What would change your mind?

Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?

This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well.  The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth.  As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.

From Sceptis reply #1833 we have:

Your field of vision is specific to the tube itself from the central point to the inner walls all around that tube.
You are not spanning out any wider than that.

So on that basis if you were to place a 2.54cm diameter tube 1 metre directly above one rail of a straight and level standard gauge railway track and look through it, you would never see the other rail that is running parallel to it.  Because the separation of the tracks is greater than the diameter of the tube you are looking through.

Yet we know you will because the rails will appear to converge in the distance. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2020, 06:52:04 AM

Quote from: JJA on December 12, 2020, 06:24:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2020, 05:53:26 AM

Quote from: JJA on December 12, 2020, 05:46:11 AM

Here.  I just took this.  It's a tube.  I can see the ground through it. And the sky. 

Again, why don't you draw us a diagram of your claim your eye doesn't have line of sight to the ground from a tube. If you can't draw it out with actual measurements, then it's all just imaginary in your head. It's not real if all you can do it keep claiming you're right. Show me the money!

Do you notice your field of vision around the tube entrance?
Do you notice how compressed it is looking through the actual tube?


Now level your tube and show me ground that you can discern as physical ground.

Your trouble is you seem to have a torch mind where you think the fluted end is what your vision is through a tube.
Your vision through your eye is that and your vision through a curved lens is also that.
It's not through a normal tube.

That tube was level.

And you can clearly see the road, which is on the ground.

THus, you can see thr ground through a level tube.  Not sure how to make it any simpler for you.

I just can't believe you think you can't see the ground through a tube.  I've said it before, but your beliefs are literally mind boggling.  But if you don't understand how a LINE works, I guess it's unsurprising.

Why don't YOU show us a picture through a tube like I posted, and show us how you magically can't see the ground through it.

Or draw us a diagram.

If you can't SHOW us... then maybe you could be... wrong?

So, the tube is level and the ground is flat...right? Is this what you're saying?
Show me.

Yes the tube is level. Yes the ground is flat, not on a hill.

If I show you a picture of the tube with a bubble level, will that be enough?  If you see that the tube is level, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?

Or will you come up with more demands?

Why don't you list all your demands in advance, right now.  What EXACTLY do you need to see, and if you see it, will you admit you can see the ground through a level tube?

Otherwise I'm wasting more time than I'm willing to put into arguing with you.

Why not address my diagram? Tell me how that red line that sees the ground is blocked? That's going to be easier than jumping through whatever hoops you have in mind. What is blocking the line from the eye to the ground?

I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.

It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area  which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.

Quote from: Solarwind on December 12, 2020, 06:23:09 AM

Quote

You are seeing a convergence of light to shade. That's it.
It's a theoretical line, meaning it appears to be a line but in theory it is not.

To everyone else except Scepti...  does this make sense to anyone else?  If it does then can someone explain it better than he can?  I look out to sea and see the line of the horizon.  It appears to be a line to me but in theory it isn't.   eh?

To me it appears:

He thinks the horizon needs to be at eye level

And that people are in capable of looking down

And that people have zero field of vision

The horizon has to be at eye level.
Any can look up or down but that is not horizontal vision, is it?

Quote

Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?

This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well.  The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth.  As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.

Correct.

So how is any of this what you see looking through a tube business providing any supporting evidence for the Earth being flat?  Or indeed got anything to do with changing anyones mind, as was the question 60 odd pages back?

Also if you would eventually see the two rails converge in the distance (since they are parallel) then if the flat ground of the Earth is one rail and your view through a tube is the other rail, then you would eventually see the ground because they are parallel as well.  Only difference is in one case the lines are horizontal, in the other they are vertical.

That contradicts what you said in reply # 1833 and #1835.

So how is any of this what you see looking through a tube business providing any supporting evidence for the Earth being flat?  Or indeed got anything to do with changing anyones mind, as was the question 60 odd pages back?

It only provides supporting evidence to those who wish to see the nonsense of a globe. That would be enough to potentially change some minds to the realisation we do not live on a globe.

Are you getting all wound up?

Also if you would eventually see the two rails converge in the distance (since they are parallel) then if the flat ground of the Earth is one rail and your view through a tube is the other rail, then you would eventually see the ground because they are parallel as well.

You wouldn't see the two rails converge, unless you were using a scope or your naked eyes.
This is why the tube is offered. It creates the tunnel vision and takes away the wide view and replaces it with a compressed view.
You will not bring any track into focus unless you're bringing that track into tube focus.

  Only difference is in one case the lines are horizontal, in the other they are vertical.

That contradicts what you said in reply # 1833 and #1835.

There's no contradiction.

Are you getting all wound up?

Don't kid yourself... I wouldn't let any of this wind me up.  Quite the opposite actually.

By the way have you figured out how wide your flat Earth is and how high your holographic Sun is circling above it?  As I said before,  if you don't then best learn the basics of your own model before you go blasting any others.

I ask you 'What is the diameter of your flat Earth?'.  You say. 'Don't know'

You say 'What is the diameter of your globe Earth?' and I can give you at least three different methods by which the diameter of the Earth has been measured at different times through history and all have reached very close to the same answer.

This might be of interest to you as well. Check out the little thumbnail image on the right just under the video.  Look familiar?

Quote from: Solarwind on December 13, 2020, 04:32:19 AM

Quote

Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?

This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well.  The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth.  As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.

Correct.

Another thing you could never see through the level tube would be the sun, correct?

Quote

Are you getting all wound up?

Don't kid yourself... I wouldn't let any of this wind me up.  Quite the opposite actually.

By the way have you figured out how wide your flat Earth is and how high your holographic Sun is circling above it?  As I said before,  if you don't then best learn the basics of your own model before you go blasting any others.

The only one I'm arguing against, is the one you go with. The indoctrinated globe model.
The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.

I ask you 'What is the diameter of your flat Earth?'.  You say. 'Don't know'

I don't. How could I?

You say 'What is the diameter of your globe Earth?' and I can give you at least three different methods by which the diameter of the Earth has been measured at different times through history and all have reached very close to the same answer.

Ok then give me the three different methods that you know work and explain how you know they give a correct size, or close to it as you people suggest.
If you're just referring to the stories told then you have no real evidence.
Maybe you've done some proof experiments.
I'm waiting patiently..

This might be of interest to you as well. Check out the little thumbnail image on the right just under the video.  Look familiar?

No....what?

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.

It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area  which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.

If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?

Simple question.

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 04:47:50 AM

I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.

It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area  which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.

If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?

Simple question.

Don't bother trying to back me into a corner. Just show me a set up where I can't pick at it or if I can then amend it so I have zero chance.
Stash promised a similar thing and has not done anything about it.
Maybe you can manage it.

Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark).   It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing.  I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.

This is what I came up with -



If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.

If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too.  Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.   

The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.

So you keep saying.  I get it that you are hell bent convinced that we don't live on a globe but there is oodles of evidence that shows we are. I'm just fascinated about what makes you so sure.  From where I am you have admitted that you know sweet FA about the model that you claim is so much better than the globe model.  Anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether that is why you never share any of the precise details of your model with us. Because it doesn't exist. Other than in your mind. Any more than your theoretical horizon does. I can imagine anything in my mind just as you can.  I can put myself on the edge of a black hole and imagine myself watching as the outer regions of a super compact white dwarf star are pulled into it. 

I'm sure the Earth that exists in your mind is not a globe. I'm not entirely sure what it is and I don't think anyone else (including quite possibly you) is entirely sure what shape it is either but it is obviously not a globe.

Nevertheless I will ask once again.. since you are so confident that your model is the real and right one, then you should be able to meaure/calculate what the diameter of your Earth is.... so what is it?

No....what?

Come on Scepti.. use your eyes.  Do you see anything familiar just under the video window to the right.  Clue... I see the same image every time you post.

You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.

You have been shown to be wrong, repeatedly, and you just ignore it.

All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.

You claim Earth is flat, so unless you are now going to admit that you wouldn't be able to see the ground through a level tube on a FE, what is the point? Just what do you think it will show?

The horizon has to be at eye level.
Any can look up or down but that is not horizontal vision, is it?

In case you are just learning English, "horizon" and "horizontal" are different words, with different meanings.
There is no need for the horizon to be at eye level, and again, actual evidence shows that it is below.
Also note that "eye level" is not the same as "horizontal" either, nor is it the same as "flat".
However if you were to go to where the horizon is, you would find it horizontal to Earth.

Quote from: Solarwind on December 13, 2020, 04:32:19 AM

Quote

Does this now mean you accept that your argument applies just as well to the FE and thus claim that on a FE you can't see the horizon through a levelled tube?

This is the thought that has been niggling in the back of my mind as well.  The way Scepti is presenting his argument about how FOV diameter changes (or not) with distance means you wouldn't see the surface or a curved surface or flat surface of Earth.  As long as the tube was level (i.e. parallel) with the ground and the tube was not in contact with the ground, then based on his argument you would never see the ground regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.

Correct.

So you now admit that one of the earliest claims of yours in this thread was wrong?
That seeing the horizon through a level tube is not evidence that Earth is flat, because if Earth is flat you should see nothing but sky?

It only provides supporting evidence to those who wish to see the nonsense of a globe. That would be enough to potentially change some minds to the realisation we do not live on a globe.

No, according to your admission, it is also evidence AGAINST a FE.
Those who accept the reality of a globe, see no problem with seeing the horizon through a level tube, as that is what you would actually expect.
But you claim you should see nothing but sky, with that claim now also applying to a FE, so seeing the horizon through a levelled tube should show you that Earth isn't flat.

As it has been your claim that that is how it is seen, why do you not admit Earth isn't flat?

In order to attempt to justify your irrational and baseless attack on the RE, you have had to resort to claiming you are completely wrong and that Earth cannot be flat.

You wouldn't see the two rails converge, unless you were using a scope or your naked eyes.
This is why the tube is offered.

A tube is still using your naked eye.
The only way to change that is if you use a lens.
All a tube does is block out a part of your vision.

It does not make magical tunnel vision where looking through a 1 inch wide tube means you can only see 1 inch of any object.

For example, a picture of rails taken with a standard camera:

Then, if instead you looked through a tube, you would end up with something like this:

And zooming in (just making the image larger, not using any lens) on that tunnel part, you see this:

So even with the "tunnel vision" you still clearly see the rails converge.

Again, what magic stops the blue line of light reaching your eye?

Unless you can actually answer this, you have no justification at all for why it shouldn't be visible and thus no justification at all for why the ground shouldn't be.
That is because that blue line can continue outside the bounds of the 1 inch, and reach the ground.

What you are suggesting would actually need a lens.
A lens which does this to the light:

This lens would take parallel rays of light and cause them to converge to the eye.
The opposite of this (taking diverging rays of light and making them parallel) is done at a lighthouse to give a straight beam from a "point" light source.

Notice that the lens changes the direction of the light rays. The come in from the right all parallel, but then on the left of the lens they are all converging to the eye.

Don't bother trying to back me into a corner.
Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.

Considering just how dishonest you have been, backing you into a corner is the only possible reason for anyone to really want to bother taking any effort to appease you.
Otherwise you will just come up with some pathetic excuse for why it must be wrong so you can magically pretend to be correct.
That will be a massive waste of time, as the entire experiment will be a waste that gets people no where.

So if you don't want to waste time, list every demand that is required to show that you are wrong, such that when it is provided you will just admit you are wrong rather than coming up with more excuses when the evidence is provided that shows you are wrong; or stop demanding such evidence when you will just dismiss it anyway.

Quote from: JJA on December 13, 2020, 06:00:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 04:47:50 AM

I'm not demanding. You want to prove me wrong so I'm asking you to show me I'm wrong.
All I'm doing is asking you to follow a few instructions.

It's very simple.
Show me a level tube and a level area  which your tube is on.
Make it so I cannot argue it by picking at it.
Basically just be honest.

If I follow your instructions exactly, and show a picture of the ground through a level tube... will you admit you are wrong and you CAN see the ground through a level tube?

Simple question.

Don't bother trying to back me into a corner. Just show me a set up where I can't pick at it or if I can then amend it so I have zero chance.
Stash promised a similar thing and has not done anything about it.
Maybe you can manage it.

Don't waste any more time arguing it. Either do it or don't.

Hahaha. Back you into a corner? You mean make you actually commit to something instead of you constantly and endlessly making up new lists of objections and demands.

But that's a pretty telling response there... back you into a corner. Because that's the only way you can continue to argue, is always leaving yourself an out so you don't have to accept any evidence. NO matter what you are shown, you always just make up new excuses to disregard it.

You still haven't provided a picture of your own, showing how a tube can't see the ground. Do you not own a cell phone or camera? Or do you not know how to use it?

Have you ever looked through a tube? Try it sometime.. you might be surprised that you can actually, you know, see through it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 06:12:29 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark).   It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing.  I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.

This is what I came up with -



If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.

If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too.  Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.

Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.

Quote

The reason I do is because, it is not a globe we live on.

So you keep saying.  I get it that you are hell bent convinced that we don't live on a globe but there is oodles of evidence that shows we are.

That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.
Appealing to authority is not evidence.

I'm just fascinated about what makes you so sure.  From where I am you have admitted that you know sweet FA about the model that you claim is so much better than the globe model.

I know plenty about my model but it is just that and has never been put forward as the only reality. It's my potential fit for what I decipher, test, observe and perceive.
When I set it out as fact then I have to physically prove it all to be that fact.
I can't physically do that but I can show certains tuff that hints at the potential, as I have.

However, the main thing is, I've shown quite clearly and physically that the Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
The simplicity of it has been shown but completely denied by you and your fellow globalists, in favour of magical nonsense that you were indoctrinated into from an early age and have stuck to that, (almost?) unconditionally.

  Anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether that is why you never share any of the precise details of your model with us. Because it doesn't exist.
 Other than in your mind.

Precise details?

Any more than your theoretical horizon does. I can imagine anything in my mind just as you can.

Of course you can. You're doing it regularly with your globe and universe.

  I can put myself on the edge of a black hole and imagine myself watching as the outer regions of a super compact white dwarf star are pulled into it. 

Absolutely...and you likely do...aided by a large chunk of storytelling by those you deem as, experts in that particular book.

I'm sure the Earth that exists in your mind is not a globe. I'm not entirely sure what it is and I don't think anyone else (including quite possibly you) is entirely sure what shape it is either but it is obviously not a globe.

At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't.

Nevertheless I will ask once again.. since you are so confident that your model is the real and right one, then you should be able to meaure/calculate what the diameter of your Earth is.... so what is it?

When have I ever said I'm confident my model is real?
Youyr problem is, you suppose a lot of stuff and it doesn't help you in any way.

Quote

No....what?

Come on Scepti.. use your eyes.  Do you see anything familiar just under the video window to the right.  Clue... I see the same image every time you post.

How about you tell me what's what.

For example, a picture of rails taken with a standard camera:

Then, if instead you looked through a tube, you would end up with something like this:

And zooming in (just making the image larger, not using any lens) on that tunnel part, you see this:

So even with the "tunnel vision" you still clearly see the rails converge.

So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?
You'll try anything.

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:39:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 06:12:29 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark).   It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing.  I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.

This is what I came up with -



If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.

If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too.  Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.

Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.

Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation?  Can you sketch it out at all? 

If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world.  I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure. 

What am I missing?  If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:39:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 06:12:29 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark).   It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing.  I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.

This is what I came up with -



If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.

If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too.  Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.

Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.

Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation?  Can you sketch it out at all? 

If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world.  I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure. 

What am I missing?  If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?

You have the person stood away from the inner gradient towards the centre and towards the inner gradient of the outer dome.

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 11:23:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:39:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 06:12:29 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 05:56:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on December 13, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Another thing you could never see through the level tune would be the sun, correct?

What are you talking about?

In your view, the sun is always well above level sight?

When did I ever say that?

I'm simply asking you a question (hence the question mark).   It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the geometry of your dome / holographic sun model, but maybe I am wrong in how I am imagining what you are describing.  I dont know what you are thinking, I only have the words you give.

This is what I came up with -



If the path of the sun in your model is completely wrong here, it would be good to know, and to know how it does generally move around the dome.

If you dont know, or haven't thought about it, that's fine too.  Sometimes it is easier to not think about details.

Look at the dome and also imagine how a reflection would come back to the eye as it moves over and around.
Also understand that there is a central gradient.
There's a lot more to it than just a dome with a drawn disc.

Well can you explain to me how to modify it to be a more accurate representation?  Can you sketch it out at all? 

If I read your words and try to apply your concepts of vision and light to own described dome world with projected holographic, it seem like it is not possible that the sun is visible through a `level view` in your conceptual model of the world.  I have tried to show this conceptually with a figure. 

What am I missing?  If the apparent edge of a sphere that is below level tunnel sight should be invisible, how can the hologram of the sun that is always above level tunnel sight not also be invisible?

You have the person stood away from the inner gradient towards the centre and towards the inner gradient of the outer dome.

I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?

Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it. 

At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't

Incorrect choice of word there on your part.  I understand that the world as it exists in your mind is not a globe but I know the world as it actually exists is.  There is a difference. So don't make out that what you believe is the same as what I know because it isn't.  What you think it is, is entirely up to you.

That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.

Sure, if you accept the normal, honest definition which is used by pretty much everyone, then there is plenty.
If instead you use a definition which requires it to agree with your insane claims, then there is none.

So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?

Yes, because that is what looking through a tube does.
Again, if you wish to claim a tube has magic properties which results in it acting like a lens like in this diagram, feel free to justify that insanity:


See, this is what you are arguing for, that you only see the rays of light shown in blue. But that requires a lens or pure magic such that instead of going parallel they converge.

Meanwhile, if you accept reality, then you have a situation like this:

There is nothing stopping the blue ray of light from reaching your eye, SO IT DOES! A tube cannot magically prevent it.
However, the orange ray of light would hit the wall of the tube and thus be stopped by it.

All putting a tube does is block the line of sight.

Or if you would prefer an angular version, here:

The tube is the blue line at the start.
As this is now using angles, it shows what portion of your FOV is blocked, as the tube blocks anything directly to the right of it.
The longer you make the tube the greater the angle.

But that is all the tube does, it blocks a portion of your FOV.
It doesn't magically make it so you can only see 1 inch of any object.

Again, if you wish to disagree, tell us what magic stops the blue ray of light from reaching the eye.
If you can't, why not just stop lying and admit you are wrong?

Either way, you have shown yourself to be wrong.
Either you are wrong with how the light/vision works with a tube, or the fact the horizon is observed through a level tube shows that FE is wrong.

You'll try anything.

No, that would be you, well anything other than admitting you are wrong.

I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?

Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.

If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.

Quote

At least you're starting to understand that. It's just a case of figuring out what the potential is. We know what it isn't

Incorrect choice of word there on your part.  I understand that the world as it exists in your mind is not a globe but I know the world as it actually exists is.  There is a difference. So don't make out that what you believe is the same as what I know because it isn't.  What you think it is, is entirely up to you.

What do you know...and what does knowing mean in terms of what you believe?

Does it mean you know what you've been told or is it you know for a fact that your Earth is a globe.
If the latter then show me some proof.

Quote from: sobchak on December 14, 2020, 12:29:38 AM

I'm sorry, but I dont really follow this, are you saying these gradients somehow solve the holographic sun and level sight problem?

Its also okay if you haven't thought it through and dont really want to discuss it.

If you can't follow it then leave it at that....or try a bit harder.

I obviously am trying.  Im asking you simple questions, and then for clarification when I do not understand your answers, or non answers as the case may be.  Im even making diagrams to aid in understanding.

If you want to just play games though, that's okay as well.  Its a free world. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 10:23:28 PM

That depends on what you want to put forward as so called evidence.

Sure, if you accept the normal, honest definition which is used by pretty much everyone, then there is plenty.
If instead you use a definition which requires it to agree with your insane claims, then there is none.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2020, 10:39:12 PM

So you think blacking out a picture to a circle is what I'm arguing against?

Yes, because that is what looking through a tube does.
Again, if you wish to claim a tube has magic properties which results in it acting like a lens like in this diagram, feel free to justify that insanity:


See, this is what you are arguing for, that you only see the rays of light shown in blue. But that requires a lens or pure magic such that instead of going parallel they converge.

Your field of vision never changes. It is only blocked and then compressed as the blockage is distanced from the tube.
Your vision does not flute out at the end of a straight tube.
What you see, is parallel.

You still have that scope mindset or fluted mindset.