What would change your mind?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:53:57 AM

The difficulty is in lining them up.

There's no difficulty.

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.
It requires you to carefully adjust the height to a fairly decent accuracy.
Even a mm to high or low can be enough to screw up the experiment as it will no longer produce a level line between the 3.
It is easy to do if you don't really care about getting it level, but hard to do properly.

Quote from: JJA on January 23, 2021, 04:55:52 AM

As honest as you cutting out the rest of my quote?

It's just repetition.

No, it is ignoring the things which expose your hypocrisy and dishonesty.
And with my posts it is you continually ignoring all the logical arguments that show you are wrong.

You were the one that got smug and tried to dupe people.

No, that would be you, continually spouting outright lies and dismissing evidence as fake just because it shows you are wrong.

We are now asking to prove your honesty by posting the result of simple experiments yourself, rather than expecting us to do everything for you just for you to dismiss it as fake.

But all you are doing is repeatedly showing your dishonesty and your completely inability or unwillingness to engage in any form of honest rational debate.

Now are you going to try to justify your lies? Either by doing your experiment and posting the result, or doing the experiment I suggested and posting your result, or by answering the simple questions you continually avoid because you know that an honest answer will reveal that you have spouting pure BS?

Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Again, what magic causes the RE to have a blend from light to dark rather than a clearly visible edge like every other ball?

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 21, 2021, 12:54:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2021, 06:41:12 AM

You've also been told.

LMAO, Sceppy, how do you screw up something so simple?

Nothing screwed up. This is how your nonsense globe would be and you know it.
It makes no sense to you because your globe makes no sense....but you just can't see it.

Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 04:30:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:53:57 AM

The difficulty is in lining them up.

There's no difficulty.

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.

Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.

No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.

When you live in books, this is when you struggle.

Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?

No. Try again.

And yet again, you ignore the simple questions which destroy your garbage and still refuse to do any experiments yourself and provide the results here.
It's almost like you know that doing the experiments will prove you wrong.

Again, what magic stops the blue line and why should the RE have a blend from light to dark rather than a clearly visible edge?

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.

Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.
No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.
[/quote]
No, quite different.
You typically don't have the bricks actually touch the string, as that would disturb the level. And a brick wall can have variations. You are trying to line up cross hairs, which needs far greater accuracy.

When you live in books, this is when you struggle.

When you live in a delusional fantasy land, you struggle everywhere, which probably explains why you are unable to answer simple questions or do experiments you claim should be easy.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 23, 2021, 01:55:44 PM

Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?

No. Try again.

Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 12:18:10 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 04:30:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:53:57 AM

The difficulty is in lining them up.

There's no difficulty.

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.

Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.

No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.

When you live in books, this is when you struggle.

I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them.  So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?

Do you not understand how repeating works?

Yep, I see it time and time again with copy/paste from you and JakeyBlacko.

Quote from: JJA on January 23, 2021, 06:58:37 AM

Do you not understand how repeating works?

Yep, I see it time and time again with copy/paste from you and JakeyBlacko.

So if you understand how repeating works, you understand that you need to do your experiment before anyone else can repeat it. So what are you waiting for?  Why won't you perform and show your own experiment?

No, you are the only one here accusing me of trying to dupe you.   The only surprise here is you thinking you are fooling anyone.

If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment. You're struggling with how you can dupe it.
I'll call you out because you deserve it.

Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 01:09:10 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 12:18:10 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 04:30:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:53:57 AM

The difficulty is in lining them up.

There's no difficulty.

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.

Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.

No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.

When you live in books, this is when you struggle.

I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them.  So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?

I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.

Any honest person can do this.
You being dishonest are required to followed my instructions to ensure you cannot cheat, again.

Quote from: JJA on January 24, 2021, 04:51:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 01:09:10 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 12:18:10 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 04:30:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:53:57 AM

The difficulty is in lining them up.

There's no difficulty.

Then you have clearly never tried to accurately line things up over any significant distance.

Pretty clear to me that you have no clue what a level is and lining anything up, is, if you really think this.
Two simple sticks placed at about 15 feet apart and a level line along, then place your tubes on their sticks/tripods directly under the line with the tubes touching and centred.

No different in setting a line for a fence or a brick wall...etc.

When you live in books, this is when you struggle.

I have to agree, it's sad seeing you struggle because you won't perform any experiments but just talk about them.  So why don't you try this experiment for yourself and show us your results?

I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.

Any honest person can do this.
You being dishonest are required to followed my instructions to ensure you cannot cheat, again.

If any honest person can do it, why can't you?  If it's so easy, just do it and post your results.  It's clear to everyone you are unwilling or unable to perform your own 'easy' experiment, no matter how many times you desperately ignore the question.  You aren't fooling anyone.

Quote from: JJA on January 23, 2021, 07:00:36 AM

No, you are the only one here accusing me of trying to dupe you.   The only surprise here is you thinking you are fooling anyone.

If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment. You're struggling with how you can dupe it.
I'll call you out because you deserve it.

Everyone else sees my experiment for whit it is, simple pictures of a level tube.  Why won't you do it yourself?  What are you so sacred of about performing and showing your own experiment?

@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?

I am reasonably certain, having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct and that only at extreme elevations would this possibly fail to work the way they describe.

Do you disagree, or do you just want to make scepty look through a tube because you had to?
 

Im back!
I see nothings changed.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 23, 2021, 01:55:44 PM

Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?

No. Try again.

Then why does your diagram show and say so?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 24, 2021, 02:04:31 AM

Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.

What are you talking about?

Your diagram.  Are you really this bad at following a conversation?  Let's look at what you said...

Red line is sight and blue is building height.  Obviously not to scale.  Line of sight towards the sun at elevations, you can see that sun at various points in the sky.
As soon as the Earth supposedly rotates anti clockwise, we lose the sight.
Never would tehre be any horizon in among any of that sight.

But, you agree then that we have a field of view and can look up and down correct?  So as Earth rotates, as soon as the sun is below level line of sight, it would still be visible.

And yet again you ignore the simple questions that show you are wrong.

Again, what magic stops the blue line? Without some magic to stop it, the blue line will continue into the tube and hit the eye, meaning you can see below it?

And again, what magic would cause the RE to magically have a blend from light to dark instead of the clearly visible horizon/edge that every other round object has?
Especially when you act like a FE would have a similar, clearly visible horizon, which makes no sense at all.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 24, 2021, 02:04:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 01:10:52 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 23, 2021, 01:55:44 PM

Are you saying you can only see a straight line of sight that is the diameter of your eye's pupil and can't look up or down, only level?

No. Try again.

Then why did you only draw in a straight line rather than an actual FOV?
Try again.

What are you talking about?

Why do you continually play dumb?
You know exactly what I am talking about.
In your pathetic diagram that you use to pretend there is a massive problem for the RE, you just draw in a bunch of straight to pretend that you wouldn't be able to see the sun, or the top of a hill, or a building on the RE.

You know, like this garbage:


If you were doing it honestly, you would draw in actual FOVs, which cover an angular range. But instead you have straight lines.

That is because you need these straight lines to pretend there is a problem.

Quote from: JJA on January 23, 2021, 06:58:37 AM

Do you not understand how repeating works?

Yep, I see it time and time again

Then you would understand that in order for him to repeat/replicate the experiment, someone has to do it first.
So until you do it and post your results, he can't replicate it.

If you were honest you'd shut me right up with this experiment.

We all saw how well that worked last time.
He did the experiment you wanted him to, and what was your response?

You need to be more honest.
What the hell is your issue?

He posted the results and you instantly dismissed it as fake.
And what was your justification for doing so? Because it showed you were wrong.

Why would we expect it to be any different for this experiment?
If evidence is provided that shows you are wrong, you just dismiss it as fake, because you don't give a damn about reality and are quite happy to stay here lying to everyone.
What the hell is your issue?

I don't even need all that. I can simply use a tube and levelled up to see that you do not see the ground beneath you over a gradient.
Any honest person can do this.

Yet you still refuse to do so.
It is as if you know that claim of yours is pure BS, and you are refusing because you are not honest.

Any honest person can do the simple experiment I suggested, and realise your claims are pure BS.

So thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.

@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?

You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.

having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct

Do you understand what he is claiming, especially with the insane internal contradiction?
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
He is claiming that you can't see the ground at all through a level tube because the ground is below the tube.

i.e. this:

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2020, 08:34:25 AM

So are you saying this:

Absolutely.

and this (note that he is claiming this happens with an ordinary tube, with no lens in it at all):

Quote from: JackBlack on December 14, 2020, 02:07:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2020, 01:51:15 AM

What you see, is parallel.

No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:

This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.

Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.

Do you really agree with that?
That you should only see 1 inch of a distant object if you look at it through a 1 inch diameter tube?

Because if not, you aren't agreeing with scepti.


So do you think you would see ground/sea through a level tube?

@jackblack

You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.

Only in a classroom / textbook.  In reality, they never differ - nor can anyone provide a demonstration of them doing so.

In any case, the point is moot because on the scales we are viewing (to the horizon is only a few miles depending on weather conditions) the water is, as I said, "mostly flat" regardless of what conception you have on the shape of the earth.

You could go to a large parking lot or another large mostly flat location, but the concrete was leveled the same way the oceans (and all bodies of water) are

He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.

My understanding, which they confirmed once (granted, 70 pg's ago), is the opposite.

In the case that the world is a flat plane, you ought to be able to look at that flat plane as you look out over it because of perspective (shrinking to a vanishing dot in the center of your vision).  The ground will never disappear from view when the world is a plane stretching beyond the limited/finite bounds of an observers view.

Alternatively, when it is a globe - again of sufficient size that to us (on the scale of the observers finite visual bounds) the ground once again appears to be an infinite plane - we expect that the ground should curve away at some point - against this perspective "lifting" illusion.

Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are.  On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't.  That is scepty's whole point.

Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are.  On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't.  That is scepty's whole point.

What makes you think we can't?  If you set your camera to level and zoom in far enough you will eventually see only sky and no water, just as you say.

Now you will need a very long zoom and a small field of view, not something you can do with your cell phone camera. 

If you go high up onto a cliff it will be easier, the horizon will be lower and you won't need to zoom in as far. Even then it's going to take some serious equipment. A telescope would help.

The world is big, very big, much bigger than scepty's imagination as he can't seem to understand the scale and the amount of zoom needed to actually see the effect.

Can you?

Scepty is saying the exact opposite of what you think they are.  On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't.  That is scepty's whole point.

How do you zoom with a toilet paper roll?

Quote from: jack44556677 on January 24, 2021, 10:34:22 AM

@JJA, what do you think scepty ought to see when they look down the level tube (preferably by a large body of water, which we can be certain is mostly flat)?

You mean which we can be certain is mostly LEVEL, not flat.
The 2 are very different.

Quote from: jack44556677 on January 24, 2021, 10:34:22 AM

having never tried this or anything much like it in my life, that scepty is correct

Do you understand what he is claiming, especially with the insane internal contradiction?
He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.
He is claiming that you can't see the ground at all through a level tube because the ground is below the tube.

i.e. this:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2020, 08:44:16 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2020, 08:34:25 AM

So are you saying this:

Absolutely.

and this (note that he is claiming this happens with an ordinary tube, with no lens in it at all):

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2020, 04:38:58 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 14, 2020, 02:07:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2020, 01:51:15 AM

What you see, is parallel.

No, not in reality.
Again, that requires a lens, like this:

This has the lines coming in from the right parallel, but then they pass through the lens and end up converging on the eye.

Yep, they converge once at the tube and back to the eye, hence the compression.
From the tube end you see parallel, you do not suddenly go fluted from that point.

Do you really agree with that?
That you should only see 1 inch of a distant object if you look at it through a 1 inch diameter tube?

Because if not, you aren't agreeing with scepti.


So do you think you would see ground/sea through a level tube?

Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.

I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.

You people are the one's being, either dishonest or unbelievably inept at understanding what's being put forward.
You're using scopes and naked eye FOV to claim you see ground on a gradient. I understand why.... because if you didn't, you kill your globe mindset.

Only in a classroom / textbook.  In reality, they never differ - nor can anyone provide a demonstration of them doing so.

Except all the times they do, such as in a simple case of water in a glass where it curves up the edge, or if it is a droplet on a surface (especially a hydrophobic one), or in a barometer like device, or just on Earth over a large body of water.

It is only for a small surface where you can't detect the curvature of Earth and ignore the other curvature that it is "flat".

In any case, the point is moot because on the scales we are viewing (to the horizon is only a few miles depending on weather conditions) the water is, as I said, "mostly flat" regardless of what conception you have on the shape of the earth.

But it is that very curvature which causes the horizon.

You could go to a large parking lot or another large mostly flat location, but the concrete was leveled the same way the oceans (and all bodies of water) are

Where the curvature is insignificant?
As an approximation, the drop is d^2/(2*R).
If you had a carpark that was 1 km wide, the drop would be ~8 cm.
That means the bulge at the middle would be ~ 2 cm.

Quote

He is claiming that if you look through a level tube you will not be able to see anything that is below the tube.

My understanding, which they confirmed once (granted, 70 pg's ago), is the opposite.

I provided quotes which showed exactly what he as claiming, and that is that you magically don't see below a level tube.
Care to address that?

stretching beyond the limited/finite bounds of an observers view.

There is no bound for distance. If Earth was flat, you would be able to continually zoom in and see more and more distant ground until it got so far away it passed through so much atmosphere that it is just s blur.

we expect that the ground should curve away at some point - against this perspective "lifting" illusion.

Yes, the horizon.

On a round sphere we ought to be able to zoom beyond the horizon (which is presumed to be the physical edge of that sphere) and see only sky (no land/water), but we can't.

But we can.
Go look at some of the images at the start of the thread. The horizon is clearly below eye level.
But if you are standing on the RE, a mere 2 m above the surface, you need to reduce your FOV to less than ~ 5.4 arc minutes. Quite tiny.
And you need to ensure you have it levelled to that accuracy.

Regardless, for this part of the discussion he has specifically excluded all possible lenses that would allow you to zoom like that.

This means you would need to get high enough to be able to have the FOV provided by the tube exclude the horizon.

For the example I provided earlier with a FOV of 10 degrees, that means you would need to get to an altitude of 25 km.

Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.

That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tube, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.

I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle

If you want to prevent any angle, you need to replace your tube with an infinitely long one.
Any finite tube will produce an angular FOV which will allow you to see below it.
The only question is how large and thus what angle it gives.

In order to see a continuous downwards gradient, all that is required is for the FOV to be more than twice the gradient.

You people are the one's being, either dishonest or unbelievably inept at understanding what's being put forward.

And of course, more pathetic projection from you.

If we are the dishonest ones rather than you, why do you refuse to do the experiment yourself and post your results?
Why do you refuse to do the experiment I suggested?
Why do you refuse to answer simple questions which clearly show you are wrong?

You're using scopes and naked eye FOV to claim you see ground on a gradient.

No, I'm using a tube and simple logic. Something you seem to be unable to cope with.

Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, there is no reason at all to think you would not be able to see an object along that line.

And again, if you can see it with the naked eye, with a FOV significantly larger than the tube, and with a scope, with a FOV significantly smaller than the tube, then you can certainly see it with just the tube.

Again, see the little grey bit in that diagram?
That is a lens.
What you are appealing to is not a simple tube. Instead it is a tube with a lens which gives it an infinite zoom, an infinite magnification.

There is a very simple way to determine the magnification for a lens, look at what the FOV is on each side of the lens and divide one by the other (out/in).

i.e. if light comes into the lens with a FOV of 1 degree, and the lens makes that hit the eye over a FOV of 10 degrees, that would have a magnification of 10 X (i.e. 10/1)
But what you have is more like 10/0, which is infinite.

So you definitely need a lens for that.

And with such a lens, in order to see the ground, or any object below a straight line parallel to this 0 degree FOV, it would need to be infinitely far away.

I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.

Oh, are you finally setting up your experiment? Can we expect pictures of your setup soon so we can replicate it ourselves?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:09:00 PM

Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.

That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tube, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.

Hence why I asked for the two scopes and the hanging crosshair, to enable the person to look level and not deviate the eye view or dip the camera.

It cuts out both angles and leaves the tube diameter as the tunnel view, which does not see any downward gradient. You know this.

I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.

Are you?  How will you even know the strings are aligned if they're behind a pencil, or that the entire thing isn't simply aligned at a slight angle up or down?

Also, if the horizon is below eye level when looking through the tubes, what is this telling us?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 02:28:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:09:00 PM

Smokemachine backs you lot up but he seemed to understand about not allowing for angled view by looking through the bottom of the tube at a level.

That still allows for an angled view, it just prevents a downwards view. You still see up high.
But that is not simply looking through a tubbe, and it definitely is not looking level at a cross hair which needs to be centred.

Hence why I asked for the two scopes and the hanging crosshair

Which then entirely defeats your argument as then you are looking at the centre of the tube, meaning you get an "angled view" downwards to the bottom of the tube and upwards to the top. You know, like a normal angular FOV, which then allows you to see things below the bottom level of the tube.

Again, in order to prevent that, with your eye at the centre of the tube, you need some magic to stop the blue line.

Alternatively, you need a tube which has a FOV of effectively 0. That means either an infinitely long tube, an infinitely thin tube, or one with a lens with an infinite magnification.

Otherwise, you have an angular FOV and can see things either above or below the tube.

It cuts out both angles and leaves the tube diameter as the tunnel view, which does not see any downward gradient. You know this.

No, I know it doesn't do that, as that would require pure magic.
I know that the light will continue going straight as it enters the tube at an angle and hits your eye, even with a level tube. Just like I have repeatedly explained and you have been unable to refute and instead just continue to repeat the same lie.

Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?

How is it even after a 5day ban has still not seen any movement in this tu-tube topic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:09:00 PM

I'm setting up the tubes and crosshairs in such a way as to be viewed perfectly level...or close to it, giving you very little opportunity to create an angle and then claim it to be a FOV that brings in the ground on a gradient.

Are you?  How will you even know the strings are aligned if they're behind a pencil, or that the entire thing isn't simply aligned at a slight angle up or down?

Also, if the horizon is below eye level when looking through the tubes, what is this telling us?

Clearly you don't understand the experiment. Just carry on as you are.