What would change your mind?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 06:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 05:37:14 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 04:33:07 AM

If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.

Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?

Im also saying level tube.

Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.

This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

Quote from: JJA on February 05, 2021, 11:49:57 AM

Quote from: jack44556677 on February 05, 2021, 10:19:53 AM

Obviously the interpretation of this observation differs, however I think we can all agree that unless there are abnormal weather conditions or the height of the observer is pushed to the extreme - no matter how much we zoom in, or crop, we will not see only sky the way the globe model predicts/expects and scepti has described.

This is incorrect.  If you are standing on a sphere and look straight forward, if you zoom in enough you will eventually see only sky, if you have perfect conditions.

But here is the important part, you have to zoom in to an insane degree. The world is BIG.

With a camera at 6 feet above the ground, looking out level, the horizon is 15,837 feet away. The edge of the Earth you will be looking at is 12 feet below the camera.

So to see only sky, you need a zoom lens capable of zooming fully onto a rectangle 12 feet high at a distance of 3 miles.

By my calculations you need a DSLR with a 20,000mm zoom lens. The worlds biggest zoom lens is a 5,200mm Cannon lens that costs $45,000. Most camera lenses are around 50mm for reference. No 20km zoom lens exists.

So no, nobody is going to ever see just the sky by zooming in because the world is BIG and you just can't do that on your cell phone camera.

I'm also ignoring weather and refraction, which at that distance would make any observation impossible anyway.

So scepti is describing an experiment that is impossible to perform. Like asking for proof that the moon is really 250,000 miles way by demanding you make a 250,000 mile rope ladder and climb up to it with a measuring tape.

Then we got onto his claim that you can't see the ground from a level tube, which I disproved multiple times, so far.  And here we are, 100 pages later.

Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere. You even tried to put basket balls on tables to show me edges, as if you were proving something about you standing on a sphere, as opposed to looking at one as if you were deep into your so called space.

The whole thing is dishonest.

If you're going to reply to a message, please read it until you understand it.  You are talking about someone else, I never took pictures of basketballs.

Please take time to read and comprehend a reply, it's clear you didn't even bother to try and understand what I wrote above if you think it somehow contradicts anything else I've said.

Come on, put some effort into this. 

How do we know anything? Science has never claimed to know anything.  But we can gather evidence that leads us to a conclusion based on real data which has been measured.

I ask you what the mass of your Earth is and all you can say is 'I have absolutely no idea'.

I ask you how life formed on your Earth and all you can say is 'A potential cell growth from whatever set up up it is part of'. 

What use is any of that to school kids?  Your 'knowledge' is based purely on wild speculation at best.  You refuse to believe anything else that mainstream science tell you yet you have no clue about anything it seems to do with 'your' version of Earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:28:45 AM

Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere.

And you were completely incapable of showing any thing wrong with that.
So instead you pretended that we magically only see a single line, rather than having an actual FOV.

And that means we don't just see dead centre/level, but also around it, and when standing on Earth, that is plenty to see the horizon, unless you have a very powerful scope with a tiny FOV.

Again, if you wish to disagree, either tell us what magic causes this blend from light to dark rather than the clearly observed edge, and/or what magic stops the blue line.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:28:45 AM

The whole thing is dishonest.

Everything you have done in this thread is dishonest.

I've never denied you have a FOV but the FOV you make up is not based on what I've set out.
Yours is based upon a scope or naked eye through a scope, not a simple small diameter tube.

You simply twist it.
I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

How do we knowanything? Science has never claimed to know anything.

What do you mean by that?
Science? Or scientists?
If it's scientists then why are you arguing for facts?

  But we can gather evidence that leads us to a conclusion based on real data which has been measured.

Real data for what?

I ask you what the mass of your Earth is and all you can say is 'I have absolutely no idea'.

Because I'm being honest. I have absolutely no idea.
How can I measure something like that if I have no bearings in which to do so?

I ask you how life formed on your Earth and all you can say is 'A potential cell growth from whatever set up up it is part of'. 

What would you like me to say?

What use is any of that to school kids?

What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?

 Your 'knowledge' is based purely on wild speculation at best.

And your knowledge is based on acceptance, without proof of those story tellers that wildly speculate or downright lie.

  You refuse to believe anything else that mainstream science tell you yet you have no clue about anything it seems to do with 'your' version of Earth.

Until I get real proof...yes.
You are the opposite. You choose to believe just because it's mass peer pressure to accept and much easier to feel part of the entourage of the pied pipers of stories.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 06, 2021, 03:09:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:28:45 AM

Not so long ago you lot were arguing that you could see the edge of the Earth as your sphere.

And you were completely incapable of showing any thing wrong with that.
So instead you pretended that we magically only see a single line, rather than having an actual FOV.

And that means we don't just see dead centre/level, but also around it, and when standing on Earth, that is plenty to see the horizon, unless you have a very powerful scope with a tiny FOV.

Again, if you wish to disagree, either tell us what magic causes this blend from light to dark rather than the clearly observed edge, and/or what magic stops the blue line.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 02:28:45 AM

The whole thing is dishonest.

Everything you have done in this thread is dishonest.

I've never denied you have a FOV but the FOV you make up is not based on what I've set out.
Yours is based upon a scope or naked eye through a scope, not a simple small diameter tube.

You simply twist it.
I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.

Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment?  Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe.  If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence.  Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.

Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment?  Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe.  If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence.  Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.

I don't care one bit whether you believe me or not.
You performed your own experiment and cheated...but.... you're not cheating me, you're cheating yourself.

Quote from: JJA on February 06, 2021, 05:57:42 AM

Why won't you show us the pictures from your experiment?  Make sure to show how you leveled it just like you describe.  If you actually performed your experiment, show us the evidence.  Otherwise I find it hard to believe you.

I don't care one bit whether you believe me or not.
You performed your own experiment and cheated...but.... you're not cheating me, you're cheating yourself.

Funny, I was going to say the same of you.  I showed my results, and you have failed to respond other than calling me a cheater without even being able to explain how you decided that.  All you can do is say it contradicts you and therefore must be wrong.

You know deep down the reason you won't share your images is because you know they won't show what you claim.  You spent 100 pages and months arguing.  All that effort... yet you won't put any effort at all into posting any images of your experiment.  Pretty suspicious.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 06:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 05:37:14 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 04:33:07 AM

If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.

Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?

Im also saying level tube.

Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.

This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?


Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.

Quote from: Solarwind

What use is any of that to school kids?

What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?

Hey sceptimatic. Teaching kids about the Earth in school is beneficial for 2 reasons:

1) Helps with History classes, science classes, and other classes
2) Making sure they know how our round planet works at a young age so they don't get influenced by baseless conspiracies

Until I get real proof...yes.

Real proof?  What is that exactly?  At what point can you say something has been proved?  You can pick and choose what you define as proof to suit what you believe.  Hence as far as you are concerned no one can prove to you that you are wrong.  Neither for that matter can you prove (other than to yourself perhaps) that the Earth is not a globe. What we believe is based on evidence. But since all the evidence available to us is the same, how and why do we come to different conclusions about what that evidence tells us?  To you it tells you that the Earth is not a globe but to me it tells me that it is.

I have read that the 'zetetic' approach to evidence is based around relying on ones senses in order to come to a conclusion about what is true and real. Hence some flat Earthers use the evidence that the Earth looks flat as evidence that Earth is not a globe and they insist that the Sun and Moon are are same size just because they look the same size in the sky. But if that were really the case then there would be no such thing as optical illusions. So it seems that we cannot or should not rely on our senses to provide accurate information. There is a need for closer and deeper investigation beyond what we can see directly.

You are the opposite. You choose to believe just because it's mass peer pressure to accept and much easier to feel part of the entourage of the pied pipers of stories.

No my belief is based on all the mountains of evidence presented to everyone in terms of the detailed experiments and theories which have been done over many centuries.  During my physics A level I was 'told' about several different experiments and the results I would get from them.  I was then given the equipment to do those experiments and so I was able to verify them for myself.  I could describe any one of those experiments to you.  Yet asked to describe any of the 'experiments' that you say you have done which prove to you your beliefs are correct and the results you have got and you have always refused.  Why is that? Your belief is based on...  well what exactly is your belief based on apart from a personal denial of everything other than what you 'believe'?

What for example do you think the education of school kids should be based on?  Only stuff that they can personally 'prove' themselves?  In which case it is pointless them going to school in the first place? Because according to your mindset they are just being fed a stream of lies. I don't think that would be very a popular view among parents do you?

You think the whole of school science should be based around flat Earth belief instead do you?  In other words based on the real TRUTH.  Well the real TRUTH according to what you believe at least.  Yet asked about any of the details about your Earth system and you basically haven't got a clue.  What basis is that for an education system?

Obviously I don't know if you have kids yourself, but if you do I'd love to know what their education has been like.  Whether you have allowed them to follow their own path and make their own judgements about what is real and true or not.  Or whether you have told them not to believe any of the crap they have been 'indoctrinated' with at school and tried to educate them according to your beliefs instead. The trouble is that kids by nature tend to ask questions about the world and so far you don't seem to know the first thing about 'your' Earth.

I've never denied you have a FOV

You repeatedly acting like we only see in a line straight out from the tube such that for a 1 inch tube we only see 1 inch, and you continually denying that the blue line is there and reaches the eye is denying we have a FOV.

I know for a fact you do not see the ground looking level over a gradient like the one JJA showed.
I know this because it took me 5 minutes to prove it with only the simple tube and a level view through it.

No, you don't, because you just keep repeating the same pathetic lie without providing anything to substantiate it, nor answering simple questions which show you are completely wrong.

I know you are wrong because it takes me all of 5 seconds to look through a tube and see an object larger than the tube.
This shows we don't have magic 1D vision without a FOV like you claim.

The fact you need to continually avoid extremely simple questions shows that you most likely know you are spouting pure BS.

Again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
Unless you can provide an explanation, then that blue line exists as a viable path for light to follow, meaning you can see things at a height below the tube, and thus have the potential to see a downwards slope, depending on the gradient and FOV.

Likewise, again, when you are standing far away from a tree or a building or anything like that, looking through your 1 inch diameter level tube, do you just see 1 inch of it? Or can you stand far enough back from it such that you can see ALL of it?
If the latter, then YOU ARE WRONG! That even means you can see the ground.

And guess what? That is what is observed in JJA's photo, where we can see entire objects, from the ground to the top, even though they are much larger than the tube.
This shows you are wrong.
Just like his photos of a ruler through the tube show you are wrong.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

You mean you will answer if and only if you figure out a way to do so without admitting you are completely wrong?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 06, 2021, 03:44:03 AM

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

I have a couple of somethings to say.  I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.

I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.

So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.

Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? 

You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.

This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?


Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.

Let's deal with a scope at level in the diagram I drew.
You tell me how it's possible to see the ground of that downward gradient (not the upward gradient after it) by using a level tube on that gradient.

Let me tell you something. You do not see what JJA showed.
I ask any genuine person who is not bound by the global peer pressured adherence, to do this for themselves and show that I am correct or wrong.

Now here's the key. I have done it. It's so simple as to not even require anything more than a simple level and a look through the tube standing on a gradient that slopes down and away from you whilst your tube is level.
You do not even need a tripod, Just go outside, find a gradient that looks similar to what JJA posted and tell me if you can see any of that downward slope.
I guarantee, if you are honest, you won't.


Now why would I say this if I haven't checked it out?

The standard answer from the usual suspects is, I'm lying, just like I send back the cheat message to them.....sooooo, you free thinkers...go and try it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 05:54:10 AM

Quote from: Solarwind

What use is any of that to school kids?

What use is the nonsense of a global Earth to school kids?

Hey sceptimatic. Teaching kids about the Earth in school is beneficial for 2 reasons:

1) Helps with History classes, science classes, and other classes

It definitely helps if there's truth in it, otherwise it's just another story among many that are told then placed back on the fact shelf, without proof of the facts.
Children reading an Enid Blyton book will learn alot about reading and spelling and thinking. It can be very beneficial. Bit is it real?
The answer is...yes, the story is a real story and no, the story does not depict a reality in that scenario......but, it can depict a potential truth among fiction for some of the things that may happen in that story.

2) Making sure they know how our round planet works at a young age so they don't get influenced by baseless conspiracies

Or making sure they follow a curriculum and to accept it as a truth even if it's fiction or potential fiction.
Also training the young mind to think of anyone who goes against what is being taught, as nutters or odd...etc.

Teaching a person how to go about in life is one thing. Teaching a person that it's not ok to question stuff outside of the stories told.... is another.

Teaching a person how to go about in life is one thing. Teaching a person that it's not ok to question stuff outside of the stories told.... is another.

Well certainly no one has ever told me that it is not OK to question anything.  Has anyone said that to you?

My experience of science has always been that we should question everything.  What exactly do you mean by 'question'?  Do you mean literally questions like 'why is the sky blue?', 'why do the stars above us rotate?' 'How did life come into being?' 'How did the Earth form?' etc etc or do you mean question things as in 'I don't believe that?'

Whenever I have done any courses at any level, the teacher, instructor, lecturer or whatever you want to call them have always said, 'Any questions about anything I have said?'.

You go on about 'proof' but what exactly IS proof?  All that I have been 'told' can be backed up by evidence which is completely and openly documented and explained with references to published material.  How much evidence is there out there that backs up what you claim?  You are simply asking us to accept what you tell us.

Quote

Until I get real proof...yes.

Real proof?  What is that exactly?  At what point can you say something has been proved?

When you actually see that proof and physically know it to be. Otherwise is becomes a mixture of best guesses based on potentials or wild guesses based on faith or a mix of thought processes...or, lies/misinfo.

  You can pick and choose what you define as proof to suit what you believe.  Hence as far as you are concerned no one can prove to you that you are wrong.

No, they can't, just as I can't prove that I'm right...just as you cannot prove your global Earth but think you can based on accepted guesswork and/or, misinfo. Imo.

  Neither for that matter can you prove (other than to yourself perhaps) that the Earth is not a globe.

I absolutely can. It's the easiest thing for me. Water level alone is absolute proof, among other stuff.

 What we believe is based on evidence.

No it's not. It's based on what you believe to be evidence, by what you are told, which cannot be proved to be so.

 But since all the evidence available to us is the same, how and why do we come to different conclusions about what that evidence tells us?  To you it tells you that the Earth is not a globe but to me it tells me that it is.

Yep...and this is where we will always differ until you actually realise it's not. One thing for absolute sure is...I will never believe it to be a globe, ever again.
I was battered with it for many many years. I will not accept it anymore.

You can obviously spend the rest of your life with a global belief and I'm ok with that. I just know it's not a globe we walk upon and I'm 100% sure of that.

If someone gave me irrefutable proof that it was, I'd accept it. Nobody can do it, as of yet.

I have read that the 'zetetic' approach to evidence is based around relying on ones senses in order to come to a conclusion about what is true and real. Hence some flat Earthers use the evidence that the Earth looks flat as evidence that Earth is not a globe and they insist that the Sun and Moon are are same size just because they look the same size in the sky.

Do they look the same size in the sky?

But if that were really the case then there would be no such thing as optical illusions. So it seems that we cannot or should not rely on our senses to provide accurate information. There is a need for closer and deeper investigation beyond what we can see directly.

We do see optical illusions. We see bigger suns and bigger moons. Smaller suns and smaller moons.
Atmospheric lensing and magnification are evident.

No my belief is based on all the mountains of evidence presented to everyone in terms of the detailed experiments and theories which have been done over many centuries.

Why use many centuries when the technology of today should supposedly suffice. So why hark back?

  During my physics A level I was 'told' about several different experiments and the results I would get from them.  I was then given the equipment to do those experiments and so I was able to verify them for myself.  I could describe any one of those experiments to you.

Such as?

  Yet asked to describe any of the 'experiments' that you say you have done which prove to you your beliefs are correct and the results you have got and you have always refused.

I've described many experiments that prove a lot of stuff. All denied by people like yourself, to no surprise from me.

  Why is that? Your belief is based on...  well what exactly is your belief based on apart from a personal denial of everything other than what you 'believe'?

My belief is definitely that the Earth is not a globe we walk upon. My belief about what Earth is, in its entirety has not been formed.What has been formed is my mindset on what it potentially could be in many aspects.
I don't put any of it out as factual.

What for example do you think the education of school kids should be based on?

Truth and to be told the truth of the stories told. If the story is fiction, let them know. If it's a mix of potentials based on best guesses....let them know. If it's 100% true...show them the reality, not hide it behind all kinds of cloaks.

  Only stuff that they can personally 'prove' themselves?  In which case it is pointless them going to school in the first place? Because according to your mindset they are just being fed a stream of lies. I don't think that would be very a popular view among parents do you?

Don't get mixed up with everything being a stream of lies and me questioning many things set out as truth's.

You think the whole of school science should be based around flat Earth belief instead do you?

Not at all.
I think the whole school of science based learning should be about realities and potentials, not nonsensical lies.

In other words based on the real TRUTH.  Well the real TRUTH according to what you believe at least.  Yet asked about any of the details about your Earth system and you basically haven't got a clue.  What basis is that for an education system?

It wouldn't be taught as an education system. It would be taught as a potential among a host of many potentials about life and history and what maybe ahead.

Obviously I don't know if you have kids yourself, but if you do I'd love to know what their education has been like.

Normal education like most other children. They are all well grown and in their own jobs just like most other people.

  Whether you have allowed them to follow their own path and make their own judgements about what is real and true or not.

I put no barriers in front of anyone. Each person is entitled to choose their own path of thought and in life.
You'd be surprised at how many people question the stuff they were coaxed into.

  Or whether you have told them not to believe any of the crap they have been 'indoctrinated' with at school and tried to educate them according to your beliefs instead.

The only thing I've ever had to say was, make sure nobody takes you for a mug and try your best to ensure you use your own judgement before you simply go with any flow.

The trouble is that kids by nature tend to ask questions about the world and so far you don't seem to know the first thing about 'your' Earth.

By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.

That's the basic nature of the herd that are humans.

Asking questions is fine if the questions are the one's that are allowed.
Ask the wrong one and you are ridiculed.

Don't bother arguing this because I've seen enough of it, first hand...and not just by me asking those questions, either.

Getting a pat on the back by following the pied piper is all well and good and a safe enough choice...but it gains you nothing more than tunnelled thought processes with no way to veer off.
You are welcome to that.

You repeatedly acting like we only see in a line straight out from the tube such that for a 1 inch tube we only see 1 inch, and you continually denying that the blue line is there and reaches the eye is denying we have a FOV.

Your FOV would be 1 inch in a 1 inch diameter tube. What you see outside of that tube, is compressed images all a within that 1 inch diameter.
Nothing spans out unless you have refraction/reflection.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 05:36:43 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 06, 2021, 03:44:03 AM

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

I have a couple of somethings to say.  I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.

I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.

So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.

Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? 

You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.

You have no clue whatsoever.

By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.

Sorry... I disagree.  And I know disagreeing with you is absolutely pointless as your mind is made up no matter what. You don't care what anyone else says.

Science has constantly re-invented itself as new evidence comes to light.  A large part of modern physics is based on quantum theory.  Now that is not something I can 'prove' as correct myself but then no man is an island are they.

Go back just a century and cosmology was a very new branch of physics. We didn't know other galaxies existed.  But that is all lost with you because you don't even accept that stars exist let alone other galaxies. There was a big debate about the nature of the 'nebulae' back in 1920 based on two very different schools of thought.  So clearly that is evidence of how scientists of the past have 'questioned' the nature of what we see in the night sky.

So what you think those points of light circling overhead on a clear night are I haven't a clue.  I have my theories but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you know they are.  Because afterall you seem to think you know everything.  Think being the key word there.

You go on about 'proof' but what exactly IS proof?  All that I have been 'told' can be backed up by evidence which is completely and openly documented and explained with references to published material. 

Feel free to nail this, if you can.

Quote

By nature we are mimics. We are parrots.
We are sheep like.

Sorry... I disagree.  And I know disagreeing with you is absolutely pointless as your mind is made up no matter what. You don't care what anyone else says.

I absolutely care what people say. I just don't care for people trying to push nonsense whilst pretending they're some kind of intellectual scientist.

Science has constantly re-invented itself as new evidence comes to light.

And that should tell you something.

  A large part of modern physics is based on quantum theory.  Now that is not something I can 'prove' as correct myself but then no man is an island are they.

What about quantum theory makes any sense. Any ideas?
In a nutshell, what does it mean?

Go back just a century and cosmology was a very new branch of physics.
 We didn't know other galaxies existed.  But that is all lost with you because you don't even accept that stars exist let alone other galaxies.

I certainly don't believe any of what we're told as it is.
That doesn't mean there's not an amazing set up to Earth and the exterior to this cell.
But first we must know what we are before we can know what the rest is.
My guess is cells just like this one. But that's all I can do.
I can't pass it off as reality like the so called astrophysicists push out about galaxies and such.

There was a big debate about the nature of the 'nebulae' back in 1920 based on two very different schools of thought.  So clearly that is evidence of how scientists of the past have 'questioned' the nature of what we see in the night sky.

Just two. Was there any room for any more?
I mean, if there was two then one is right and one is wrong...or they're both wrong and it's open to a third or fourth, or fifth......right?

So what you think those points of light circling overhead on a clear night are I haven't a clue.

Points of light. Not big millions of miles in diameter burning balls of fire in a so called vacuum.

  I have my theories but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you know they are.

Points of light back to our eyes is my guess. Reflective light.
You don't have your theories. Your stuff is handed to you on a plate and you parrot that...nothing more.

  Because afterall you seem to think you know everything.  Think being the key word there.

Are you getting angry?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 09:06:15 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 06:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 05:37:14 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 04:33:07 AM

If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.

Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?

Im also saying level tube.

Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.

This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?


Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.

Somehow the actual question seems to have been deleted and changed into some other nonsense.
Somehow.

So ive reposted.
See above in large font

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 06, 2021, 07:04:07 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 09:06:15 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 06:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 05:37:14 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 05, 2021, 04:33:07 AM

If you are standing at the perfect distance away from a tree, looking through a tube so that you can see the foot of the tree, which is on the ground, then the light from the foot of the tree (below your level plumb line of sight) is coming up at an angle into the tube into your eye.
Angled.
Not level.

Of course if you angle your tube. But I'm talking about level. Can't you grasp that?

Im also saying level tube.

Level tube, at height you, at distance X so that you can see the foot of the tree.

This seems to have been over looked.
Yes/ no, sceppy?


Regardless of level scope or not, the simple tube from jja shows the FIELD OF VIEW has light coming up from angle.
Leveling doesnt disprove this and a TO SCALE DRAWING shows the earths gentle sloping away will still be visible.
You make point yourself.

Somehow the actual question seems to have been deleted and changed into some other nonsense.
Somehow.

So ive reposted.
See above in large font

Try something better. I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 05:04:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 05:36:43 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 06, 2021, 03:44:03 AM

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

I have a couple of somethings to say.  I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.

I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.

So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.

Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? 

You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.

You have no clue whatsoever.

Lol!  I'm the clueless one!  I've used vhf hand held radios, during searches for missing persons in rough terrain, which guess what? They are line of sight limited also. Limited to guess what?  Yep. The distance to the horizon - about 5 km. So much for the horizon being theoretical, huh? 

Try to separate your astronomical horizon from the true horizon, sceptimatic, if you can. I'll try to help you on this leg of your journey.

Oh, by the way, I've got a spare earth globe in my living room. Would you like me to send it to you for your birthday? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 05:04:10 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 05:04:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 05:36:43 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 06, 2021, 03:44:03 AM

Still being ignored i see.
Probaly because im right.
Its not that you dont want to engage because clearly you are still actively engaging here.

You're not being ignored. I'll answer when you have something to say.

I have a couple of somethings to say.  I'm still keen to find out if you have a globe earth model sitting next to your home computer, like I do? It comes in handy from time to time.

I'm also keen to hear an explanation of the horizon being theoretical and imaginary, when in World War 2, distance to the horizon was important knowledge in the use of vhf radar which travels in straight lines, for locating enemy ships and submarines. Afterall, the curve of earth and the sum of two antennae heights, are what determine a vhf radio range. The limits of this radar, led to the invention of over the horizon radar which bounces radar signals off the ionosphere.

So, the horizon is a physical line afterall, which stops vhf radar.

Care to reconsider your theoretical horizon, Sceptimatic? 

You're talking about the astronomical horizon. Which we've already discussed. Here, I'm referring to the true horizon.

You have no clue whatsoever.

Lol!  I'm the clueless one!  I've used vhf hand held radios, during searches for missing persons in rough terrain, which guess what? They are line of sight limited also. Limited to guess what?  Yep. The distance to the horizon - about 5 km. So much for the horizon being theoretical, huh? 

Try to separate your astronomical horizon from the true horizon, sceptimatic, if you can. I'll try to help you on this leg of your journey.

Oh, by the way, I've got a spare earth globe in my living room. Would you like me to send it to you for your birthday? 

Like I said, you have no clue.

Are you getting angry?
I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.

Angry?  Not in the least.  But if what you see through a simple tube is more convincing as evidence to you that you are right and that all the scientific experiments that are carried out today are just spoon-feeding lies to the rest then fair enough. 

Why would you think that the stars are some sort of reflection? What leads you to that conclusion? How much have you studied or attempted to investigate those points of light in the sky?

Like I said, you have no clue.

Here's a clue.  If you haven't performed any experiments and others have, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.

Like I said, you have no clue.

That's rich coming from someone who preaches about being an 'alternative thinker', dismisses the whole of science yet doesn't seem to be able to tell us anything about his 'alternative' Earth. Who is it that has 'no clue'?

I question what I question. I have my thoughts on many things. That's not thinking I know everything, it's simply thinking against the served platter that we are given and told not to leave scraps.

Why would so many people tell the same lies?  And for so long?  You seem to think that the whole of science as we know it is based around lies.  Why?  One person cannot possibly prove everything that is true and real for themselves.  We simply don't live that long.  So at various stages in our lives we have to trust and respect the word of others. 

For example I cannot personally prove that climate change exists.  So should I refuse to accept all the evidence that I hear about on TV and on the internet as fabrication and lies? Until I can prove it is real for myself?  And if so how shall I go about doing that?

I have never seen a live polar bear with my own eyes. So should I refuse to accept that polar bears exist until I have seen one with my own eyes?

When it comes to proof you will happily accept anything that seems to you to 'prove' your beliefs. Including what you see through a toilet roll or whatever. But outside of that you dismiss everything as an apparently deliberate attempt to 'dupe' you.  Why are you so obsessed about people lying to you?

When I look through my handheld spectroscope (identical to the one below)

https://amzn.to/2MAmWIJ

At the sky I see a spectrum with absorption lines identical to the know lines in the Suns spectrum.  That is not surprisingly because the sky during the day is illuminated by sunlight.

Then at night I aim my telescope fitted with a diffraction grating filter at different stars.  In each case I see the same bright spectrum sequence of colours as I do in the Sun and I also see dark lines just like I do in the Suns spectrum.  But for each star I see a different pattern of lines.

What do you conclude from that?