# Lighthouse dipping lights

• 627 Replies
• 62059 Views

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #150 on: February 18, 2021, 01:53:07 AM »
You totally (deliberately, maybe) missed the point.
If anyone here is missing the point, especially deliberately, that is you.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to produce the garbage you did.

Your drawing does not show reality of the bridge towers if there were a lot of them, like the pontchartrain pylons.
You mean how it clearly shows multiple towers, how any 2 towers are tilting away from each other?
You can easily see that with how they all converge to a single point at the centre of Earth.
Having more of them won't magically change that, it just means you have more of them.

The sole reason the towers are calculated as being further apart at the top (and thus "tilting away from each other" as you like to say) is that the top has a larger radius than the bottom. This larger radius has a larger circumference. As the towers are standing vertically, i.e. pointing away from the centre of Earth, that means that 2 towers subtend an angle at the centre. That means the further out you are, the greater the distance between the towers.

e.g:

The dark green line is longer than the dark purple line.
The light green line is longer than the light purple line.
The outside towers being further apart doesn't magically push the inside ones in.

Let's see how honest you are.
If the bridge towers are 1.6 inches apart at the top than the bottom, on a tilt away, obviously as would be the case as we're told then you can understand that any further tower at each side of those two towers would also have to tilt away.
But here's the problem.
The two towers that are originally tilting away from each other would now be tilting towards the other towers.
Both side cannot tilt away.
Look at my crude drawing again to see what I'm saying.
Or how about we see how honest you are?
My diagram shows what is expected on a RE. We can clearly see that any 2 towers tilt away from each other.
It doesn't magically cause the inner towers to point towards each other.
Look at my crude drawing to see what I am saying.
It shows that what you are saying is a blatant lie.
And now that you have a diagram which actually shows it correctly, it is no longer you simply not knowing any better. It is you intentionally lying yet again to pretend there is a problem with the RE.

This means each pylon would tilt away from each other but this is impossible to happen after the first two from each side have tilted away, because it cannot work for further pylons.

I'm not wrong if that's the gunk set out with bridges.
You are wrong. Massively wrong.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the tilt.
As the further pylons are further along the Earth, that means the span subtends a larger angle and thus it still tilts away.

The only way to get that back on track would be to admit that bridge towers do not tilt away from each other and are in fact, plumb
What you seem to fail to understand is that that is the exact same thing.
They are plumb, going vertically up from the centre off Earth.
This means they tilt away from each other.

You can't win. The whole premise is nonsense.
My drawing is crude. I have no need to do anything other to show what I'm saying.
You most certainly need better to show what you are saying, as your diagram is pure garbage, which doesn't show anything like what is expected on the RE.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #151 on: February 18, 2021, 09:05:14 AM »

Let me make it simple you are wrong.

Both JB's drawing and mine show you why, either you are being willfully dim or you are incapable of understanding just how much they don't lean but however much they do, they are doing so inline with curvature.

I'll leave it at that, and with JB, as whichever the two option above you fall under, I will be wasting my time. The drawings are illustrations for any that come along and pick this up and have the modicum of sense needed to interpret proper drawings to scale.
I'm right.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #152 on: February 18, 2021, 09:09:53 AM »

The only way to get that back on track would be to admit that bridge towers do not tilt away from each other and are in fact, plumb
What you seem to fail to understand is that that is the exact same thing.
They are plumb, going vertically up from the centre off Earth.
This means they tilt away from each other.

You understand plumb and you also understand that your towers are not plumb.
They cannot be plumb.

You cannot argue for plumb by using the centre of your Earth. It's total nonsense. Utter nonsense in the absolute extreme.
It's massively desperate.

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #153 on: February 18, 2021, 12:47:35 PM »
I'm right.
Then why are you completely incapable of defending your outright lie?
If all you have is a baseless assertion that you are right, then you have nothing.

Can you justify your lie at all?
Can you explain anything wrong with my diagram to explain how doesn't completely refute your claim?

You understand plumb and you also understand that your towers are not plumb.
You mean if I have no idea what plumb is and instead just follow your delusional BS.

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

For the very real RE you are so desperate to reject using whatever dishonest BS you can, the towers I drew were plumb.
Yes, there is the technicality that Earth is actually an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, so it does get distorted slightly from the centre. But lets keep it simple, considering you seem completely incapable of anything even slightly complex and treat Earth as a perfect sphere.
In that case, plumb is directly towards/away from the centre.

The towers will start at the surface of Earth and point outwards, away from the centre. Kind of like spokes on a bicycle wheel.
It doesn't matter how many of them you have, any 2 you pick will tilt away from each other.
You can clearly see this by continuing it down to the centre of Earth, as that shows what the angle is.

The distance between the tops of any pair of towers will be larger than the distance between their bases.

You can even throw in some numbers.
And yes, I know how much you hate math and numbers because of how easily it shows your claims to be pure BS, but I don't care.
If you were honest you wouldn't hate it and instead would accept that you were wrong.

If you have an arc which subtends an angle of a (in radians), with a radius of r, the length of the arc will be a*r.  (The length of the chord is 2*r*sin(a/2), which for small enough angles is close enough to 2*r*a/2 = a*r.

This means if we have 2 towers, which are pointing directly away from the centre of Earth (again, simplified to a perfect sphere to help you "understand" (i.e. admit you are wrong, I refuse to believe any could be stupid enough to not understand)), which subtend some angle a and have a height of h, the length along Earth's surface at the base will be lb=a*R, where R is the radius of Earth.
Then for their tops, that has increased the radius to R+h, and thus the length along the arc at the top of the towers will be lt=a*(R+h).

We can also easily see that a=lb/R, and thus lt=lb*(R+h)/R.
We can also find how much further apart they are at the top:
ed = lt-lb = lb*(R+h)/R - lb = lb*[(R+h)/R - 1] = lb*[(R+h)/R - R/R] = lb*[(R+h) - R]/R = lb*[R + h - R]/R = lb*h/R.

For simplicity, lets say the towers are 6.371 km tall, with a 1 km distance between their base, measured along the surface of Earth, which has a radius of 6371 km.
Then the extra distance at the top will be 1*6.371/6371 km = 0.001 km = 1 m.

If we now look at the next tower out, lb becomes 2 km, and we end up with 2 m.

The simple fact is your claim is pure delusional BS with no connection to reality at all. Now can you defend it or just throw out more baseless assertions?

If not, care to go back to the lighthouse and explain what magic prevents us from seeing even a tiny angle away from directly level such that we magically only see along one line with 0 degree FOV (i.e. no FOV at all)?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #154 on: February 19, 2021, 02:07:21 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

You would build everything plumb. Vertically straight.
You would never build anything that would have its constructional integrity, compromised, such a a tilt in both towers of a suspension bridge.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #155 on: February 19, 2021, 02:55:56 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #156 on: February 19, 2021, 03:24:29 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #157 on: February 19, 2021, 03:39:02 AM »
Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

You would build everything plumb. Vertically straight.
You would never build anything that would have its constructional integrity, compromised, such a a tilt in both towers of a suspension bridge.
All you are doing is repeatedly showing you either have no idea what you are talking about, or that you are knowingly spouting pure BS.
The "tilt" you are referring to with the towers is due to the 2 plumb lines not being parallel.
Again, for a RE, plumb is on a line intersecting the centre of Earth.

Again, your claim about the towers is pure BS based upon a wilful misrepresentation of the RE.

Because you are completely incapable of presenting any argument against the actual RE model, you need to continually set up pathetic strawmen to attack to pretend the RE is wrong.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.
No, it doesn't, because WE HAVE A FOV!
Something you continually want to pretend we don't.
It doesn't matter how hard you try to pretend, we don't just magically see in a straight line.

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.
Whereas you flee from these calculations because you know that they so easily show your claims to be pure BS.
So instead you just make ridiculous claims that contradict other claims you make and refute yourself in the process, while presenting no actual challenge to the RE.

Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how.
Because you are completely incapable of justifying that, unlike us who have repeatedly shown how your claims contradict other claims you make.

Grow up.

Stop deflecting, stop trying to change the subject.

Explain what magic should prevent people seeing the lighthouse on a RE.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #158 on: February 19, 2021, 04:23:18 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don;t ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #159 on: February 20, 2021, 03:07:12 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #160 on: February 20, 2021, 03:08:49 AM »

Because you are completely incapable of justifying that, unlike us who have repeatedly shown how your claims contradict other claims you make.

Grow up.

Stop deflecting, stop trying to change the subject.

Explain what magic should prevent people seeing the lighthouse on a RE.
Perfectly explained and in its ultimate simple state.

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #161 on: February 20, 2021, 04:32:10 AM »
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
And if you understood the globe model you hate so much you would see it isn't a problem at all.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection.

Perfectly explained and in its ultimate simple state.
And now you resort to just lying by claiming to have already explained it.

Again we don't magically see in a single line with no FOV.

In reality, we have a FOV.

So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?

Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #162 on: February 20, 2021, 05:19:44 AM »
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
And if you understood the globe model you hate so much you would see it isn't a problem at all.
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong but think you're proving something against me...in my opinion.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again we don't magically see in a single line with no FOV.

In reality, we have a FOV.
I've never once denied we don't have a FOV.
If you think I have, then show me.

Quote from: JackBlack
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?
Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?
What would stop you seeing it would be your global curvature.
We see the lighthouses because it is absolutely not convexly curved.

It makes perfect sense because that's reality.

You see, you people cannot argue large curve for some stuff and then argue that the curve is itty bitty for others, just to try and suit.
Logic dictates the reality and the reality is, the Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk/sail upon.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #163 on: February 20, 2021, 11:24:51 AM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #164 on: February 20, 2021, 12:39:40 PM »
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong
The problem for you is that we do live on a globe, and you hate that idea so much you do whatever you can to pretend we don't, using whatever dishonest BS you can.

I've never once denied we don't have a FOV.
You repeatedly deny this fact with your arguments. For example, with this post of yours:

Would you like me to draw a flat sea with a lighthouse on an elevation or simply on low ground?

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.
I provided a diagram with 2 ships, with lines of sight drawn in from 2 points on the ship to the lighthouse, clearly demonstrating how your ability to see the lighthouse depends on distance to it and observer height.

You reject that idea, and instead draw in your magic single line vision with no FOV to claim we cannot see it on a RE.
That is claiming we do not have a FOV and using that false claim to try to refute the RE.

Quote from: JackBlack
So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHT HOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?
Can you honestly answer that, or can you just keep repeating the same pathetic lies?
What would stop you seeing it would be your global curvature.
Only if you are far enough away, such as how the OP was before they got close enough to see it directly.

Your argument is not that the OP was too far away or anything like that, but merely Earth being round is enough to magically make it invisible.
If you would like to change your argument and do so math to show how the OP was too far away, go ahead.

So again, WHAT MAGIC STOPS US SEEING THE LIGHTHOUSE ON A ROUND EARTH?

?

#### FlatEarthisStupid

• 29
• I have encountered the sphere-phobes.
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #165 on: February 20, 2021, 02:37:04 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?

No. Noone on Earth is upside down or on their side (If they're standing up, of course). There is no up, down, or sideways in space. Up is away from the Earth's surface. Down is towards the Earth's surface. Sideways is parallel to the Earth's surface. Gravity pulls down. You will not feel any tilt from that because you are standing upright.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #166 on: February 20, 2021, 04:08:57 PM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.
You've argued like hell without having the slightest clue what you are arguing, except to stick up a few copy and paste helpers which you cannot explain.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #167 on: February 20, 2021, 04:10:54 PM »
The problem is, you do not live on a globe. That's where you massively go wrong
The problem for you is that we do live on a globe, and you hate that idea so much you do whatever you can to pretend we don't, using whatever dishonest BS you can.

I have no problem whatsoever. I don't pretend we don't live on a globe, I know for a fact we don't.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #168 on: February 20, 2021, 05:58:06 PM »

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

Would you build the petronas towers on a tilt to go with your so called global Earth?

No. You would build it plumb. Plumb as in how 99.9999% of the world's engineers/architects design literally everything. Not your definition that literally no one uses to engineer/design all of the cool stuff we have.

Petronas Towers are 191' apart (58m). That's nothing but a smidge in comparison to the curvature of our massive earth.

Showing me a circle with lines coming from the centre to span out, kills off your sight from the ship to the lighthouse, so I'm pleased you argued this like you did.

I think you're pleased with yourself because you don't even remotely understand the Globe Earth model. After all this time and all of the information out there. It's weird. I mean I get you don't believe the model, but it's weird that you still have no concept as to what it is and how it works.

I could see an FEr making an argument about how sometimes lighthouses (any object) can be seen at distance that is farther than what the straight-up Globe Earth calculations would dictate. That's a well known phenomenon and there are rational explanations for it. But, yeah, I can still see why someone would make that argument.
But your obsession with "tilt" is just bizarre. For one, you have it all wrong in your head even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam and there are beyond myriad resources out there for you to look up on your own. This thing where towers tilt toward each other is just whacked. I don't even know where to begin with that. This thing about the pylons on Pontchartrain being "tilted .8" when there are 85 towers each only 300m apart. What's that all about? You admittedly are not into nor adept at math and calculations. It shows.

Back to "plumb", "level", and all that jazz. In doing some research a year or so ago, I put together an example of how engineers/architects/designers employ Globe Earth calculations to achieve some of the wondrous and exacting creations humans construct. This was specific to something that's in your own backyard. This is how modern humanity does stuff, predictable and amazingly spot on. Nothing about your musings is predictable, spot on, nor used by anyone to do/make anything. Here it is:

The difference between me and you is, you envelope yourself into calculations...for anything, real or fiction.

You could likely calculate the movement of a star wars craft if certain models were shown to you.
You're basing all your stuff on your globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate.

I get it.

You eat the stories fed to you and lick the plate clean.
I get that.

No, not really. In this case, engineers had to do some serious engineering based upon the curvature of the earth to get your massive subway expansion to work in a crowded, ancient underground London. So they do their engineering as engineers do in order to successfully accomplish the task at hand. It's not me "basing all (my) stuff on (my) globe and calculating from that. the size handed to you on a plate." There's no plate. That's what you don't get. You think the London engineers just went to all that engineering trouble for shits and giggles so that they could serve me their globe centric calculations on a plate? Are you half-mad?

No, this is what they do. Like I said, 99.999% of this kind of intricate, complex, and exacting engineering is done using Globe earth calculations. And crazily enough, they seem to get it right...a lot. No one uses your stuff. Because they can't. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality. It's just weird that you're completely blind to all this.

The thing is, I place stuff for your argument so I can see how your argument works from one extreme to another.
I do it in a simple way because, as you know, I'm a simple person. An idiot you might say.

But this idiot works from the basics.
Your arguments from some stuff go against other stuff.
Don't ask me why or how. You know fine well.

But..here's another issue.

They make alterations for underground as you mention.
Do subs make the same alterations in the sea over a massive distance?

A sub, submerged under 100 feet of water over a distance, under this curve of sea, as you people go with. Would that not  have to go deeper and deeper until it hits hits the centre and then goes toward the other part of the arc of the curve?

What does a sub have to do with the amazing engineering feat of the London Crossrail Subway expansion project that used Globe earth engineering to make it happen?
I think you can see the issue with the sub on your globe.
It's a good job subs really navigate flat waters, isn't it and not curved humps.

I still don't know why you're talking about subs. But for your silly sub example, consult people who actually know about subs. Don't just make things up. You know there are experts out there that design and engineer things - And they do so without the uselessness of denpressure - As no one on the planet uses your musings to design and build anything. Nothing. That alone should have you give a rethink.

In submarine terminology, “zero bubble” means that the bow of the submarine and the stern are level. “Level” means perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force at that location. On a small scale, say a kitchen table, the direction of the gravitational force can be assumed to be parallel everywhere. On a larger scale, say the distance a submarine can go in an hour, the gravitational force is not parallel everywhere, but rotates as the submarine changes its position relative to the center of the Earth. Ignoring density anomalies, this means that the path the submarine takes is a circle that curves around the center of the Earth.

I'd still like to know (in your own simple words) about the underground tunnel dig that takes in a supposed globe Earth.

Nice and simple, from you.

I'm not a Subway construction engineer. If you fry your car's transmission do you fix it yourself or do you take it to a mechanic? You take it to a mechanic. That specialist has probably had some training, read some manuals, you know, books written by experts, based upon how different models of cars work and goes about fixing your tranny accordingly.

The engineers engineered a way to snake new tunnels through the busy underground of London and in doing so, used Globe Earth calculations to do so accurately and without incident. They are experts. If they had used your musings as a guide it would have been a shitshow. And that's a fact. If you want to actually learn something, read the documentation as to how these engineers achieved such a complex undertaking.

Here's the main source for documents regarding the project:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/

Specifically, to what I've mentioned here:

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

If you can refute what the engineers did, have at it. Presumably to you they are lying. But the proof is in the reality of the project, not in the non-reality of your musings. This is where the rubber meets the road for your musings - Are they applicable in the real world? Apparently not. Which again, should make you want to have an internal heart-to-heart with yourself. Things must apply to reality. It's really that simple.
You've argued like hell without having the slightest clue what you are arguing, except to stick up a few copy and paste helpers which you cannot explain.

No, I've cited evidence. Which I've asked you to refute. You can't. So you simply back away into some sort of copy and paste helpers corner. These copy and paste helpers are from engineers who engineered the Crossrail subway using Globe Earth calculations to great success. If you believe they are lying or are incorrect, it's up to you to provide evidence that is the case. In the mean time, you're just shirking away from evidence. Doesn't bode well for your claims.

I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #169 on: February 20, 2021, 07:38:25 PM »
I have no problem whatsoever. I don't pretend we don't live on a globe, I know for a fact we don't.
And there you go lying again. Or will you claim you aren't passing that off as factual?

You have no justification at all for your outright lie that we don't live on a globe.
Every attempt to justify it is just built upon more lies.

Again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?

Remember, we don't magically see along a single line with no FOV like you want to pretend. We have a FOV. So there is no point in trying to appeal to a level sight.

And remember, you have made no argument that the distance matters.
In fact you indicate the opposite, that merely being round is enough.

So can you justify your outright lie?
If not, you have a massive problem.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #170 on: February 21, 2021, 04:09:32 AM »

I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #171 on: February 21, 2021, 04:16:40 AM »
Remember, we don't magically see along a single line with no FOV like you want to pretend. We have a FOV. So there is no point in trying to appeal to a level sight.

A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
The FOV would be absolutely pointless.
You're actually arguing against your globe by using this FOV and you just can't see it (pardon the pun)

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #172 on: February 21, 2021, 04:23:42 AM »
A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
i.e. in order to make your claim correct, you need to completely change the situation.

Again, back in reality, we have a FOV. We do not have a "pinprick" vision.
As such any argument based upon ignoring the FOV is entirely pointless.

So again, without rejecting the fact we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be obscured merely because Earth is round?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #173 on: February 21, 2021, 04:43:19 AM »
A pinpoint vision is what is required, not a FOV in your global Earth case.
i.e. in order to make your claim correct, you need to completely change the situation.

Again, back in reality, we have a FOV. We do not have a "pinprick" vision.
As such any argument based upon ignoring the FOV is entirely pointless.

So again, without rejecting the fact we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be obscured merely because Earth is round?
Only pinprick vision will work. Or let's say from a centre of crosshair view to object.

Using a FOV will get you nothing but angled view. The wide view you keep going on about. You know, the angled view all around that crosshair point.

The problem you have with your globe is very simple.
Your FOV caters for everything away from your focal point on object in the distance.

Meaning, you see the sea and around it and above it.
Where do you see a real level sight?

Yep, you got it. Your crosshair point or, to make it simple. Your level focus to a point towards the object in that distance.

Your global curvature away and down from you could only cater for a pinpoint view into distance and in a relatively short distance you hit horizon which kills your globe stone dead for starters....................but.......

But you want to bring in a height, thinking height will somehow allow your vision to see the object (lighthouse)...but even that will angle away with every inch of height on your globe.

It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #174 on: February 21, 2021, 10:54:36 AM »

I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

According to the engineers, they had to take a spherical earth into account. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there, because the fact is, they did so. So that's what you need to combat. It has nothing to do with my qualifications as an engineer. It merely has to do with the facts. We like facts.

But sure, here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data:
"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in  distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled.”

The parameters used to achieve this were based upon the following:

Note the use of WGS 84. Which is defined as: The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.

So, in short, the engineers used a spherical earth model for their calculations and implementation of the running tunnels for the Crossrail Programme.

Have you ever been on the Tube? If so, odds are you rode a part of the Crossrail expansion and can thank Globe Earth calculations/engineering for your successful journey. I mean it’s kinda ironic that you probably use a lot of stuff that completely refutes your stuff.

Now it is up to you to somehow refute this evidence. What do you have?

#### Jura-Glenlivet II

• Flat Earth Inquisitor
• 6013
• Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #175 on: February 21, 2021, 11:33:37 AM »

It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.

What like the above?
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Suicide is dangerous- other philosophies are available-#Life is great.

#### JackBlack

• 21718
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #176 on: February 21, 2021, 12:25:07 PM »
Only pinprick vision will work.
Again, if your argument relies upon a level pinprick vision with a 0 FOV, then it is pure garbage.

You need to explain what magic stops the lighthouse being visible with a FOV, otherwise your claim is pure garbage.

So are you going to defend your claim, or admit it is pure garabge?

Using a FOV will get you nothing but angled view. The wide view you keep going on about.
Yes, the view you keep ignoring to pretend there is a problem with a globe.

in a relatively short distance you hit horizon which kills your globe stone dead
Again, the horizon kills the FE, and you have been shown it is below level, so with your pinprick vision you would not see the horizon. You also wouldn't expect to see any horizon on a FE with this vision unless it was infinitely far away.

But you want to bring in a height, thinking height will somehow allow your vision to see the object
Yes, that is one of the factors.
In my diagram I clearly demonstrated that the more distant observer on the deck of the ship could not see the lighthouse, but by going to the top of the mast they can.

Now again, stop appealing to your wild idea of a pinprick vision with 0 FOV, and instead use the actual FOV we have in reality.
If your argument relies upon ignoring the fact we have a FOV, it is pure garbage.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #177 on: February 22, 2021, 07:13:44 AM »

I gave you the citations. Check them out. Try and refute their work. Otherwise, your sense of reality has no meaning as no one uses it. And you can't refute it. But instead of backing away, try and examine the evidence and show where it failed. That's how this works. Not just you stomping your feet. Give it a shot. Show us what you got against the evidence presented.
You don't even know what you're arguing.
You're putting up this stuff and have admitted you don't know what's what.

Explain it to me in your own words what is happening with this underground dig that takes in a supposed global Earth.

Nice and simple.

According to the engineers, they had to take a spherical earth into account. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there, because the fact is, they did so. So that's what you need to combat. It has nothing to do with my qualifications as an engineer. It merely has to do with the facts. We like facts.

But sure, here's what they did. The engineers found that the existing survey data was insufficient for the complexity of weaving the proposed running tunnels of the Crossrail subway expansion underneath London. So using GPS and other modern geodesy surveying techniques, they were able to reduce the inaccuracies of the original data:
"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in  distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled.”

The parameters used to achieve this were based upon the following:

Note the use of WGS 84. Which is defined as: The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations.

So, in short, the engineers used a spherical earth model for their calculations and implementation of the running tunnels for the Crossrail Programme.

Have you ever been on the Tube? If so, odds are you rode a part of the Crossrail expansion and can thank Globe Earth calculations/engineering for your successful journey. I mean it’s kinda ironic that you probably use a lot of stuff that completely refutes your stuff.

Now it is up to you to somehow refute this evidence. What do you have?
I don't need to refute that. It means nothing.
You accept that storyline and that's it.
You have no clue whether that is the truth. You really don't, so why are you trying to push that onto me?

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #178 on: February 22, 2021, 07:21:42 AM »

It's also the very reason why you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower.
You would angle away from a level view.

It's the very reason why we are not on a globe and what we do see is based on level and also based on atmospheric obscurity over distance.

What like the above?
This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.

Remember, for your so called sunset to happen your Earth has to rotate away from it and in doing so your drone must also tilt away from it to follow your so called Earth curve and your so called gravity pull.

On a flattish area such as the sea with your rising drone, you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
Instead of looking through horizontal atmosphere you are now looking through angled atmosphere and less dense to more dense by angle, meaning you bring back the light a little.
The higher you go the more you bring back because the less dense the air is over that distance by angle.

Your drone proves the opposite of what you claim.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #179 on: February 22, 2021, 07:33:01 AM »
Only pinprick vision will work.
Again, if your argument relies upon a level pinprick vision with a 0 FOV, then it is pure garbage.

You need to explain what magic stops the lighthouse being visible with a FOV, otherwise your claim is pure garbage.

You really need to get the torch mindset out of your vision.