Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 31407 Views
*

Stash

  • 8554
  • I am car!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2021, 12:16:32 AM »

Pick one out of an almanac. There are plenty of places on the web that tell you everything about every lighthouse on the planet.
Are you scared to show your hand?

Huh? What in the world are you going on about now? Show my hand of what? If you want to talk about being able to see or not see lighthouses, pick one out with all of the details of it and we can take a look at it. Why you want me to pick one out, I don't know. Pick anyone you want, I don't care.
Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse.
Can you do it or are you scared you'll open up a can of worms?

I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.

Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2021, 03:45:32 AM »
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.

"It's the very reason you see lighthouses"? Have you lost all sense of logic? Do you mean on a globe earth one would never be able to see a lighthouse?
Big red bold is the reason we see lighthouses, because it is not a globe. Have a think about it for a few days/weeks or seconds.... depending.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #92 on: February 10, 2021, 03:48:01 AM »
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.


Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

*

JJA

  • 5145
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2021, 03:57:44 AM »
The simple scenario is, you would not be seeing any distant lighthouse from a ship if this was the case.
That is your outright lie that you are yet to justify in any way.

It's not a lie.

What is it then?  A delusion?  A mistake?  A statement made out of ignorance?  A guess?
The reality.

Reality is what we see and measure, for example, by performing experiments, photographing them, and posting them.

What you are describing is your imagination.  What you see in your head is NOT REAL.
What are you measuring?
What experiments have you done?
What photographs prove anything to you?

Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.


Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #94 on: February 10, 2021, 04:11:40 AM »
I've altered that for you just so you understand what level would actually be in your fictional global world.
You mean you have yet again set up a pathetic strawman because you have no hope of refuting the globe.

Again, WE DON'T SEE IN 1D. WE HAVE A FOV! Do you understand that?

My diagram is correct.
It shows how the distance and height plays a role in your ability to see a distant object.

That way I can show you why we do see them, because we can clearly see we wouldn't if your Earth was a reality.
And there you go repeating the same lie.
My diagram clearly shows that your ability to see it depends on how far away from it you are, how high above the surface of Earth you are, how high it is above the surface of Earth and how large Earth is.

Just like the OP describes.

Again, if Earth was flat, the light would be visible all the way from Portsmouth.

Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt.
And yet again, that means your argument against the globe is garbage.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #95 on: February 10, 2021, 07:22:36 AM »
Anyway, what do you want?
He wants you to play stupid games so you can win stupid prizes. 

It's what he always wants.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Stash

  • 8554
  • I am car!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #96 on: February 10, 2021, 02:02:20 PM »
There's no strawman.
It's pretty simple for anyone that can understand how a sphere should work in terms of what would be seen for a person who is looking into distance.
Basically you are seeing no lighthouse from a distance, on a sphere. But we do see them. We see them because we are not looking at lighthouses over a sphere.

Anyone with a small amount of logic would know that a person who was supposedly on a sphere looking at an object in the distance would not only be tilted back, so would the object.

It really doesn't matter about the size of the so called sphere. This is why I mentioned about the 8 inches per mile squared, just to make sure you people went along with it.

As for any dipping of lights...it would just make the situation worse if it was a sphere.

The absolute reality is, you can't see a lighthouse or buildings in the distance because we are not looking from a spherical point of view. We are looking from a near level point of view on water.

You see, even if you went higher you go all the more tilted away from the lighthouse/building...if you were looking from a sphere. You would still see nothing and basically just see sky.

People are willing to throw logic out of the window in favour of seeing over curves. It's absolutely madness.
Have you ever seen a lighthouse from aboard a boat?

The rising/dipping of lighthouses can be used to determine the distance between the vessel and the lighthouse.
http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm

As for the tilting away, the distance between the observer and the lighthouse would have to be 60 nautical miles for the tilt to be 1 degree. Not many lighthouses are visible at 60 nautical miles. You would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt away of an object at the far end of your table never mind an object 60 nautical miles away.
Of course you would find it difficult to detect a 1 degree tilt. That's because you're not observing anything from a global point of view.
It's the very reason you see the lighthouses.

"It's the very reason you see lighthouses"? Have you lost all sense of logic? Do you mean on a globe earth one would never be able to see a lighthouse?
Big red bold is the reason we see lighthouses, because it is not a globe. Have a think about it for a few days/weeks or seconds.... depending.

Actually, the reason you don't see a 1 tilt is because it's a measly 1. Pretty simple, really.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Stash

  • 8554
  • I am car!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #97 on: February 10, 2021, 02:08:22 PM »
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2021, 10:05:28 PM »


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #99 on: February 10, 2021, 10:07:10 PM »
I've altered that for you just so you understand what level would actually be in your fictional global world.
You mean you have yet again set up a pathetic strawman because you have no hope of refuting the globe.

No. I've set up what we actually see with a level.
You've set it up as if the person is angled with scope. It's basically cheating.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2021, 10:09:08 PM »


Actually, the reason you don't see a 1 tilt is because it's a measly 1. Pretty simple, really.
That would be 1 percent tilt for both sides, right?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2021, 10:12:00 PM »
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.

*

Stash

  • 8554
  • I am car!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2021, 10:51:43 PM »
I really don't know why you think I'm scared to talk about lighthouses? It's kinda weird.
Maybe scared was over the top.
How about wary in case you think you're going to set yourself up for something.

I still don't get why you think I would be wary of talking about lighthouses. Just really strange on your part.

Quote from: Stash
Anyway, what do you want? I'm not a lighthouse aficionado or archivist. "Pick the farthest distance you know of in seeing a lighthouse." I don't know, it depends on the lighthouse. Maybe a dozen miles, maybe 25. Depends on how tall the focal height is. What are you wanting me to do and why are you asking me to do it?

Let's say there's a lighthouse that an almanac says has a focal height (the light) that can be seen 15 miles away from the deck of ship. Now what?
How about you look up some lighthouse distances from a ship that have been seen and what you accept as a truth.
We'll go from that point.

Sure, how about this one in Maine: Owls Head Light

Tower height   9 metre
Focal height   100 feet (30 m)
Current lens   4th order Fresnel lens[2]
Range           16 nautical miles (30 km; 18 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owls_Head_Light

Feel free to pick any lighthouse you want too. I really don't care which.
So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.

My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2021, 10:56:47 PM »
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
And it has been explained to you why.
All it does is throw in a bunch of needless complexities which just serve to make the experiment harder and reduce the FOV to move it further away from your original claim.
And there is absolutely no reason to think your response to it will be any different. For the last experiment you simply dismissed his results as fake and threw in needless complexities. Why should anyone think you would do any differently now?
You refuse to provide the requirements for you to simply accept the results. You demand to have a way out.

And that is why you never do the experiments yourself, because you can't then turn around and say you were cheating yourself.

I've set up what we actually see with a level.
Again, LEVEL was not mentioned.
Stop trying to bring it up where it has no place.

You've set it up as if the person is angled with scope. It's basically cheating.
No, I have set it up as if the person is looking, and is able to look in any direction, rather than magically only seeing 1D, i.e. along a single line.

What you are doing is cheating, where you are pretending you can only see level to pretend you can't see the lighthouse on a globe.

So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.
No, and that should be clear based upon what you asked.
You asked him what is the furthest he knows about, not the furthest he is willing to accept as truth.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and explain what magic prevents the close or high people seeing the lighthouse in my diagram?
Or try to explain how Earth merely being round prevents you from seeing it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2021, 11:22:59 PM »


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?

*

Stash

  • 8554
  • I am car!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #105 on: February 10, 2021, 11:43:57 PM »


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?

I'm not skirting around anything. You try and find "the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea". A web search doesn't seem to reveal what that may be. I did find a list of the tallest lighthouses in the world:

List of tallest lighthouses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_lighthouses

Pick any one of them you want. If you happen to be able to find a farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea lighthouse, cool, pick that one. I can't find anything like that with that criteria.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #106 on: February 11, 2021, 12:23:36 AM »


My god you're paranoid. I just picked out a random lighthouse in Maine because you asked me to pick a lighthouse. What do you want?

Do I now have to find a lighthouse that has the longest "range" on the planet? Is that what you're looking for? What are you trying to examine? That may help me figure out what you're looking for. I'll see what I can do. Why don't you poke around and find a lighthouse that has 50 nautical mile range. Find one that has 100. Or one that has 1000. Or on that has a 1 mile range. I don't care. Pick any range you want. It doesn't matter.

And relax. No one is afraid, wary, freaked out by your lighthouse desires, whatever they may be. You just don't know how to explain things clearly so no one knows what you're asking for.
It's pretty simple as to what I'm asking you for.

Find the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea. A lighthouse that you agree with as being the truth.
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?

I'm not skirting around anything. You try and find "the farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea". A web search doesn't seem to reveal what that may be. I did find a list of the tallest lighthouses in the world:

List of tallest lighthouses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_lighthouses

Pick any one of them you want. If you happen to be able to find a farthest distance of a lighthouse that can be seen from the sea lighthouse, cool, pick that one. I can't find anything like that with that criteria.
Ok we'll just leave it at that.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #107 on: February 11, 2021, 01:52:19 AM »
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #108 on: February 11, 2021, 04:21:53 AM »
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.
You aren't seeing over curves, no matter how much you try to dress it up.



*

JJA

  • 5145
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #109 on: February 11, 2021, 05:54:56 AM »


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #110 on: February 11, 2021, 05:57:44 AM »


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.
You've only done one thing; stop being dramatic.

*

JJA

  • 5145
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #111 on: February 11, 2021, 07:33:14 AM »


Those are all good questions you should ask YOURSELF.

I've done plenty of experiments, I've posted them here. 

Photos prove to myself I am seeing what I think I am.  You can examine them in detail, and it's much better than just saying you looked through a tube once and saw a dragon.  Anyone can imagine that, but a picture would be something else.
But you won't do the experiment I gave.
I know I know...."why should I".....

Exactly.  I've performed the experiment you asked for several times, I played along with your games adding more conditions until I got tired of your demands. You keep adding new conditions that make no sense.

Why should I cater to your whining when you won't do any work yourself?  You want people do do your experiment?  Perform it yourself first.  Quit being lazy.
You've only done one thing; stop being dramatic.

One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site.  You should pay attention.

You on the other hand, have don't nothing at all.  You are in no position to criticize the amount of work anyone else does.

Why are you so scared to show your own work?  Because you never did any?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #112 on: February 11, 2021, 07:37:20 AM »


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #113 on: February 11, 2021, 12:21:16 PM »
It's not more complicated than that but you seem to be skirting right around it. Why?
Because it is just another pathetic distraction from the topic.

If you think you can make a point from it, go ahead and make your point.

Otherwise, explain what magic stops people seeing it on a RE, as the diagram I provided clearly demonstrated that it depends on several factors, and in a manner which matches what the OP says, with how they are only able to see the light directly when they get close enough; unlike what is expected for a flat fantasy.
You aren't seeing over curves
Stop just repeatign the same lie and justify it.

Again, my diagram clearly shows your ability to see an object on this RE you continually deny depends upon your height, its height and the distance between you and it.
This matches the OP.

Conversely all we have from you is an irrational outright lie with no justification at all.

*

JJA

  • 5145
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #114 on: February 11, 2021, 01:00:39 PM »


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #115 on: February 11, 2021, 10:14:01 PM »


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?
Yes, I saw that. What's your point?

*

JJA

  • 5145
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #116 on: February 13, 2021, 04:36:04 PM »


One thing?  Just with you alone I've done several of your crazy experiments plus a few of my own, not to mention all the others on this site. 
Such as?

I took pictures of tubes.  Did you forget already?
Yes, I saw that. What's your point?

What's your point? You asked me for examples.

Why do you constantly ask for things then act confused when people answer?  You need to pay more attention.  ::)

Have you performed an experiment yet?  Why are so afraid to test your own ideas?  That's a sure sign you know deep down they are wrong.

?

FlatEarthisStupid

  • 29
  • I have encountered the sphere-phobes.
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #117 on: February 13, 2021, 06:28:37 PM »
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2934
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #118 on: February 14, 2021, 10:34:01 AM »
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.
That's just scepti vastly underestimating the size of the Earth compared to a human and human made things.  He is just making silly strawman arguments meant either to troll or setup a gotcha strawman argument or both.  His so called logic relies on us being on such a small sphere that he can make the argument that things are tilted ridiculously enough to see and he ignores any explanation to the contrary like jack has been trying to get him to address about seeing a tilt away from you at a distance. 
Also, he isn't arguing against gravity holding you down in this argument and it doesn't really have a huge bearing on what he said.  He will just use it to confuse the conversation further.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #119 on: February 14, 2021, 10:06:31 PM »
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

You don't feel tilted back because gravity holds you to the surface and you feel no effect.
That's just scepti vastly underestimating the size of the Earth compared to a human and human made things.  He is just making silly strawman arguments meant either to troll or setup a gotcha strawman argument or both.  His so called logic relies on us being on such a small sphere that he can make the argument that things are tilted ridiculously enough to see and he ignores any explanation to the contrary like jack has been trying to get him to address about seeing a tilt away from you at a distance. 
Also, he isn't arguing against gravity holding you down in this argument and it doesn't really have a huge bearing on what he said.  He will just use it to confuse the conversation further.
Nahhh, it doesn't need to be titled ridiculously. The fact that it would have to be titled for your globe to work, even on the circumference you lot believe it to be, would still require a tilt.... and that tilt, coupled with the tilt of the object in the distance, from a level sight of the person..... that small degree would build in height over distance, meaning it would certainly not catch sight of a distant object tilted away at a small degree.


If you people go by the 8 inches per mile squared, or close to it then you can clearly understand what would be happening, so why would you deny this?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 10:08:55 PM by sceptimatic »