What would change your mind?

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 01, 2021, 10:41:05 AM

Been away for a bit.  I see scepti is just as clueless as always.  How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 30, 2021, 12:13:18 AM

At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.

There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.

If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.

They would not sit upright and sunk.


Let's put it more simple.


If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.

However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.

It's nonsense.

To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree.  That's all there is to it.

More simply, the Earth is quite a bit larger than he likes to pretend in his multiple strawman arguments.   Ooh ask him about FOV and "level sight.  That was a fantastic self own he did, but he doesn't realize it still.

Hello/ Could i send you a PM to ask you about something and how would you theoritically 'solve' this
using the density theory?

Feel free.

Oh, you mean the supposed magical force that supposedly keeps everything falling down towards the supposed centre of the earth? That same supposedmagical force that stops me flapping my arms and flying like a bird. Yes, I think I'm familiar with that supposed magical force.

Yep, that supposed magical force.

It's the magical force that supposedly allows water in a cup of water to fall down onto a basketball, and continue travelling down towards the ground beneath the basketball.

The name most folk know for this supposed magical force, is gravity.

Of course most know. That's what they've been bullied into.
The silly part is, none of you know what it is as a force. You just accept it because the magicians sold it to you and you basically, bought it..

There is more magic required to believe your world view, sceptimatic.

More logical. The magical is what you lot have been told to accept by the magicians.

Magical properties of atmospheric stacking.

Logical.
Magical is for your global mindset.

The magical quality of the horizon to magically compress light.

The horizon doesn't compress light, the atmosphere obscures objects that light reflects back off.
The horizon is your converbence  (theoretical) line.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 09:20:56 PM

Quote from: Stash on May 05, 2021, 09:58:53 AM

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.

Just curious if you have utilized modern plane transport even though all of those involved rely on a globe earth for navigation from point A to B, especially longer haul flights.

How do you reconcile that you use technology predicated on a globe earth, arrive where you intend to arrive, presumably safely?

If you think the airline industry is lying/faking globe earth tech for navigation, then what are they actually using instead? As in, more specifically, what flat earth non-globe maps/systems are they actually using?

I use lots of technology that is built on Earth.
I'm not using technology that is built on a spinning globe fantasy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 01, 2021, 10:41:05 AM

Been away for a bit.  I see scepti is just as clueless as always.  How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 30, 2021, 12:13:18 AM

At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.

There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.

If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.

They would not sit upright and sunk.


Let's put it more simple.


If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.

However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.

It's nonsense.

To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree.  That's all there is to it.

If that's the case then the turbines you see that are three quarters obscured are not tilted, but they should be if that much was lost to a so called globe.

Either you can't see that or you just don't get it.
It's the same argument with your so called Earth, spinning.
You people argue it's not spinning fast because it rotates once in 24 hours and try to tell people to use a football and turn it over 24 hours and see how slow it is.Then in the next breath you tell people that the Earth's an oblate spheroid because of the spin which flattens the poles and bulges the equator.


Same type of nonsense.


It really is laughable.

Quote from: Stash on May 06, 2021, 02:30:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2021, 09:20:56 PM

Quote from: Stash on May 05, 2021, 09:58:53 AM

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.

Just curious if you have utilized modern plane transport even though all of those involved rely on a globe earth for navigation from point A to B, especially longer haul flights.

How do you reconcile that you use technology predicated on a globe earth, arrive where you intend to arrive, presumably safely?

If you think the airline industry is lying/faking globe earth tech for navigation, then what are they actually using instead? As in, more specifically, what flat earth non-globe maps/systems are they actually using?

I use lots of technology that is built on Earth.
I'm not using technology that is built on a spinning globe fantasy.

Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 06, 2021, 07:06:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 01, 2021, 10:41:05 AM

Been away for a bit.  I see scepti is just as clueless as always.  How many tubes and crosshairs does he require now?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 30, 2021, 12:13:18 AM

At that distance it would be one hell of a tilt and you know it, if it was a supposed globe.

There would be a 1 degree tilt after 110 kilometers.

If those turbines were as low over a so called curve as made out then they would be titled back over by a good margin if that was a so called curved Earth, downward and away.

They would not sit upright and sunk.


Let's put it more simple.


If you were arguing for the disappearance of most of the upright of the turbine by telling me it literally sank into the water, I'd be quite happy to go along with it.
I'd go along with it because I'd see an upright turbine and not a tilted turbine.

However, you're arguing for a turbine falling back over from sight, down a curve and yet still giving the appearance of a plumb structure, despite three quarters of it, obscured.

It's nonsense.

To put it simply, the turbines would need to be 110km away to be tilted away from the observer 1 degree.  That's all there is to it.

If that's the case then the turbines you see that are three quarters obscured are not tilted, but they should be if that much was lost to a so called globe.

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?

Nobody is using any globe to navigate so you can sit and argue it all day long if you want....but, just remember, you do not have a clue.
You've red up on it and decided it's true and that's absolutely fine with me. I don't expect you to think any other way than what you're trained to think.

You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.

Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining  the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or  other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.
Not only that but yourself would be angled the opposite way and yet you would be looking level.


It doesn't add up to logic because it doesn't happen.

What does happen is very clear logic if people actually bothered to use it.
Atmospheric mass over a level distance through varying layers of the stacked atmosphere at that eye height, creates a lower light shut out against the upper light.
A convergence of light shades in which the below cannot reflect back to the eye, so you lose whatever is within that part and see what is above it, which is why you see the upper parts of objects.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine. 

But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole? 

How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world?  It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided.     Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 10:46:54 PM

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.

Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.

Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree. 

Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry?  What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt? 

If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine. 

But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole? 

How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world?  It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided.     Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?

You need to have a little bit of understanding of my theory if you want answers.
Just coming out with what you did above tells me you have taken no real notice.


The best thing to do if you want to understand, even if you sit back and laugh,....is to put your global model to the side of your brain; file it away under, to be adhered to once alternate theory is understood. Or something like that.


To understand my theory you need to start at the beginning.
You need to understand how low pressure works from my side.
You need to understand how molecules work from my side.

You then need to start doing a jigsaw, ensuring you have all the pieces handed to you, in the places selected for you to see the alternate picture to the one you have filed away.


Now here's the key.
You're not going to get anywhere if you ride on the back of those who cannot, will not understand and prefer ridicule.
You will never understand if you put barriers up at every answer.


You will understand if you try your utmost to see it from my side.
What you do with that when you feel you understand it, is entirely up to you but it will save you a lot of time just throwing in comments like you do and taking many steps back, like Kabool and Jackblack, etc, who think attempted ridicule will gain them some kind of upper hand.


It's meat and drink to me.

If you want to carry on the way you're going then, I'm absolutely fine with it and you'll need to be fine with the same stuff you're getting.

If it interests you then put the effort in and don't ride the coat tails of the posse. Ride your own machine and follow your own track.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:03:45 PM

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 10:46:54 PM

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.

Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.

Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree. 

Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry?  What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt? 

If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.

You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.


Like I said about your so called spin of your Earth being so slow as to be one revolution in 24 hours as an argument how we aren't feeling anything and then the next minute it's bulging out at your equator, due to this so called fast spin.


The nonsense is painfully laughable.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:25:49 PM

You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.

It doesn't look perfectly plumb to me, especially in the lower left of the image. It appears to be tilted slightly(or if I change the meaning of words as you do, MASSIVELY ) backwards.
Can you prove that it is plumb (with respect to the observer) and not tilted backwards? Just how different do you think it would appear even if was massively tilted? What angle is massive tilt? Do you think it should be tilted 90°?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:25:49 PM

Like I said about your so called spin of your Earth being so slow as to be one revolution in 24 hours as an argument how we aren't feeling anything and then the next minute it's bulging out at your equator, due to this so called fast spin.

No one is claiming the bulge is caused by a fast spin. It is because it has been spinning slowly for a MASSIVE amount of time.


Your nonsense strawman is painfully laughable.

Once you reach 100 posts I'll go in depth with you.

Quote from: Stash on May 06, 2021, 10:07:12 PM

Unfortunately for you when you fly on a plane you're traveling via globe earth tech/navigation. Which seems oddly contradictory. At a minimum, ironic. Unless of course you can say what tech/maps/navigation they use that is based on your flat earth. If so, what flat earth tech/maps/navigation do they use?

Nobody is using any globe to navigate so you can sit and argue it all day long if you want....but, just remember, you do not have a clue.
You've red up on it and decided it's true and that's absolutely fine with me. I don't expect you to think any other way than what you're trained to think.

I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true". It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide. So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?

What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?

You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.

Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?

Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining  the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or  other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model? I've provided evidence that they do. Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't. See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.

What a piss weak dodge of questions you are unable to answer.

After 100 posts you get all the answers you require.
Put the effort in.

I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true".

It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide.

No it's not. It's called massively appealing to authority.

So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?

Water level.
That's all that's really needed.

What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?

An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.

Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?

Water level.

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining  the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or  other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?

Water level.

I've provided evidence that they do.

No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.

Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.

Water level.

See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.

I have.

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 11:08:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

You can believe it is fantasy, that's fine. 

But a legitimate question in response would be to ask how do they navigate in your own fantasy world of a WorldCell under an Ice Dome lit by the holographic projections from the Magic Crystal at the north pole? 

How does a plane choose a direction to take in your imaginary world?  It is curving and sloping, with areas that are magically protected that need to be avoided.     Is there some sort of magical map that only pilots can see but can not share with anyone?

You need to have a little bit of understanding of my theory if you want answers.
Just coming out with what you did above tells me you have taken no real notice.


The best thing to do if you want to understand, even if you sit back and laugh,....is to put your global model to the side of your brain; file it away under, to be adhered to once alternate theory is understood. Or something like that.


To understand my theory you need to start at the beginning.
You need to understand how low pressure works from my side.
You need to understand how molecules work from my side.

You then need to start doing a jigsaw, ensuring you have all the pieces handed to you, in the places selected for you to see the alternate picture to the one you have filed away.


Now here's the key.
You're not going to get anywhere if you ride on the back of those who cannot, will not understand and prefer ridicule.
You will never understand if you put barriers up at every answer.


You will understand if you try your utmost to see it from my side.
What you do with that when you feel you understand it, is entirely up to you but it will save you a lot of time just throwing in comments like you do and taking many steps back, like Kabool and Jackblack, etc, who think attempted ridicule will gain them some kind of upper hand.


It's meat and drink to me.

If you want to carry on the way you're going then, I'm absolutely fine with it and you'll need to be fine with the same stuff you're getting.

If it interests you then put the effort in and don't ride the coat tails of the posse. Ride your own machine and follow your own track.

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination. 

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 11:11:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:03:45 PM

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 10:46:54 PM

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.

Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.

Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree. 

Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry?  What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt? 

If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.

You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively[/i] away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.

Yes, for maybe the 10th time, I understand you believe this. 

Your belief that there would have to be a "massive tilt" is not in doubt.

What I am asking is WHY you believe this?  Why do you think there has to be a massive tilt if the lower part is obscured?   Why can not the tilt be tiny?

What reasoning, if any, do you use to come to this opinion?

If you can not answer, are we not left with the conclusion that you have no reasoning, and this is just your simple belief?   

Quote from: Stash on May 06, 2021, 11:56:04 PM

I already gave you evidence that airlines do use globe tech/maps/navigation. Referencing the WGS-84 spheroid earth model. It's not me "deciding it's true".

It's called evidence. Something which you never seem to provide.

No it's not. It's called massively appealing to authority.

Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence. Is trusting a pilot to safely get all the passengers from A to B using all of their skill, training, and tech an "appeal to authority"?

What would be a non-appeal to authority? Only things you can verify for yourself? That means you would have to know exactly how to fly and navigate a commercial airliner and actually do it yourself.

If pilots and airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid model as they claim they do and all references they have show that they do, that's referred to as evidence. Apparently you have no idea what evidence is.

Quote from: Stash

So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?

Water level.
That's all that's really needed.

"Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.

Got it. So you concede the fact that you have no evidence to counter that airlines use the WGS-84 spheroid model. Check.

Quote from: Stash

What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?

An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.

That's not counter evidence. That's you just appealing to your own opinion. Your argument is basically, "Because I said so..." That is pathetically weak. Evidence is required - Directly countering the fact that airlines use the WGS-84 model for navigation.

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.

Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?

Water level.

Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining  the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or  other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?

Water level.

Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. You need to provide evidence that they don't. Even though all references point to the fact that they do. Stomping your feet yelling "water level" has nothing to do with the systems and models used in modern air travel/navigation.

Quote from: Stash

I've provided evidence that they do.

No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.

You obviously have no idea what evidence is.

Quote from: Stash

Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.

Water level.

That's not evidence against the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. Try and stick to the actual topic and show us what flat earth maps/navigation airliners use. Btw, ships travel on water, planes fly in the air.

Quote from: Stash

See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.

I have.

No you haven't. What evidence have you provided that counters the fact that airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model as referenced? What flat earth maps do they use? What flat earth routes do they use? Do they use the map in your avatar? There's gobs of evidence that they don't. Flying times alone, well documented, prove they don't use your avatar map. So which one do you claim they use?

Evidence is required. If you have none, well, then you just simply concede the point. Opinion or belief has no place here. Just evidence.

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.

All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:25:49 PM

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 11:11:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 11:03:45 PM

Quote from: sobchak on May 06, 2021, 10:46:54 PM

Should they?  Why?  Why are you of this opinion?  Why do you imagine this should be the case?

We know you believe this, that you really really really believe this, but why?  What thought process, what chain of association, do you use to imagine this to be the case?

Or do you not really do any of that, and just go with what you immediately feel and then just tenaciously stick to it?

Could you be wrong here?

Like I said before. If your turbines are as sunk down from sight due to what you people believe is a curve then for them to sink they would have to angle away to appear to sink.

Sure, they would have to angle away, but you say it should be a massive tilt.

Geometry says it should be less than 1 degree. 

Im wondering how you come to an opinion that is contrary to geometry?  What thought process are you using to think that it has to be "massive" tilt as compared to a tiny tilt? 

If you are not using any, and just feel this way, you can just say so.

You are using geometry based on your globe being 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing a turbine that you believe is on that and absolutely will not see.... that, for it to be as sunk as we see it, it has to tilt massively[/i] away from your eyes as well as you titling away from that.....if that was a globe.

Yes, for maybe the 10th time, I understand you believe this. 

Your belief that there would have to be a "massive tilt" is not in doubt.

What I am asking is WHY you believe this?  Why do you think there has to be a massive tilt if the lower part is obscured?   Why can not the tilt be tiny?

What reasoning, if any, do you use to come to this opinion?

If you can not answer, are we not left with the conclusion that you have no reasoning, and this is just your simple belief?

Let's get this right so you understand me better.


They say the horizon to our view is generally about 3 miles.

By view we see many objects from boarts and turbines and buildings sitting atop of the horizon
(theoretical) line as we perceive it to be.

Globaiists have us believe the horizon line is the hump in the Earth. The curve up then atop then down with whatever objects go down with it.


This is what you people believe/are told.


At just 3 miles the drop would be 6 feet by global calculations, as we're told.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.


Now tell me at just 5 miles how much you would lose of a turbine?
And remember when you calculate this you have to understand that you need to tip the turbine at a more acute angle to have more of the bottom disappear whilst you are stood looking level and yet also be tilted back from he object, meaning you would need to angle your view to the level.


Can't you see how stupid it all is?

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 12:33:30 AM

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.

All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.

How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?

Let's get this right so you understand me better.

Globaiists have us believe the horizon line is the hump in the Earth. The curve up then atop then down with whatever objects go down with it.

This is what you people believe/are told.

What???  You seriously think that when people look out over the water, they think the water rises up like a hump in front of them???

How did you come to this point?  This is certainly nothing I have ever been told or believe.

At just 3 miles the drop would be 6 feet by global calculations, as we're told.
Basically it would have to be a tilt enough to lose 6 feet of the object. It cannot be anything else if the Earth was a globe.

And how much tilt do you think this would be and WHY?  Is it "massive" or is it tiny and again, WHY? 

Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.

Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.

Is trusting a pilot to safely get all the passengers from A to B using all of their skill, training, and tech an "appeal to authority"?

Trusting a pilot to get you safely to your destination proves nothing more than having faith in your pilot to follow navigation channels and flight instructions of handling and maintenance.

What would be a non-appeal to authority?
Only things you can verify for yourself?

Yep.
Things which you can verify after being told, then you can appeal to your own knowledge based on what you found to be correct.
Other than that you are reliant on a story which you do not know whether it is fiction or non-fiction.

That means you would have to know exactly how to fly and navigate a commercial airliner and actually do it yourself.

Anyone would have to learn how to navigate an airliner to fly i themselves if they wanted to be a pilot.

If pilots and airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid model as they claim they do and all references they have show that they do, that's referred to as evidence. Apparently you have no idea what evidence is.

Evidence of what?
They're flying, so tell me what they're doing in the plane to fly over a globe, like you say.
Tell me how they know.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?

Water level.
That's all that's really needed.

"Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.

There is no fact of a spheroid model of Earth to get you from A to B.
Water level is more than enough to counter that nonsense.




 

Got it. So you concede the fact that you have no evidence to counter that airlines use the WGS-84 spheroid model. Check.

Yes, I do. Water level.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?

An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.

That's not counter evidence. That's you just appealing to your own opinion. Your argument is basically, "Because I said so..." That is pathetically weak. Evidence is required - Directly countering the fact that airlines use the WGS-84 model for navigation.

No. I'm appealing to legitimate physical, observable, testable and repeatable data that water conforms to any container it is n and it is level and always finds its level, because the Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk/run/sail or fly upon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.

Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?

Water level.

Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.

Once again, there is no fact of a spheroid Earth and water level dismisses the spheroid model very easily.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 06, 2021, 10:56:50 PM

Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining  the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or  other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.

Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.

Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?

Water level.

Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. You need to provide evidence that they don't. Even though all references point to the fact that they do. Stomping your feet yelling "water level" has nothing to do with the systems and models used in modern air travel/navigation.

I'm not yelling for water level, I'm simply telling you water level is there for all to see, test and repeatedly test which shows we do not walk, run, sail or fly on or over a spheroid Earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

I've provided evidence that they do.

No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.

You obviously have no idea what evidence is.

Clearly you do not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.

Water level.

That's not evidence against the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.

Water level says they don't. As simple and as easy as that.

Try and stick to the actual topic and show us what flat earth maps/navigation airliners use. Btw, ships travel on water, planes fly in the air.

Correct, ships do travel on water and planes do fly in air....but none of them do this on or over any oblate spinning spheroid.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: Stash

See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.

I have.

No you haven't. What evidence have you provided that counters the fact that airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model as referenced?

Water level.

What flat earth maps do they use?

Whatever they use.

What flat earth routes do they use?

It depends on the terrain.
Water or ground if they can avoid going over mountains and hills, etc.

Do they use the map in your avatar?

I don't know what map they use. One that navigates the known parts of Earth, which none of it being an oblate spinning spheroid.

There's gobs of evidence that they don't. Flying times alone, well documented, prove they don't use your avatar map. So which one do you claim they use?

There's no real proof of anything to do with a spinning global Earth.
Any so called evidence is nothing more than story telling.

Evidence is required. If you have none, well, then you just simply concede the point.

I won't be conceding any point.
Water level is more than enough to keep any point against a global spinning Earth nonsense, valid as a legitimate argument.
You have nothing.

Opinion or belief has no place here. Just evidence.

Opinions and beliefs have places everywhere, just as much as potential truth's.
The issue arises when investigating/debating them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 01:13:28 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 12:33:30 AM

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.

All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.

How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?

Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.

What???  You seriously think that when people look out over the water, they think the water rises up like a hump in front of them???

I'm sure you can grasp it.
If you're stood on a ball and looking at something in the distance, on that ball you have to be tilted and so does the object you are looking towards.
No matter where you would be on a ball you would be looking over a curve that is down and away from you. If a person was looking right back at you from a distance then that person would also be looking  over a curve that is down an away from their view.


It means that, to an observer  at it, that observer would see two people tilted backward whilst facing each other and if they were looking horizontally level toward each other, then they would never see each others eyes.


Let's be clear. The globe is complete nonsense, it really is. Logic goes out of the window when a globe is argued for.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 01:31:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 01:13:28 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 12:33:30 AM

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.

All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.

How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?

Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.

How do the navigators know which direction to point the straight line in your world?

A simple compass.

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 01:31:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2021, 01:13:28 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 12:33:30 AM

Yes, I understand you have a whole world in your imagination, and that everything works differently there from large to small.   I like your imaginary world in fact, from the strange stacked anisotropic elastic gobstopper atmosphere that holds us all down, to the magic crystal at the center of the north pole that gives us our holographic projections of the sun, moon, and stars. 

I'm just wondering though how navigation works in your imagined world.  I want to fly a plane from San Francisco to Tokyo, how would I choose which direction to go in your mind? 

Is this even possible in your imagination?  Or is navigation not a thing that you really worked out in your fantasy world? 

It is okay if you haven't made up some navigation method, but to someone looking in from the outside at your story, it does seem odd that you have made up stories about the fundamental nature of matter but simple things like this remain unexplored in your imagination.

All you would do, just like any flight, is to fly to a point in a straight line or a zig zag depending on stops, until you have to deviate to the airport by turning.

How do you know which direction to point the straight line in your world?

Follow the pattern set out by the navigators.
Numbered headings seems to be the way to those points.

So in your imagined world, there are a group of "Navigators" who provide patterns for travelers to use?  Cool.

How do you imagine they do it?  Do they have a secret "true" map of the world they use?