What would change your mind?

I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.

Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.

I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.

Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.

And once more, are you going to address the questions which expose your nonsense, or will you continue to ignore them as you know you cannot answer them without exposing your nonsense?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2021, 09:25:10 PM

I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.

Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.

I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.

Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.

Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?


If it can't then what are you showing me and how do you know its real?
If it can then point me to where I can prove it to myself.

I'm serious. If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.

Up to now the proof I have is zero.....zilch.....nada.

Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?

Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.

Like I said, you get less than 1 pixel per km^2. So if you want to be able to see it on that you will need something very large. But feel free to go make that, or go buy your own satellite or satellite constellation.

If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.

Pure BS!
You have been provided pure logical proof that you are wrong, and you just ignore it.
You have no interest in ever accepting that you are wrong which is why you continually ignore logical arguments and continually refuse to answer what should be trivial questions.

How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 24, 2021, 10:13:25 AM

Quote

No...I want  you to stop going into a frenzy and typing too fast, making it a nonsense to read.

You mistake frenzy with typig in between red lights while driving or typeming with fat thumbs.

I'm going to stop responding to you unless I know you are not driving.
Until you prove to me you are not driving I will absolutely ignore anything you say from this point on.
Save any digs for when you clock off.

Red lights are stopping.
Green means driving.

When im on hold on the phone work phone,  ot mobile phone) im holding.
When a client comes on we re talking.

In the meanwhile
You can get on making that cicrcle you keep avoiding.
Because any responze i make will involve requesting that circle.
Hophop.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 25, 2021, 12:47:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2021, 09:25:10 PM

I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.

Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.

I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.

Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.

Can himawari show me a real time image of something I can check. I'll allow 1 hour...how fair is that?


If it can't then what are you showing me and how do you know its real?
If it can then point me to where I can prove it to myself.

I'm serious. If I had proof I'd have no qualms about believing a globe.

Up to now the proof I have is zero.....zilch.....nada.

Can ypu show us the 100%fact the sater is flat by showing us the massove tilt would exist if rhe world is round?
How much of a tilt would there be?
If the tilt is massive, and obivously its not, then the world is as you say it is.
Thats how a proof works.
So proof the tilt doesnt match reality.
Go for it.

Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.

Don't bother trying to argue and play games with me then pretend I'm the one not answering.

you are definitely the one NOT answering.

feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.

or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.

you are definitely the one NOT answering.

feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.

or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.

That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.


In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 25, 2021, 06:55:49 AM

you are definitely the one NOT answering.

feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.

or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.

That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.


In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

there's a difference between the "drop" for your LEVEL site and the hidden portion form LINE of site.
pick which one you think applies the 8in per mile rule of thumb.

circles and triangles and triangles.
try drawing them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2021, 09:25:10 PM

I've looked at all of them and none show real time imagery.

Define real time.
There is always going to be some delay.
"Live" TV is typically 30 s to a minute delayed.

I provided an example that had an image from ~ 20 minutes before I posted it.

Here it is again:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

This time the image is from 17 minutes ago.

And once more, are you going to address the questions which expose your nonsense, or will you continue to ignore them as you know you cannot answer them without exposing your nonsense?
How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?

Jack, how do we use that website in your link to get photos from a satellite in orbit, of where we are? Which image from 17 minutes earlier are you talking about? I didn't see any avenues to do that.

Can we forget the magical level tube for just one post?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2021, 07:14:48 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 25, 2021, 06:55:49 AM

you are definitely the one NOT answering.

feel free to let us know the tilt on the circle so we can compare it to reality and show the ball earth is incorrect.

or... continue on with your obvious games and continue being a POS.

That's better. You obviously can't be driving.
Let me know that you're not driving before you post and I can know to answer you.


In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

there's a difference between the "drop" for your LEVEL site and the hidden portion form LINE of site.
pick which one you think applies the 8in per mile rule of thumb.

circles and triangles and triangles.
try drawing them.

I think you're massively missing the point.
The only way an object can be dropped so low on your globe is if it is tilted away. I cannot be anything else, can it?
It can't just decide to sink down, plumb.
The only way you can lose a portion of the object is for it to tilt back away from the observer, if the Earth was a globe.

How else can it drop, other than tilt away from your sight, more and more over distance?


It's obviously nonsense but that's what you're implying and also denying, at the same time.

you're missing the point or keep dancing around answering simple questions.

people are able to look down.
so line of site IS different from drop from level.

draw the circle and the triangle.
i GUARANTEE it will prove your point and show the massive required drop and the massive required tilt IF the world was a ball.
since your calculated "required" tilt is NOT shown, then it will indeed prove the ball is nonsense.

so let ssee it.
draw the circle
draw the triangle.

Quote from: JJA on May 24, 2021, 11:17:25 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 24, 2021, 08:35:31 AM

Quote from: JJA on May 24, 2021, 08:24:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2021, 08:13:59 AM

Sooooo, shouldn't they be able to beam in pictures in real time or is that just out of technological reach?

If you want to watch pictures beamed in real time from orbit in space, just go here.  It's not out of technological reach at all.

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html

I see a static picture of a lens flare and some bozo mentioning some air filter is clean. How is this proof?

I've been told I shouldn't feed the trolls. I can't decide if this response is feeding or not.

You posted the link like it was some mind blowing proof but seriously that's what I saw and heard. I'm not saying it isn't real - just that it in no way is going to convince any flat earth believer that the Earth is a globe thanks to that

At least they got the colour of the sun right So sick of movies depicting it like its orange/yellow. If the sun really was yellow, then all the snow on Earth would look like someone pissed on it

You are putting words into my mouth here. How do you know I posted it like it was a "mind blowing link". Where did I say that?

As for the sun being yellow, uh, it does look yellow to us from the surface of the Earth. Look up Rayleigh Scattering before you start digging too deep of a hole here.

you're missing the point or keep dancing around answering simple questions.

people are able to look down.
so line of site IS different from drop from level.

draw the circle and the triangle.
i GUARANTEE it will prove your point and show the massive required drop and the massive required tilt IF the world was a ball.
since your calculated "required" tilt is NOT shown, then it will indeed prove the ball is nonsense.

so let ssee it.
draw the circle
draw the triangle.

You are also missing the point of level sight.
If you looked down you would see ground or water or both.

There's no way out of it.
The globe model does not work for simple stuff like this, never mind the ridiculous stuff spouted about orbits and space vacuums and suchlike.

keep insisting on things while providing nothing of substance.

right.
if you looked down, you would see water.
which we do.
we look down and boom, there's the water.

draw the circle.
why won't you draw the circle?

see below link.
see the peak of the hill on the rollercoaster?
it's where the backside of the peak where track curves down and away.
you cease to see track and see the sky behind it.
no different.
in this case, it's a camera looking "up" from level sight.
well, not really looking up, just that there's a 50ft height field of view at that point.

seriously.
draw the circle


my goodness
it's circles and triangles.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsbIWCQZamlst4hfIgKj9EJ1wYApfR4gCokw&usqp=CAU

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

Fine I believe you that we do not live on a globe and that your model is right after all.  Or at least I will do if you can explain to me how your model can have two points, 180 degrees apart on the sky around which the stars rotate.  Counterclockwise for the north, clockwise for the south.

I asked you to explain these in my reply #5319 but so far you seem to have overlooked that.  Now I could interpret that as being because you haven't accounted for this in your model up to now and are still trying to work out how such a real-world observation could be in any way possible the way you think of the sky.  After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe. That is true regardlgess of whether it is the Earth rotating or the sky rotating.  But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.

Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.

Either way I await your explanations.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 25, 2021, 04:36:05 AM

Again, if you want control of the satellite such that you can zoom in as you please, you need to buy your own.
Don't expect others to spend that money for you.

Don't bother trying to argue and play games with me then pretend I'm the one not answering.

The only one playing games here is you.

And I'm not pretending that you aren't answering, you simply aren't. You refuse to answer because you know an honest answer will expose your lies.

How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?

In the case of the tilt, you need to take a good portion of thought and understand that a 266 feet of drop over 20 miles is one thing but that drop also has an object on a tilt. It doesn't matter what you think that tilt is.

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

Again, it DOES matter.
Because you are claiming that we can't see it you need to show that we should be able to see it.

You not wanting to discuss it because it shows your outright lies about the globe are wrong doesn't magically make it not matter.

Again, math clearly shows the tilt would be insignificant and thus not noticeable just by looking at a picture.

I think you're massively missing the point.

No, that would be you. The point is that the tilt is insignificant.
If you weren't so afraid of what the actual tilt expected on a globe is, you would have no problem providing it.
But because it doesn't support your lies, you continually lie about it.

How else can it drop, other than tilt away from your sight, more and more over distance?

It "drops" by simply being over the curve. Yes, this means it will have an insignificant tilt, but it isn't being obscured by Earth due to it tilting.

No one here is claiming it isn't tilting at all. Instead they are just pointing out that the tilt is insignificant.

Again, if you disagree and think your position is based upon logic, then do the math and show what the tilt should be.

If you looked down you would see ground or water or both.

We have also been over this.
Once more, WE HAVE A FOV!
Do you understand that?
This means even when looking out level, we can see things above and below level.
It also means that the region you can see when looking out level, and the region you see when you look slightly down overlap.
This is where your claim is shown to be self-contradictory.
Here is an image you were provided with before:

The region between the black lines represents your viewing looking level. According to your outright lies, all you can see here is the sky, so everything in that region must be sky.
The region between the grey lines represents your view looking down. According to your outright lies, all you can see here is the ground/water.
The contradiction comes from the red region. What can you see in this part?
It is the same region that is being viewed in both cases, yet for one you claim you can only see sky, and for the other you claim you just see ground/water.

There is simply no way out of this contradiction.

Your blatant lies about the globe model do not work, at all.
They are pure garbage.

Jack, how do we use that website in your link to get photos from a satellite in orbit, of where we are?

That depends on where you are.
It is in a geostationary (I think, it could just be geosynchronous) orbit keeping it with a decent view of Japan. If you live in Asia, Australia or New Zealand, or the islands around there you can see it.

It provides images every 10 minutes (with some lag time). If you want to be able to download them, you can use the menu on the left to do so.

You can also use the zoom controls on the right.

Quote

Naturally we don't see this because we are not on any globe.

Fine I believe you that we do not live on a globe and that your model is right after all.  Or at least I will do if you can explain to me how your model can have two points, 180 degrees apart on the sky around which the stars rotate.  Counterclockwise for the north, clockwise for the south.
I asked you to explain these in my reply #5319 but so far you seem to have overlooked that.

Mirrored. Simple as that.
If you know my theory you'll know this.

  Now I could interpret that as being because you haven't accounted for this in your model up to now and are still trying to work out how such a real-world observation could be in any way possible the way you think of the sky.

Or you can simply accept I've answered.

  After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe.

We don't live on a globe, so there is no fact and you cannot provide any fact. You can provide what you believe is fact.

That is true regardlgess of whether it is the Earth rotating or the sky rotating.

It isn't, to be fair.

  But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.

Provide them, then.

Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.

No, not poke fun. I thought it would be a perfect time to nail your globe by giving me something from your satellites that I could marry up with real time. You know, actual time.

Either way I await your explanations.

Well there they are.
I know...I know...I know, they're not explanations or they aren't answers that you want, so are not answers at all, to you.
If that's the case, it's your issue.

The only one playing games here is you.

You're not going far with this old pony, again....are you?

Mirrored. Simple as that.

If it was as simple as that you would have the sky actually mirrored. We don't, which shows it isn't simply a mirrored view.

Quote from: Solarwind

  After all the way in which the motions of the stars vary with latitude over the world does rather provide evidence that we do in fact live on a globe.

We don't live on a globe

You not liking that fact will not change it.

Again, equatorial mount telescopes, or other methods to measure the angle of elevation of the celestial poles demonstrate that we live on a curved surface.

Quote from: Solarwind

  But as I said there are other observations which we can make which show that it is the Earth rotating.

Provide them, then.

For you to just dismiss them as fake or lie about them?
You already have observations in this thread, like the observation that the horizon is BELOW eye level, and the turbines with their base obscured by the curve.

But as that doesn't fit your fantasy you just lie about them.

Quote from: Solarwind

Or you might have just decided that it is more fun now to poke demands at people for real-time satellite imagery that you know can't be obtained by the general public without resorting to significant expense and so that provides a useful diversion.

No, not poke fun.

Well it certainly isn't a genuine, honest request for something you know would be inaccessible to the vast majority of people, and for those it is accessible to, they are not simply going to give you control over a satellite.

You were provided with near real times images, just not ones where you can then control the satellite.

I know, they're not explanations or they aren't answers that you want, so are not answers at all, to you.
If that's the case, it's your issue.

No, it is your issue.
Your denial of reality is your issue, not an explanation.
Your one or 2 word non-answers are not explanations.

An explanation for the issues raised would involve explaining why we observe 2 celestial poles, with different stars visible, with them always 180 degrees apart.
Just claiming it is mirrored is NOT explaining it in any way.
An explanation for the issues raised would involve explaining why the angle of elevation to the celestial poles vary the way it does as you move around your hypothetical FE.
Dismissing it as "not a fact" because you hate the globe does not explain it at all.

You refuse to provide any explanations and instead just hide from everything that shows you are wrong.

How far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number with units and math justifying it) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?
What is the level of uncertainty in your measurements of allegedly flat water in your sink, in terms of both angle and change in height?
What is in the region indicated in red? Ground or sky?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2021, 10:00:55 PM

Mirrored. Simple as that.

If it was as simple as that you would have the sky actually mirrored. We don't, which shows it isn't simply a mirrored view.
If you know my theory you'll know this.

I don't know your theory. What is your theory?

Draw the circle

Draw the circle

Why do you want me to draw a circle?

Mirrored. Simple as that.

OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different?  Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example?  If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?

Quote

Mirrored. Simple as that.

OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different?  Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example?  If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?

There are no north and south poles as you go with.

You get one central light, that's it.

I can assure you there are North and South Celestial poles.  Different and distinct from one another. 

You get one central light, that's it.

That's what you want to believe to support your model but unfortunately it is not true according to the real world.

Here are star chart showing the North and South celestial poles.  Notice that the positions of the stars are completely different and in the SCP chart Polaris is nowhere to be seen. Nor is the entire constellation of Ursa Major in the SCP chart nor Crux (southern cross) in the NCP chart.  So hardly a mirror!

https://img1.etsystatic.com/002/0/5663576/il_570xN.407038111_10xg.jpg

When you polar align an equatorial mount in the southern hemisphere you have to use a completely different method to the north because Polaris is not visible.

To be a valid or viable alternative model, yours would have to account for this and up to now it seems like it can't.

Here is a timed exposure of the SCP.  Notice the complete lack of a bright star (Polaris) at the central point of the arcs (the SCP).  Also note the small cloud like patches at the top (LMC) and right (SMC) of the image.  These are the Magellanic Clouds which are not visible at all from northern latitudes.

https://live.staticflickr.com/8521/8460248688_012077185b_b.jpg

Quote from: Solarwind on May 26, 2021, 03:19:15 AM

Quote

Mirrored. Simple as that.

OK so if the SCP was simply a mirror of the NCP then why are the stars around each completely different?  Why is there an absence of Polaris around the SCP for example?  If your explanation was correct then Polaris would be visible 40' from the SCP as well would it not?

There are no north and south poles as you go with.

You get one central light, that's it.

- Your carbonite planetarium projector sits at the center of flat earth which is due north for everyone, right? What we would consider as the north pole star, right?
- So the carbonite planetarium projector shoots straight up to the center of the dome a holographic image of what we call "Polaris", right? All of the other carbonite planetarium projected holographic stars circle around that, right?
- Where on the dome is the carbonite planetarium projected holographic image of Sigma Octantis that all of the southern hemiplane projected holographic stars circle around going the opposite way?

Stash - did you ever see the old Zeiss planetarium projectors such as the one they used to use in the London Planetarium?  They have two separate hemispheres comprising of the N and S halves of the celestial sphere.  They could project the northern stars and southern stars by rotating the projector through 180 degrees.  Obviously the positions of the stars for each half are completely different.

Why would they need to do that if Sceptimatics claims about a single, central pole is correct?

Yeah, these things were awesome, still are:



I guess Carl Zeiss was all wrong and went overboard by crafting the second unneeded superfluous hemisphere.

Imagine how big scepti's cabonite crystalline holographic projector must be to blanket an earth-sized breathing icy dome with all of the stars and planets and such we can see. I bet you can see the contraption from space it's so huge.