Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 15763 Views
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #180 on: February 22, 2021, 07:47:37 AM »
No.  Why/how are you able to discern that a light you see at night is on a tower tilted very very very slightly away from you?  Why would you fix your gaze towards the sky for something you expect to be on or just over the horizon.  What ship and lighthouse in history is that large when compared to the Earth?  Why must people constantly misinterpret how large the Earth is when compared to a human, ship, or other man-made structure?  So no your responses do not make sense, and are the opposite of logical.

These photos are exagerated so as to fit the graph into the image, the earth has an exagerated corvature in the photo so as to compensate for the fact the the lighthouse and boat would not be distant enough if the picture was  made to scale.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #181 on: February 22, 2021, 07:51:18 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?

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

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


I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Empathiser
  • 3425
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #182 on: February 22, 2021, 07:54:42 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.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0

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.



Ha! The Dunning Kruger is strong in this one.

Or Scepti, it proved just what the math he did to calculate his rate of ascent was supposed to, and what a person with a scintilla of sense would understand, that the higher you go the father you see, and as you declared “you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower” Which is effectively what he did, you contradict yourself when you state it proves your point.
Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.



High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #183 on: February 22, 2021, 08:34:02 AM »


I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

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


I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #184 on: February 22, 2021, 08:36:14 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.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+as+drone+rises&t=ffnt&atb=v206-1&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6S_q-XqqEI0

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.



Ha! The Dunning Kruger is strong in this one.

Or Scepti, it proved just what the math he did to calculate his rate of ascent was supposed to, and what a person with a scintilla of sense would understand, that the higher you go the father you see, and as you declared “you could never bring a sunset back on a globe from going higher up in a tower” Which is effectively what he did, you contradict yourself when you state it proves your point.
No. What the person did was to bring the sun back because the Earth is not a globe, not because it is told as one.

Pay attention to what was said.
Same inability as others, you have.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #185 on: February 22, 2021, 10:27:09 AM »

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

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

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.




The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #186 on: February 22, 2021, 01:57:06 PM »
I don't need to refute that. It means nothing.
It is yet more evidence that you are wrong, which you just ignore and dismiss as fake.

If you want to play those games then you need to answer the submarine conundrum.
No, as that is nothing like what has been discussed and is yet another pathetic distraction. It also shows you have no idea how sub's navigate.
Try making it into a coherent argument, rather than just a nonsense claim.

How about you stop playing games and deal with the refutation of your claims and your complete inability to defend your claims?


Again, do you accept your argument is pure garbage as it relies upon a magical pinprick vision rather than simply looking with a FOV?

This is exactly what I would expect to happen over a flat surface.
This proves there isn't a globe.
Which just shows your lack of understanding.
It is extremely strong evidence for a globe.

With a FE, the sun shouldn't set at all.
If it did, it would need to be going over the edge of Earth and woudl set for everyone at once.

The fact that it is a local sunset proves that Earth is not flat.
The fact that you can increase your altitude and still see the sun shows that you are looking over/around a curve.

This is 100% consistent with a RE and inconsistent with a FE.

It disproves your delusional fantasy, not the RE.

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.
So what?
Remember, WE HAVE A FOV! And guess what? So does the drone.
That means that the drone can still see the sunset/horizon as it rises up.

Earth rotates at the stagggering rate of ~15 degrees per hour, or 15 arcseconds per second.
The drone starts rising at ~26 seconds and takes until 41 s to reach 100 ft. That means it has taken ~15 s. Over those 15 seconds Earth would have rotated 3.75 arc minutes.
Even at the end, when you reach 2 minutes and 9 seconds of flight time, that is still only 32 arc minutes. That is nothing compared to the 10s of degrees the FOV of the camera is.

you would expect to see through less dense atmosphere as that drone rose up.
The change in atmosphere is negligible for that change in height.
That cannot explain it.
And if that was the case, the sun would be high above the horizon, rather than being obscured by it.

So no, this drone proves the opposite of what YOU claim.

You really need to get the torch mindset out of your vision.
No, you need to get your magic tunnel vision mindset out of your arguments, as it is pure garbage with no connection to reality.

WE SEE WITH A FOV!
If your argument needs to reject or ignore that, your argument is pure garbage with no hope of being sound.
It is really that simple.

Pay attention to what was said.
Same inability as others, you have.
You mean the "inability" to just accept whatever BS you say and instead to realise it is pure BS?

You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #187 on: February 23, 2021, 02:32:36 AM »

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

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

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.




The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.
Come back to me when you use your own words to describe your argument against me.
Using copy and paste to claim a win is fine if that's your game.
You only win in your own mind...but...feel free.

I don't see many arguing their stance with me by using their own words to make things clear.

You don't even know what you're putting out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #188 on: February 23, 2021, 02:35:38 AM »


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #189 on: February 23, 2021, 02:45:45 AM »


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep
Then perhaps you should stop doing it.

Now care to address the complete failure of your claims?

Again, if your argument relies upon ignoring that we have a FOV and instead pretending we have a pinprick vision where we see 0 degrees, then your argument is garbage.

SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #190 on: February 23, 2021, 03:25:52 AM »


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.
Then perhaps I should stop doing it.
That's up to you.


Quote from: JackBlack
SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?
Simple answer. Tilt of the lighthouse and in the opposite direction of tilt of the person trying to view.

Your FOV creates all angled views right until the centre. The crosshair point.
Unless you can bend your vision to follow your curve from tilted (away) from object stance, your vision simply follows that angle, whether it hits the sky or the sea, in this case.

The closer FOV from just outside  the centre around the crosshair, still offers you an angle.
The only thing that does not offer you an angle is the centre point of the crosshair which offers you a direct horizontally level view to a point in the distance.

Over a curve it would be the sky over distance.
If you people go by the 8 inches per mile squared route, whether you argue specifics, you can see how this would pan out and there's no way around it other than to use desperate measures.


On a flat sea from a ship to a lighthouse, you navigate through atmospheric density through horizontal masses to your level view. It can obscure a distant object, unless you elevate one or the other, or both views to object...because the angle created allows you to dilute the dense mass of atmosphere, allowing you to see much father to a more distant theoretical horizon and what is within it.

It's pretty simple as to what is real.
A hint: It isn't a globe.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #191 on: February 23, 2021, 08:48:50 AM »

I don't get it. That's not an argument for anything. Why does it mean "nothing"? It's clear evidence that engineers used Globe Earth calculations in order to construct the Crossrail tunnels in London. You think they are claiming that as just some "story" to try and thwart your notions? That's very odd.

It's all laid out in the documentation as to why and how they had to take that approach. Do you not care about evidence? Do you just simply hand-wave and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "story"? Do you not care about seeking the truth? I thought that's what you're all about. Apparently your story is the only story that matters.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Just simply presenting evidence. I can see that you don't have any way to refute the evidence so I guess we'll just leave it at that; You failed to counter or even address the Crossrail project, so I guess that means you forfeit. Fair enough.

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

I already did address the non-conundrum. It's referred to as “zero bubble” in submarine parlance. Way back here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87937.msg2304990#msg2304990

At least I addressed it. You can't even address the Crossrail conundrum you have.
You have absolutely no clue that engineers have used the curvature of your Earth. All you are going on and adhering to, is the story.


Hilarious. So now any form of documentation from an engineering project is just a "story" if it doesn't comport with your "story". More just you stomping your feet. When the knowledgable and schooled mechanic fixed your transmission and showed you the steps he/she took through a manual as to how he/she went about it, did you say to him/her, "Oh that's just a story..." Even though your car now shifts perfectly.

Why don't you actually try to refute the evidence rather than just say, "No, it's a story..."? Your approach is less than scientific. You're just complaining - Which is forfeiture. You need to address evidence, not just complain about it. I accept you forfeiture.

As for the sub. You didn't address it, you copied and pasted some gunk that means nothing logical.

Nothing is a question as to whether it meets your notion of what is logical. It has to do with evidence, facts. That's what you must refute. Not just what you think is "logical" because your logic is based solely on your "story". Not on evidence of reality. Take for example your submarine. From a US Navy document regarding the "Intact Stability" of submarines:

10.4 Submarine Intact Stability
As with the case of weight shifts, the absence of a waterplane and the stationary nature of B greatly simplifies the analysis of submerged submarine hydrodynamics. Earlier figures indicated that the Center of Gravity (G) has to be below the Center of Buoyancy (B) for the submarine to be stable. Figure 10.10 illustrates this point.




The level of stability is wholly dependent upon the distance between B and G (BG). Because this distance is constant, an analysis of the triangle BGZ reveals that the Righting Arm (GZ) is purely a function of the angle of heel. Righting Arm = GZ = BGsinφ

This equation holds for all submerged submarines, in all conditions. Hence the curve of
statical intact stability will always be a sine curve with a peak value equal to BG. Figure
10.11 shows the curve for all submarines.

https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.10%20Chapter%2010.pdf

You see, engineers design these things based upon Globe Earth parameters, gravity, etc. No one uses your musings to design/construct anything. That is called reality.

Again, since you are incapable of refuting evidence, I gladly accept your forfeiture in the matter.
Come back to me when you use your own words to describe your argument against me.
Using copy and paste to claim a win is fine if that's your game.
You only win in your own mind...but...feel free.

I don't see many arguing their stance with me by using their own words to make things clear.

You don't even know what you're putting out.

I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water. On a globe earth, they do so by trimming the fore and aft "wings" (horizontal rudders) to maintain a level depth in relation to the curvature of the earth (sea). And the experts back that up. Hence bringing in the experts. Now it is for you to demonstrate that they don't do what is claimed. Not just say it's a "story" they make up. You know, present evidence. All you're saying is that you don't believe they do what they say they do. That's not evidence. That's just an opinion. What's your evidence to the contrary?

As for the Crossrail project. Same thing. I've already explained in my own words what they did. Then brought in the engineering experts who did so to back up my claim with evidence.
In my own words again: The Crossrail engineers determined that the current geodesy survey wasn't exacting enough for them to weave the new long running tunnels through the complex underground that is beneath London. So, using GPS and other surveying techniques, they re-surveyed the whole of the London area they were dealing with. And because of their new more exacting survey, they were able to get the curvature of the earth discrepancies down from 200mm accuracy per 1 km to 2mm accuracy per 1 km. Amazing stuff.

Now, you need to present evidence showing that they didn't do that or that in doing that, they were wrong. Evidence. Not just, "It's a story".

What's your evidence against all of this?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #192 on: February 23, 2021, 09:00:21 AM »
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2561
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #193 on: February 23, 2021, 10:25:01 AM »
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #194 on: February 23, 2021, 12:12:14 PM »


You are aware that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
Yep, you've been doing it for years.
Then perhaps YOU should stop doing it.
That's up to you.
I have no ability to control you, so I can't stop you just making crap up and spouting it as if it is true.
For example, I can't stop you blatantly lying about what people have said by you modifying their quotes.

Quote from: JackBlack
SO without ignoring FOV, can you explain why merely Earth being round should result in a complete inability to see the lighthouse?
Simple answer. Tilt of the lighthouse and in the opposite direction of tilt of the person trying to view.
Your FOV creates all angled views right until the centre.
And that "angled view" is what allows you to see things.

The only thing that does not offer you an angle
Again, deal with the issue at hand, which is people looking at an object with a FOV, rather than a magical pinprick vision with no FOV.

Again, can you explain why WITH A FOV like we have in reality, the lighthouse should be invisible just because Earth is curved?
Appealing to not having a FOV is entirely avoiding the claim you were making.

It's pretty simple as to what is real.
Yes, the RE, which is easily explained and can easily show why the lighthouse is visible at some times and why its visibility depends upon your distance to it and your height.
What is obviously BS are your dishonest claims which you cannot honestly defend at all.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #195 on: February 24, 2021, 11:55:33 AM »
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #196 on: February 26, 2021, 02:30:29 AM »
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #197 on: February 26, 2021, 02:45:56 AM »
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #198 on: February 26, 2021, 02:57:14 AM »
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.
And notice the key part:
LEVEL, not straight.
So your diagram is a strawman.

Now again, without just ignoring the fact that we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be invisible just because Earth is round, rather than distance and height being a factor?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #199 on: February 26, 2021, 03:28:45 AM »
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.
And notice the key part:
LEVEL, not straight.
So your diagram is a strawman.

Now again, without just ignoring the fact that we have a FOV, can you explain what magic causes the lighthouse to be invisible just because Earth is round, rather than distance and height being a factor?
Don't waste your time trying to change level and horizontally straight.
You're conning yourself, not me.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #200 on: February 26, 2021, 10:59:41 AM »
I've already done so several times and you just claim it's a "story". So I bring in the experts. I'm not a sub commander and I'm pretty sure you're not.

In my own words: Over long distances subs maintain what is known as "zero bubble". It's just a term meaning they keep the clinometer level as they travel at a specified depth under water.


Yep they keep it level as they keep to a level travelling depth.
Level.
To do anything other than this would create an angle, so to keep level they would basically submerge and travel level and surface over a distance without angling the sub......if......if they were doing it on a globe.

This doesn't happen and I'm sure you know it.

Look up anything regarding maintaining level, maintaining trim, maintaining "zero bubble", maintaining longitudinal metacentric height regarding submarines. Sources much more knowledgable than you or I regarding the engineering & commanding involved with subs will show you that you are wrong. If you want to refute what actual submarine people claim, have at it. But so far, you're not providing any evidence of your claims other than just saying so. There are people that are experts in specific fields. You are not one of them.

Maybe you can show how subs use your notions. That may be a better tack than just restating your personal beliefs.

Do you have anything to refute the Crossrail project? You seem to have gone silent on the evidence presented there. Again, do you have anything to refute the engineering claims other than your your opinion/musings?
Subs are simple thing. Push water in or out to change angle and hit depth then level out the tanks to move in a level direction.
The same goes for being surfaced.

Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #201 on: February 26, 2021, 12:35:00 PM »
Don't waste your time trying to change level and horizontally straight.
You're conning yourself, not me.
Follow your own advice. The only one in this thread you are conning is yourself.

If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
You can't just pretend it magically means straight when it does not.
A sub will likely follow a level based upon the pressure of the water, just like a plane follows a level based upon the pressure of the air using a barometer.

But again, all of that is just distracting from your inability to explain what magic hides the lighthouse?

On a RE, as my diagram shows, the ability to see it will depend on your distance to it, and your height about the level surface of Earth.
You instead want to pretend that a RE magically renders it invisible without any consideration of height or distance.
Can you justify this without we don't have a FOV?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2561
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #202 on: February 26, 2021, 04:34:41 PM »
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #203 on: February 27, 2021, 01:36:18 AM »


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #204 on: February 27, 2021, 01:38:17 AM »

If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.

I know what level and plumb means, so I have absolutely no qualms about what I see.
I'd like you or your internet friends try and simply explain your level and explain how and why it works. Nice and simple.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #205 on: February 27, 2021, 01:39:08 AM »
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.
Ok, let's deal with it in simple terms.
Explain space time curvature.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #206 on: February 27, 2021, 02:42:54 AM »
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #207 on: February 27, 2021, 07:20:50 AM »
If you want to attack the RE model you need to understand what level means in that model.
I know what level and plumb means
You clearly don't, as for a RE, you seem to think it means a straight line, when it is not.
Remember how you rejected the diagram I gave of those towers all nicely plumb on a RE?
Where you dismissed it because they weren't all just going up and down the image?
That shows you have no idea.


Now again, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE?
Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your outright lie and defend it or admit you can't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Mr twister.
A spirit level will show horizontally level. It will also show vertically plumb.

As for your vertical lines looking this that and the other. If they don't show plum on a spirit level then they are not plumb, no matter whether a near vertical line looks plum to the eye.


If I set the bubble on a 360 level, at centre, I get a 360 degree level point to point. I can set up foundations and build a house...etc, because I know it's level.

I can't build a house because I think it looks level, by eye.
Basically, get your act together, Mr twister.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2561
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #208 on: February 27, 2021, 11:25:36 AM »
Level = perpendicular to direction of acceleration due to spacetime curvature (more popularly known as gravity).   On a globe, like Earth, which is very very very....... very large when compared to humans or human made movable objects, gravity is towards the center of the mass of that globe, (down).  The size difference between these objects or people and the Earth is so vast as to appear to those smaller objects or people as flat without a measuring device much more accurate than an eyeball or a bubble of air trapped in water. 
Again please stop talking of things you do not understand just to claim things would be a certain way when they are not just to claim its false (strawman argument).  This really isn't helping your argument at all.  Back up, think about it and either stop strawmanning everything or let's talk about something more in line with your intelligence level.
Red, large bold....explain it.
Pretty straight forward actually.  Exactly what it says, re-read it and try to comprehend.
Ok, let's deal with it in simple terms.
Explain space time curvature.
That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone. 

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #209 on: February 27, 2021, 11:36:57 AM »


Yeah, so what? We both know that we have different definitions of "level" and yours is not what sub engineers/commanders use.

Now, why do you keep avoiding the Crossrail project?
I'm waiting for you to briefly explain what's happening. I'm of a simple mind so explain it to me by simplifying it to the basic.

I already have several times. Here it is again, in my simple, basic, brief own words:

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. They found that the existing survey data, due to the curvature of the earth, had an error range of up to 200mm per km. That was too much for them to accurately weave their new long running tunnels under, through, amid all of the existing infrastructure below London. So with the new more accurate survey data, based upon the curvature of the earth, they were able to reduce that error rate all the way down to just 1mm per km. And you can see by that gif graphic I posted how they had put the those tunnels through all kinds of stuff with just millimeters to spare.

Now the question to you is how do you counter the fact that the engineers engineered with the curvature of the earth in mind and made the project work just as predicted?