What would change your mind?

How about you draw this circle?

Refute his circle.

How about you draw this circle?

I provided you a too scale diagram before and you just ignored it.

I also provided the math showing your claims were pure garbage.

How about you draw it, or answer the simple questions which show my arguments are correct, or show a problem with the math/arguments presented:
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?

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

He drew it
Time stmped.
Whats wrobg witb itM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

You have a known history with being unable to tell the difference between a line and a curve. You really need to go back to 1st grade where they teach you what shapes look like. Maybe that's where your confusion about the shape of the earth came from?

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

LOL.

Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles?  Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature?  How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance?  Please continue your baseless incredulity.  It is entertaining.

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:


I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.

If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.

And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.

Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show 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 June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

LOL.

Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.

I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.
I was asked to draw another one. I refused because I'd already drew one.
I asked kabool to draw the circle he asked for. He refused.


How about you draw the circle kabool asked for or don't you understand?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles?  Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature?  How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance?  Please continue your baseless incredulity.  It is entertaining.

Draw your circle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:


I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.

If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.

And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.

Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show 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?

Is this you drawing a circle?

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2021, 03:14:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

Again, you have already been provided with some, like this one here:


I know, you want to dismiss it, because it shows your claim is pure BS, but you don't actually have any justification for it.
At this scale and resolution, you can't see the difference between round and flat. This just further shows that Earth being round doesn't magically mean that you can't see the ground, even through a level scope.

If you went all the way out to 1 mile, and had a picture which was 1080 px wide, each pixel is roughly 59 inches. That is more than the 8 inches of curvature, so you wouldn't see the curve in such an image.

And this is why you refuse to draw the circle, because it shows that the curvature doesn't magically make the ground fall out of sight, and thus it shows you are wrong.

Just like the simple questions you continue to avoid show 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?

Is this you drawing a circle?

Like I said above, that is a to scale diagram of Earth, of a person with an eye height of 2 m above Earth and a FOV of 10 degrees.
The curvature of Earth is accurately shown in this diagram, limited to the resolution of the diagram.
This clearly shows how over the short distance required to see the ground, the curvature is negligible, it isn't even a single pixel.
If you disagree, provide your own, draw a to scale diagram of the RE, with a person standing with their eye 2 m above Earth, and provide the math to justify it.

Or provide a to scale diagram of the towers, which you claim would show a massive tilt, or the math to justify that outright lie of yours.

Or just answer the trivial questions you continue to avoid because of just how easily they show you are completely 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?

I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.

Because like always you ignored what was actually asked and instead substituted it without something else to pretend you did what was asked.

You were asked to draw a circle TO SCALE!
The drawings you have provided have buildings which are thousands of km tall, and hundreds to thousands of km apart.

You have NEVER provided such a drawing, because you know that doing so will refute yourself.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2021, 09:23:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

LOL.

Scepti doesn't understand the smaller the arc of a curve, the more flat a curve is.

I was asked to draw a circle. I drew one. It wasn't good enough.
I was asked to draw another one. I refused because I'd already drew one.
I asked kabool to draw the circle he asked for. He refused.


How about you draw the circle kabool asked for or don't you understand?

You didnt draw it to scale

You didnt draw it to scale

Nor have you or Jacky.

I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.

you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)

so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.

I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.

you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)

so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.

You showed me a picture of what you've been told Earth looks like. You didn't draw any circle.
You simply followed a script.
People like you find it hard to think for yourself.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Anyone want to draw the circle you claim?
Is it because you won't want to draw a circle but want to draw a horizontal line and proclaim it to be a circle?

What is the curvature, in arc seconds for a 3 mile segment of a circle with the radius of roughly 3900 miles or the circumference at roughly 25000 miles?  Can the human eye resolve that amount of curvature?  How small, in arc seconds can be resolved by the human eye at 3ish miles of distance?  Please continue your baseless incredulity.  It is entertaining.

Draw your circle.

What does me drawing a circle have to do with your failures in supporting your claims?  I asked you specific questions, you deflected, very telling as to your intentions.  I hope all see your entertaining foolery and it will stop others from taking you seriously at all.  Care to answer the questions?

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 29, 2021, 07:05:24 AM

I provided a circle with a CGI image of the globe showing madagascar and counted pixels to approx match calculations by others.
I also found the youtube much better examples of people using CAD for precise images and numbers.

you've done nothing but provided a vague "massive tilt" and a not-to-scale drawing showing a 2.5km tall tower (2.5KILOMETER = 4x the tallest building in the world!)

so
what's the tilt?
let's see you draw a to-scale circle.

You showed me a picture of what you've been told Earth looks like. You didn't draw any circle.
You simply followed a script.
People like you find it hard to think for yourself.

it's still a circle.
it's still to-scale.
soooo you continue to dodge
keep dodging on duck dodger 25th century adventurer.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 29, 2021, 04:08:21 AM

You didnt draw it to scale

Nor have you or Jacky.

I did. The diagram I provided which you were unable to find fault with was drawn to scale.
Again, this is a too scale drawing of someone with an eye height 2 m above Earth:


You not liking that because it doesn't fit your fantasy won't change that fact.
At the distance required to see the ground, the curvature is insignificant, less than 1 pixel in this image.
So even with a RE, you can see the ground, showing the primary claim you made here is pure garabge.

Again, if you want to disagree, draw your own diagram, TO SCALE!
Show a person with an eye height of 2 m, with a FOV of 10 degree, looking straight out level, on a RE.

If you really need the other one:

This isn't quite too scale, as it still has the building/turbines being 9 km tall and 500 m wide.
But the important part is that it shows the "massive" tilt you claim should exist between the towers.
The grey line is a straight line 30 km long, to show the distance is correct.

And if you want the code to prove it:
<svg version="1.1"
    id="Layer_1"
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
    width="130000px"
    height="130000px"
    viewBox="0 0 13000 13000"
    xml:space="preserve"
fill="blue">
<g>
<rect width="13000" height="13000" fill="skyblue" />
<circle cx="6500" cy="6500" r="6371" fill="green"/>
</g>
<g>
<line x1="6485" y1="127" x2="6515" y2="127" stroke="grey" stroke-width="0.5px"/>
</g>
<g transform="rotate(0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
<g transform="rotate(-0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
</svg>
Any objections now? Or do you accept your claim of a "massive tilt" is pure BS?

And again, have you decided on answers to the trivial questions which show 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 June 29, 2021, 05:42:46 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 29, 2021, 04:08:21 AM

You didnt draw it to scale

Nor have you or Jacky.

I did. The diagram I provided which you were unable to find fault with was drawn to scale.
Again, this is a too scale drawing of someone with an eye height 2 m above Earth:


You not liking that because it doesn't fit your fantasy won't change that fact.
At the distance required to see the ground, the curvature is insignificant, less than 1 pixel in this image.
So even with a RE, you can see the ground, showing the primary claim you made here is pure garabge.

Again, if you want to disagree, draw your own diagram, TO SCALE!
Show a person with an eye height of 2 m, with a FOV of 10 degree, looking straight out level, on a RE.

If you really need the other one:

This isn't quite too scale, as it still has the building/turbines being 9 km tall and 500 m wide.
But the important part is that it shows the "massive" tilt you claim should exist between the towers.
The grey line is a straight line 30 km long, to show the distance is correct.

And if you want the code to prove it:

Code: [Select]

<svg version="1.1"
    id="Layer_1"
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
    width="130000px"
    height="130000px"
    viewBox="0 0 13000 13000"
    xml:space="preserve"
fill="blue">
<g>
<rect width="13000" height="13000" fill="skyblue" />
<circle cx="6500" cy="6500" r="6371" fill="green"/>
</g>
<g>
<line x1="6485" y1="127" x2="6515" y2="127" stroke="grey" stroke-width="0.5px"/>
</g>
<g transform="rotate(0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
<g transform="rotate(-0.135, 6500, 6500)">
<line x1="6500" y1="129" x2="6500" y2="120" stroke="black" stroke-width="0.5px" />
</g>
</svg>
Any objections now? Or do you accept your claim of a "massive tilt" is pure BS?

And again, have you decided on answers to the trivial questions which show 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?

You can't quite grasp it.

I'll try and make it more clear.

Study what I'm about to say and absorb it.


If you people are arguing the turbines to be losing a fair amount of their height due to curvature of the Earth then you must also know you cannot argue it in terms of the turbine sinking UPRIGHT into the water.
You cannot argue that it falls down a curve whilst staying UPRIGHT.


The only way you could argue your turbine is it it is tilted back and away from your view to get your large chunk of height to disappear.

Now you can argue about your Earth size and do as many calculations as you need by bringing your so called curvature into play but it makes zero sense if you simply look at the disappearing turbine UPRIGHT over such a short distance.


We can clearly see there's no tilt and of course it would be ridiculous to suggest any tilt, unless you literally set it up to tilt, which is not practicable.


So what can it be?

Pretty simple. It's the atmosphere obscuring it over distance due to horizontal mass build of it over distance.
Basically obscuring the light to the turbine UPRIGHT over distance which determines what light we receive back to our eyes.


No matter how you try to dress it up wth so called calculations, it's there in your face.

You can't quite grasp it.

You are confusing me seeing that your BS is wrong, and also repeatedly explaining why it is wrong, with me not understanding.
The 2 are vastly different.

I grasp the BS you keep on spouting, but I realise it is BS, and explain why it is BS.

You fail to grasp (or accept) many things.
The amount of the turbines hidden relative to the size of Earth, is TINY.
The tilt is TINY (as clearly shown by the diagram above).

The amount hidden is proportional to d^2/R.
The tilt is proportional to d/R.
These are different functions and thus there is no simple relationship between amount hidden and tilt.
Thus you cannot say that in order for some amount to be hidden it must be tilting back massively.

If you are arguing a massive tilt, you need to justify that outright lie of yours.
Again, the to scale diagram shows you are wrong.

No one is claiming the turbines will be "upright" to the viewer at 30 km distance, instead they are proving, beyond any doubt, in a manner you cannot refute, that the tilt will be tiny and unnoticeable.

We can clearly see there's no tilt

No, we can't.
What we can see is that there is not a massive tilt.
But again, we wouldn't expect a massive tilt.

If people were provided the image above, out of context, they would need see any significant tilt, because of just how tiny the tilt is.

If you want to claim there should be a massive tilt, do the math or draw a to scale diagram.

So what can it be?
Pretty simple.

You are right that it is pretty simple.
They are along the curve of Earth which lowers them by 10s of m, and make them tilt back a tiny 0.26 degrees.

The fact that they appear to have sunk into the ocean shows it cannot possibly just be the atmosphere obscuring the bottom. If it was the atmosphere obscuring the bottom they would appear much higher, with the bottom just obscured by the atmosphere, not water. It's the atmosphere obscuring it over distance due to horizontal mass build of it over distance.

No matter how you want to dress it up, your claims remain pure BS.
No matter how you want to try to dress it up, the curvature is right there in your face.

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?

This isnt a matter of tilting to reduce appeared height.

So, whats the amount of tilt required to appear in reduced height?
What is it?
State it.
Use a number.
It makes a triangle.
Should be easy enough for you.


Now
Apply it to a to-scale circle.
What is it?
State the number.


Triangles and circles.


Why do you refuse to state the number?

Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.

If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.


You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.

Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.

If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.


You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.

I get your point, I always have.  It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong.  Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away.  We have explained that there is some degree of tilt away from you but it is so small and at a direction from your eyes that there is no way for your eyes to resolve it. 
The Earth is very very very very very very very very very very very very very much larger than a person, or man made objects. 

Also still waiting on you to answer, at least one question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:27:27 AM

Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.

If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.


You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.

I get your point, I always have.  It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong.  Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away. 

No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.

so what's the massive tilt?
you keep complaining but never tell us the answer.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 06:58:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:27:27 AM

Surely you people get it.
Your arguments are way off.

If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.


You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.

I get your point, I always have.  It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong.  Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away. 

No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.

No it isn't.  That's what you are always spouting about.  Massive tilt, with no explanation of why as per your usual.  Again, I know your points very well, they are completely wrong and your only recourse has been to say "nuh uhh", constantly.

Surely you people get it.

Yes we do.
Logic and evidence shows you are completely and utterly wrong.
You can't handle that.
You want to continue to pretend your fantasy is true.
You don't care about the trurth.
So you will just continue to assert the same pathetic refuted BS to pretend Earth isn't round.

If you lost the amount of UPRIGHT that can be shown over a small distance then you either argue for your upright to be sinking or it;'s tilting to give that amount of loss.

No, if we lost the amount of ever so slightly tilted turbine that is shown to occur over such a distance, we would argue for the tilt to be insignificant.
On an Earth as large as the one we live on, the object needs to be extremely far away in order for the tilt to be significant.

The tilt is not what hides the object, the drop is.

You can't then argue for a calculation based on your Earth curve over your massive distance and argue for minimal tilt whilst still arguing for massive upright loss.

Why not?
Again, Earth is a not a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.

That 30 km, is tiny compared to the 6371 km radius of Earth or the ~ 40000 km circumference.
This means the tilt will also be tiny.
It also means that compared to the size of Earth, the amount hidden will be tiny.


It is not "massive" upright loss.
As a first approximation, ignoring the height of the observer, it is d^2/(2*R) = 0.07 km.
Or, in terms of the size of Earth, you know, what would actually matter for such an argument, it is 0.001 %

Are you saying that isn't tiny?

Yes, compared to humans it is quite large, but compared to Earth, humans are tiny.

Again, simple, irrefutable math, math which you can show no problems with at all, shows that the amount expected to be hidden is no more than a few 10s of m, and the tilt is 0.26 degrees.

Again, you have been provided with a to-scale diagram showing the tilt expected for such a distance. I was even nice and provided the code used to generate it a an SVG.


You have nothing but lies to attack the RE with, while we have evidence and logic and math to show your claims are pure BS.

If you want to claim the tilt should be massive, tell us exactly what the tilt should be, including a calculation/justification of it. This means providing it in some kind of angular unit, such as degrees.
If you can't do that, your claim of a massive tilt is pure BS.
Just like your claims that you magically can't see Earth through a level tube are pure BS.

Again, trivial questions repeatedly show 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: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 06:58:53 AM

I get your point, I always have.  It's monumentally stupid and absolutely wrong.  Your idea is that the horizon immediately turns down at 3 miles away. 

No no no. That's the idea of you people, so don't pretend it isn't.

No, it isn't.
Reality, which the idea we present and you continually reject without cause, is that the Earth continually curves. It doesn't just magically curve down at the horizon to start making objects tilt massively when they are hidden.

  Massive tilt, with no explanation of why as per your usual.

Another Jacky who pretends there's been no explanation.