What would change your mind?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 08:46:48 AM

here's your drawing that if we took it TO SCALE, the vertical stick is height is 1:5 the diameter of the circle.

1:5.

ONE TO FIVE

so your massive tilt is 20x that of my mathed estimate.

20x!!

your stick's altitude is roughly 2,500km in the air.
2,500KM
KILOMETER.

how high do airlines fly?
not that high.

keep failing at basic basicness

This set up proves your sun does not set and be brought back by going up a tower height.

The tilt, the tilt.

proves you have to be above 2,500km above the ground.
how far is 2,500km up?

are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.

Quote from: Stash on May 04, 2021, 11:43:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2021, 11:23:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 04, 2021, 03:07:42 PM

Yes, we have.

No, you haven't.

What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.

What difference does it make where I've flown to?

I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?

Quote from: Stash on May 04, 2021, 11:43:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2021, 11:23:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 04, 2021, 03:07:42 PM

Yes, we have.

No, you haven't.

What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.

What difference does it make where I've flown to?

I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?

Edit: My longest was a non-stop from San Francisco (SFO) to Milan (MXP). What's yours?

If you lot believe your turbines are dipped well below sight like you believe going down a curve then your tilt would be massively evident.
I'm not interested in your so called global calculations, just the observations.

It is quite obvious that you aren't interested in the calculations as they irrefutably show that that claim of yours is an outright lie.
You have no way to actually object to the math, so you just do whatever you can to dismiss it or ignore it.

Ignoring, what?

The math, which irrefutably shows you are wrong.

Again, it doesn't matter if you want to claim that the RE is real or fantasy.
You made a claim about what should be happening on that RE. You claimed it would produce a massive tilt.
If that outright lie of yours was actually true you would be able to use math based upon the RE to substantiate it. Again, this is the case regardless of if you think the RE is real or fantasy.
Likewise, we can, and have, provided math based upon the RE that shows that claim is an outright lie, that the tilt is tiny. Again, this is the case regardless of if you think the RE is real or fantasy.

You dismissing the RE as fantasy doesn't mean you can then make whatever blatant lie you want to about it, and not be expected to justify it in any way.

There's absolutely no chance in hell that I'm wrong about not believing in a spinning globe that we are told we live upon. I'm 100% rigid on this.

So rigid you reject everything that shows you are wrong.
This rigidity is based upon nothing more than your irrational hatred of the globe.
If it was based upon rational thought and evidence you would deal with the math and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.

It all depends on what those math are and when it's required.

Math is required to support your claim that on the RE there would be a massive tilt.
Math is required to support your claim that on the RE you would see nothing but sky through a level tube.
Math is required to support your claim that you cannot see a downwards slope through a level tube.

Yet because that math shows you to be wrong, you just pretend it isn't needed.
But guess what?
Your baseless lies in no way justify themselves.
You need the math to justify your lies.
But the math shows that they are lies.

You first.

We already have. You just ignored them.

Remember:
360 degrees * 30 km / 40000 km = 0.27 degrees.
i.e. tiny tilt.

This set up proves your sun does not set and be brought back by going up a tower height.

No, it proves your extreme dishonesty, where yet again you pretend Earth is a tiny ball and pretend we don't have a FOV and instead can magically only see along a single line.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 05, 2021, 09:14:36 AM

So if light from an object can't make it to us from a couple miles away, how can the light from the sun reach when it's several thousand miles away.

Because the sun is the light that allows us to see objects, or anything.
If that light gets obscured then it doesn't reflect back.

What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?

are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.

I'd advise you to calm down.

I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?

I've flown many many times on planes and I've sat in many different seats looking out of windows.
I've been short and long distances.
I see very little of Earth below me as I fly, in terms of making anything out, unless I'm coming in to land or taking off.


So how about you get to the point and if you can't use me, use you to get to that point.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 12:12:23 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 04, 2021, 11:43:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2021, 11:23:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 04, 2021, 03:07:42 PM

Yes, we have.

No, you haven't.

What's the farthest route you've ever flown on a commercial airline? Name the city-to-city or airport-to-airport.

What difference does it make where I've flown to?

I'm curious if you've ever flown on an airliner before and if so, the longest distance. Have you and if so, what was the longest distance from where to where?

Edit: My longest was a non-stop from San Francisco (SFO) to Milan (MXP). What's yours?

It doesn't matter what mine was.
Let's deal with yours, seeing as that's what you seem to be getting at.

Explain how you're going to prove your spinning globe?

It is quite obvious that you aren't interested in the calculations as they irrefutably show that that claim of yours is an outright lie.

It's quite obvious that those turbines being as low as they are over a short distance, is an issue for your globe, so to get around it you start to use yur Earth circumference as some kind of argument for no visible tilt, yet can't see how silly it is when looking at how much of those turbines are obscured but yet still plumb.

The global arguments in many cases are embarrassing.
Any answers will do when simplicity and logic calls it out.

What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?

The atmosphere.
I just explained it.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 05, 2021, 04:31:08 PM

What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?

The atmosphere.
I just explained it.

No
You said its atmosphere but you definitely didnt explain it.

And
If it were atmosphere it would make things hazy, not cropped.
If you want to rxplain it show us why atmosphere crops the view.
Draw a picture as to what is ahpoening to the light as it passss through distance.

Show it how if the viewers height changes to 100ft up how magically they can see more of the bottom.
Because air density doesnt change all that drastically in 100ft.
If it did you woildnt be able to see airplanes above.
Hmmmm....

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 09:44:38 AM

are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.

I'd advise you to calm down.

Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 09:32:42 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 05, 2021, 04:31:08 PM

What is obscuring the light to prevent the light from being reflected back?

The atmosphere.
I just explained it.

No
You said its atmosphere but you definitely didnt explain it.

And
If it were atmosphere it would make things hazy, not cropped.
If you want to rxplain it show us why atmosphere crops the view.
Draw a picture as to what is ahpoening to the light as it passss through distance.

Show it how if the viewers height changes to 100ft up how magically they can see more of the bottom.
Because air density doesnt change all that drastically in 100ft.
If it did you woildnt be able to see airplanes above.
Hmmmm....

Air density massively changes.
As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 09:17:22 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 09:44:38 AM

are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.

I'd advise you to calm down.

Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.

You're not proving how circles and triangles work. You're trying to prove your spinning globe, so get on with it.

As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.

This is just what you have imagined right?  This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?

Good, sceptimatic, good.

Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?

"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.

What do you mean I can't figure out alts?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 10:28:01 PM

As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.

This is just what you have imagined right?  This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?

Nahhh, it's what I observe and by using simple logic and not relying on nonsensical global pretences.

Good, sceptimatic, good.

Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?

"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.

Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?

Are many landmasses, flattish?
The concave area the sea/waters sit in.

The water itself is flattish due to ripples.

Calm water by eye, is flat and level.

Let me make this clear to you.
Water does not sit in, nor conform to a convex curve and get to be a large body of water.


Here's why....and it's so simple when indoctrinated global spectacles are taken off.

If you set out any convex object and pour water over it, it will not stay and form part of that object. It will run off.
It will run off because water requires something concave to conform to and sit within.

The only thing that can alter that is by telling people there is a magical force that keeps it on a convex object because, if you don't, young minds get curious and ask the correct question of " but water finds its own level in a container and would run off anything that can't contain it....especially convexity."


When magic is entered into it to answer the question, young minds tend to just follow that line of thought, because further questioning of that magic will be met with ridicule and even bullying in bigger form, enough to make many take a wide berth.


To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 10:10:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 09:17:22 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 09:44:38 AM

are you stupid?
you must be stupid.
say another stupid thing.

I'd advise you to calm down.

Id advise you to not hinge your entire arguement on a very easily provable-disprovable fact on how circles and triangles work.

You're not proving how circles and triangles work. You're trying to prove your spinning globe, so get on with it.

What shape would the globe be if we did a 2dimensional representation of it?

What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?



Hmmm.... shapes.



And its been gott'n on.
You just have been avoiding it.
You get on.

Quote from: sobchak on May 05, 2021, 10:47:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 10:28:01 PM

As for seeing planes above, you see them because of ever less dense atmosphere and more light that can propagate it.
The biggest issue is losing light is looking horizontally through stacked layers.

This is just what you have imagined right?  This explanation is just what you feel and what you can dream up, right?

Nahhh, it's what I observe and by using simple logic and not relying on nonsensical global pretences.

So it is what you make up based on what you think?

Good, sceptimatic, good.

Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?

"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.

What do you mean I can't figure out alts?

Scrabble doesnt rely on definitions.
Just spelling.

What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?

Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 05, 2021, 10:47:57 PM

Good, sceptimatic, good.

Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?

"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.

Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?

No
Theybare not flat
Andnif you nnotice, when the mountain start turning away from you, you get a hypothetical line against the sky - a sort of "horizon" if you will of where the mountian side wraps away from you and yoyr eyes cease to see mountain and see sky behind.

But if you drove left 100ft, yoy wiuld see a bit more mountain than from before, but still eventually that dang side would be there again, that theoretical line against the sky.

Interesting...

Interesting....

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 11:04:13 PM

What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?

Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.

A triangle.
The shape would be a triangle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 11:02:39 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 05, 2021, 10:47:57 PM

Good, sceptimatic, good.

Are you able to fly internationally from where you are on this "flattish" rock?

"Flattish". What the hell does "flattish" mean? If a surface isn't flat, it's curved. Your friends must love playing scrabble with you sceptimatic, with all the words you invent.

Are hills flat?
Are mountains flat?
Is rough terrain flat?

No
Theybare not flat
Andnif you nnotice, when the mountain start turning away from you, you get a hypothetical line against the sky - a sort of "horizon" if you will of where the mountian side wraps away from you and yoyr eyes cease to see mountain and see sky behind.

But if you drove left 100ft, yoy wiuld see a bit more mountain than from before, but still eventually that dang side would be there again, that theoretical line against the sky.

Interesting...

Interesting....

Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.


Hence the theoretical line and why your turbines and buildings lose their bases over distance.

To make adults believe it once they leave that bullying behind, is simple saturation of the nonsense aided by a few choice actors posing as scientists.

Again, this is what you feel and imagine, right?  You have no evidence for the global conspiracy required, it is just a flight of fancy in your mind.   

Same for your imagination that you have figure it out.  Somehow, someone who cant do the most basic geometric considerations has through the power of their mind unlocked the secrets of the world around us.

I mean, it makes good (well, some would think otherwise here) fiction, but it has no basis in reality outside of your own mind. 

Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.

Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right?  That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 11:04:13 PM

What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?

Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.

It should be calculatble this dense croping.

Heres an analogy nonanalogy.

Go look at videos of whales in the ocean.
Water has 1000x the density (conventipnal defintion) of air.
See how they hazy and then come into view?
Not cropped.

If its density-denP of air that crops heights then there should be some sort chart you could make us.


And if you cant

Then im sure you can draw us a triangle showing the extra distance of views between a person at ground level looking 30km out to sea and someone 100ft up on a tower looking at same point.

Triangles!

How much more atmoshphere does the light have to go through.

And what air density changes at 100ft?

Careful.
These are very easily measurable numbers here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 11:08:39 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 05, 2021, 11:04:13 PM

What shape would it make when light rays from a level ground distance, travel at an upward angle towards our elevated eyes?

Your elevated eyes would create an angled view through less to more dense atmosphere.
It means you get to see more of a distant object because of that higher angle.

A triangle.
The shape would be a triangle.

When you look up or down from horizontal but never true vertical, then you angle your vision.

You're not looking at any triangle, just an angle.

If you want to draw a triangle or make one in the sand or point lasers, etc to make a triangle, then fine.

By simple sight to an object you are simply angling your view from on elevation to another or from an elevation to the ground or part of an object that is higher or lower than your level vision.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 11:12:50 PM

Nooooo.
A true horizon is the convergence of light shading through atmosphere, not physical objects/land.

Again, just to be clear, this is your opinion right?  That is, it has no demonstrable basis in reality and everyone should just take it as the musings of someone trying to build an alternative reality in their mind?

Haha can someone post a picture of a mountain?