefs and all that stuff. But trying to pretend or make out something is true that actually isn't is never going to work for you.  That's what we have been trying to make you realise but you are too much in denial to accept it.

Sceptimatic, I stood on the basketball and looked straight ahead, horizontally level. Guess what? I could still see Earth's horizon line. To make things more challenging, I repeated your experiment, standing on a marble. Same deal! I'm banking I will get the same result, standing on a frozen pea.

Then i repeated the experiment getting my eyeball as close to the top of the basketball as possible, mimicking what happens when we look at the earth horizon, and looked across horizontally. There it was - the basketball horizon, just lower than my eye level, as expected on an inflated basketball.

That paragraph I wrote which you say doesn't make sense - it makes perfect sense - read it again out aloud, slowly.

Of all the things to question being indoctrinated to you, sceptimatic, why did you choose the shape of this planet? You could have chosen your gender, your religion, your profession, your birth parents, your partner in life, the moon landing, bigfoot, ghosts, esp, etc. But you choose to be sceptical about the shape of this planet, with absolutely nothing about a flat earth that fits better. Incredible.

I'm surrounded by the smartest domesticated animals on the planet in my workplace, which is probably why my naivety is so low.