What would change your mind?

And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.

I think it massively refutes it. Just not to you and your like minded peers, which is understandable.

Quote

I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.

If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 25kg it will fall off.  If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 6 million, million, million, million kg then it won't.

Of course....in your mind. This is what you've trained your mind into. You have absolutely no clue about it but it's in books, so....well, argue it along with a comfort zone of mass indoctrinated belief systems.

It means nothing and you know this.

  So your next question will inevitably be something along the lines of 'Show me how you know the mass of 'your globe''.  Well figure that out for yourself.

I can't figure anything out that is impossible to figure out. It's like telling me an old woman lives in a house but nobody has ever seen her, then asking me to guess what clothes she's wearing.

  That's what you are so passionate about isn't it?
 Finding things out for yourself.

  Except you of course. You are quite content to just sit on that throne of yours and dictate to everyone else what they should do.   

Nobody needs to do anything they don't want to. I see some that think they can show me some truth's but fail miserably. Including you.

There's plenty of information about that so it won't take you long.

You mean the woman in the house?
How do you know about the woman in the house?

  I won't waste time myself though as nothing I say will make a difference to what you want to believe.

You certainly won't without showing real proof.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 04, 2021, 01:02:11 PM

And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.

All you are doing is showing that it won't stay on a small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
You are in no way showing it can't stick to a round Earth.

Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.

If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.

If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.

(and all of that is assuming gravity is the only significant force, which means the object needs to be large enough such that electrostatic interactions can't hold the water together)

Again, it in no way refutes the RE. It is entirely consistent with what is expected given the RE model.

I think it massively refutes it.

And if you actually honestly thought that you wouldn't have just dishonestly cut out the explanation of why you were wrong. Instead you would have addressed it and clearly explained what you think is wrong with it.

Just like you continue to ignore the extremely simple question which shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

The simple fact is you have nothing more than baseless, refuted lies.
Your lies in no way refute the RE.
Until you can actually address the issues raised, by explaining what is wrong with the refutation of your lies, and actually answer the simple questions, all you will have are pathetic, refuted, exposed lies; and all continuing to repeat these lies does is show you don't give a damn about the truth and are quite happy to sit here blatantly lying to everyone.

Water shows the reality of flatness and this is the crux of the reality.

You mean it shows flatness to be a myth?
As level water can obstruct the view in a way that only a curved surface can?

I dismiss the global model for reasons given.

And your reasons amount to pure BS.
You set up strawmen of both the RE model and reality to pretend they don't match.
The fact that you repeatedly ignore logical arguments and questions which show it to be BS show that you know your "reasons" are not justified in any way.
The fact you continually dismiss evidence as a con-job and refuse to provide your own to show what you claim should be seen further shows that your "reasons" are not justified and that your are knowingly rejecting reality.

Anyone with a brain can see what you did.

Yes, he provided evidence which clearly demonstrated that you were wrong.
Likewise, anyone with a brain can see what you are doing. As you don't want to admit you are wrong, you dismiss it as a conjob with no justification at all and throw in more ridiculous demands which do nothing except needlessly complicate the experiment.
If you honestly thought he was wrong, you would post your own evidence.
But as you know that will just show you are wrong as well, you don't.

There is no dip.

Then why do so many observations clearly prove there is one?

It sure seems like there is a dip and you are just rejecting reality because you don't like it.

The reality and logic of it is there for anyone to understand

And it clearly shows you are wrong.
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Instead it is in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
What we observe is exactly what we expect for a RE.

Again, the fact that you continually ignore this and you continually make the same baseless lies shows you know this is the case.

And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.

And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:01:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 08:53:31 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 01:46:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 01:10:47 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on January 04, 2021, 12:59:58 AM

But to me that does not appear to be the case.

It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.

It's impossible to be anything other.


However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.

You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:



He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):

You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.

I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!

Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?

Anyone can move a sight above or below a crosshair. You know this so why are you bothering with the same nonsense?

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:44:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:02:29 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on January 04, 2021, 03:15:17 AM

Quote

The level of stupid is amazing.

Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?

You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.

The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about.   Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.

There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.

Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.

Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.

Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20



Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?

There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it

I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:15:52 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:01:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 08:53:31 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 01:46:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 01:10:47 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on January 04, 2021, 12:59:58 AM

But to me that does not appear to be the case.

It is the case, you just deny it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
It can not be anything other than eye level.
The reason is convergence back to the eye. To a point...centralised.

It's impossible to be anything other.


However, this would not be the case if you were on a globe, because you have no horizon.....just sky.

You say it's "impossible", but this surveyor went into great detail as part of his experiment that clearly shows your impossible is possible. And it has nothing to do with a "narrative" - It's just good old fashioned experimentation/demonstration/observation using extremely accurate and tested surveying equipment:



He's even got the cross hairs you so relish (from the above video):

You still haven't learned, have you?
Trying the very same as you did earlier.
Hmmmm.

I'm not following. Trying the same what? What is the issue you have with this demonstration? He even has the Total Station cross hairs for you. Yeah!

Is your schtick here still, "It's a dupe, fake..." If so, talk about being bullied and constrained by a narrative. Just so happens to be a narrative of one, your own. Is everything fake if it doesn't conform to your personal narrative?

Anyone can move a sight above or below a crosshair. You know this so why are you bothering with the same nonsense?

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:36:37 PM

And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.

And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.

Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:18:37 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:44:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:02:29 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on January 04, 2021, 03:15:17 AM

Quote

The level of stupid is amazing.

Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?

You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.

The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about.   Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.

There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.

Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.

Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.

Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20



Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?

There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it

I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

How in the hell can you use a dip?

And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.

It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 04, 2021, 10:39:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:36:37 PM

And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.

And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.

Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.

Its not convex or concave.
Its a fknig ball.
Get your own theory in order before you try taking on the ball.

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 10:54:33 PM

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.

No
We dont understand.
Please feel free to take your own picture and highlight to us what we re supposed to notice.
Teach us something.

If cross hairs dont matter then what are you on about?

Because you definitely made jja dance through hoops in an attempt to prove somehting...  what was it you were trying to prove?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 04, 2021, 11:08:18 PM

And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.

It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.

Verified what?
You went out and took an eye level, leveled, two tube photo?
Show us then.

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 10:59:58 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:18:37 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:44:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:02:29 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on January 04, 2021, 03:15:17 AM

Quote

The level of stupid is amazing.

Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?

You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.

The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about.   Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.

There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.

Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.

Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.

Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20



Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?

There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it

I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

How in the hell can you use a dip?

Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.



So, what's your answer?

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 10:54:33 PM

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.

No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 11:39:34 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 10:59:58 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:18:37 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 09:44:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:02:29 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on January 04, 2021, 03:15:17 AM

Quote

The level of stupid is amazing.

Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?

You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.

The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about.   Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.

There is no evidence...at all. The so called evidence is in your mind directly from being told.

Evidence for most things are conveyed rather than personally experienced. There would be no transfer or gain in knowledge without it.

Take for instance that for 100's of years Horizon below eye level (or dip) has been used in celestial navigation ephemeris. Sailors relied on it, for among other things, not only from getting from A to B but also doing so amid safe passage. Aka, lives depended on it.

Tables requisite to be used with the astronomical and nautical ephemeris, 1766. (NAO-T-1767)
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-T-01767/20



Dip wasn't included just for shits and giggles, it was a crucial aspect of accurate navigation. So if you have a problem with the presence of such, take it up with the centuries of seafarers who relied on it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have personally determined that such a thing is impossible. How did you do that and where's your evidence for it?

There is no dip.
There is change in theoretical horizon line as and when movement is underway. Always. That's it

I know. You say that. But you're just saying that. This from 250 years ago shows that seafarers used the dip that you say doesn't exist to aid in their navigation and safe passage. You're not addressing that.

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

How in the hell can you use a dip?

Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.



So, what's your answer?

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

hoold up
are you saying that sailors used a crows nest incorrectly all these years?
they didn't need to go up that high and the ships at a distance would just rise to their eye level regardless?
woweee

No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?

Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2021, 12:05:02 AM

No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?

Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.

Apparently. Scepti was of a mind once to say that all of the gazillion pressure gauges in the world measure pressure incorrectly. Not that anyone would notice. So yeah, not surprising if he goes full conspiracy here.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 04, 2021, 11:24:28 AM

Sceptimatic, your avatar is not a flat earth model.

It has a distinctive curve just like the globe, I see going on for North America on your avatar. By your own reasoning, Australia on your avatar should be at the bottom of the sea bed, along with most of South America and Africa, with the rest of the sea water defying every other logical natural law, and sticking to the sides of a bowl. Does water in your house, magically pool on your walls, and sit there, does it?

So, why are you carrying on about there being no curvature, when your own chosen model by Orlando Ferguson - a businessman from South Dakota, has the loopiest curvature anybody could possibly come up with? Seriously, the Angels standing on the four corners of Orlando's model (which you cropped out) makes more sense than the rest of it.

Now, address those last two images I posted about the horizon.

Paying attention to earlier posting about what you're trying to argue, is not a strong point of yours, I see.

You are getting weaker by the second by using angels and such and also using a model in its entirety as if I follow that.
You can clearly see I use it as the potential set up, only.

And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.
Have a think on this stuff and it'll save you trying to be clever and getting nowhere.

Weaker than your avatar which is the potential set up of your model where you argue the earth is flat, but your earth avatar has clear curvature? <face palm> So, your avatar features a model which is nothing like the model in your head, that nobody here can comprehend, and that you can't even draw. (Even danang can draw his flat earth model.)

I have the picture in your avatar in it's entirery, and it has four angels drawn in it. That ludicrous drawing belongs in some Christian sex cult bible, not in any flat earth discussion of the physical shape of this world. (Because the earth in your avatar isn't flat.)

As for those two drawings I posted, have another look at them. Is that the theoretical horizon in each drawing, you continuously harp on about? Isn't that how you believe the horizon for each person works? Eyeline equals horizon line?

Yes or no?

was the two tube experiment to prove the horizon doesn't meet eye level or was it that you can't see 1in of height at XXX distance?

please clarify the reason for the experiment

you seem to be confused
and if WE'RE confused, it's because you aren't clear

clear it up.
possibly run the experiment yourself and let us know where we went wrong in our thinking.

aaah but you dodge.
keep dodging, duck dodgers

seriously
what was your point?
that the horizon isn't a thing?
it rises to eye level?
things don't disappear bottom-up?
you can't see more than 1inch because the two-tube setup?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 11:36:32 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 04, 2021, 10:39:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 09:36:37 PM

And water would not be sitting on any convex gradient but sitting in a concave one.

And as pointed out before, that still leaves a massive portion of your Earth flooded, which we know in reality is not flooded, and leaves a massive portion of your Earth dry, which we know is covered in water.
So it doesn't help your nonsense match reality. Your nonsense still needs curved water.

Flooded?
Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded and you think it's convex.
My model has many huge indentations within the gradients.
he difference is, your nonsensical globe has it all around it in the global storyline.

Its not convex or concave.
Its a fknig ball.
Get your own theory in order before you try taking on the ball.

It's not a ball, at all.

I've already told you, so either do it or don't.

'Honesty', I've got that much so far.  You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then.  Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 11:38:10 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2021, 10:54:33 PM

So that's your schtick? That the surveyor incredulously tilted the total station viewer from level in order to move the eye level crosshairs above the horizon line in order to dupe people? Wow, you really are bullied into your own narrative. You're definitely not a skeptic and you are definitely a conspiracy theorist. Not shocking. Just further confirms that no matter what anyone demonstrates to you, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically a dupe. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do these trust issues affect your day-to-day?

It's not about moving the crosshair. It's about the picture being taken of it. I'm sure you understand that.

No
We dont understand.
Please feel free to take your own picture and highlight to us what we re supposed to notice.
Teach us something.

If cross hairs dont matter then what are you on about?

Because you definitely made jja dance through hoops in an attempt to prove somehting...  what was it you were trying to prove?

Corsshairs only matter when the observation to the horizon is a legitimate level sight to the crosshair and then to the theoretical horizontal line.

This is why two scopes, both with frontal crosshairs and standing behind each other a few feet from each other....and horizontally levelled, tells a real story.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 11:41:30 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 04, 2021, 11:08:18 PM

And hes never thought to verify it...
How noble of him.

It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that because it kills your global mindset stone dead, so naturally you'll do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.

Verified what?
You went out and took an eye level, leveled, two tube photo?
Show us then.

Show yourself if you want to see a truth.

Do a little research around the time honored realm of celestial navigation. You know, the thing that's been used for centuries by seafarers.



So, what's your answer?

So are you saying that:
- It's a fake document
- Even though dip was observed and logged, it was never used b/c it doesn't exist and therefore ignored
- The dip was used in navigation, but even though it doesn't exist, seafarers needlessly used it and still got safely to where they wanted to go

Any? All of the above?

Navigation is via a domed sky (in my opinion), so no need to try and use that.
How about you explain what this dip is.

hoold up
are you saying that sailors used a crows nest incorrectly all these years?
they didn't need to go up that high and the ships at a distance would just rise to their eye level regardless?
woweee

If they've been told they're looking over a globe, then yes, they've been under the wrong impression, in my honest opinion.
A crows nest like any higher vantage point, will show a greater distance to a theoretical horizon...and any object within that sight. Not over a globe but over water at an angle, allowing for greater scope.

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2021, 12:05:02 AM

No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?

Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.

Not at all. A scope is merely a magnifying tool like any other variation. It simply magnifies what is already in the distance being viewed. It doesn't see farther.

Quote from: rvlvr on January 05, 2021, 12:46:17 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2021, 12:05:02 AM

No I don't. The crosshairs are in the center of the image taken. Are you saying this is a deliberate dupe? Is that the schtick you're sticking with? That anything presented that goes against your personal narrative is obviously faked? That's your scientific, truth seeking stance?

Scope manufacturers are a part of the conspiracy, too.

Apparently. Scepti was of a mind once to say that all of the gazillion pressure gauges in the world measure pressure incorrectly. Not that anyone would notice. So yeah, not surprising if he goes full conspiracy here.

They don't measure pressure incorrectly. They measure it how I said. The storyline about how it's measured, is tweaked to add in gravity, which is the nonsense like everything else in using it.

I have the picture in your avatar in it's entirery, and it has four angels drawn in it.

Mine has no angels but feel free to use them if you feel you must.

That ludicrous drawing belongs in some Christian sex cult bible, not in any flat earth discussion of the physical shape of this world. (Because the earth in your avatar isn't flat.)

I never said Earth was flat, so what are you banging on about?

As for those two drawings I posted, have another look at them. Is that the theoretical horizon in each drawing, you continuously harp on about? Isn't that how you believe the horizon for each person works? Eyeline equals horizon line?

Yes or no?

They mean nothing. You don't explain them as to be anything.

Flooded?

Yes, flooded. Remember this image I provided quite some time ago for one hypothetical water level:

Where this water level has pretty much all of Australia and large parts of Africa and South America completely underwater (i.e. flooded), while North America, Europe and Asia are completely dry, with no water at all.

That is what your nonsense has with a flat water level.
Of course, you can try to dry the south by lowering the water level and making more of your Earth bone dry, or you can try to wet the north by raising the water level and flooding even more.
But there is no way to have a flat water level match the

Apparently two thirds of your Earth is flooded

And unlike your nonsense, it actually matches what is observed in reality.
That is one of the many difference between the globe model which matches reality and is backed up by mountains of evidence, and your nonsense with no connection to reality at all.

And again you ignore the refutation and question:
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.

If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.

If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.

So going to admit your pathetic strawman in no way refutes the RE?

And once more:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

Going to answer the question and admit that the RE does have a horizon?

How in the hell can you use a dip?

By measuring how far (in some angular measurement) the horizon is below eye level.
Then you use the simple mathematical relationship I have provided for you before (along with your elevation) to determine the radius:
cos(a)=R/(R+h)

It's so simple even you could do it.

You just need to make sure that refraction isn't a significant issue.

It is verified. Water level absolutely verifies it but you people want to overlook that

You are the one overlooking it because it kills of your FE fantasy.

Once more, the simple fact that water calm, level water obstructs the view to the bottom of a distant object, even though both the observer and the distant object are above water level shows that water is curved, specifically curved in a convex manner.

If water was flat, this would not happen.
So it is verified that water kills your FE fantasy.
We accept this, but you continue to reject this reality, because you have no concern for the truth.

Corsshairs only matter when the observation to the horizon is a legitimate level sight to the crosshair and then to the theoretical horizontal line.

So they don't matter at all when they show you are wrong is what you are saying?

This is why two scopes, both with frontal crosshairs and standing behind each other a few feet from each other....and horizontally levelled, tells a real story.

No, they don't. They just needlessly complicate it.
Once more, if someone was going to con you by pointing the scope not level, they can do the same with 2 scopes.
Either way, aligning them will be a pain.

So once more, 2 scopes is a needlessly complexity which does nothing.