Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 15769 Views
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #210 on: February 27, 2021, 01:44:28 PM »
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.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:

The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #211 on: February 27, 2021, 03:14:46 PM »

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.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #212 on: February 27, 2021, 03:18:21 PM »


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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #213 on: February 27, 2021, 03:21:06 PM »
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.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:

The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).
Subs don't come from the centre of your globe so how about explaining how they manage to navigate using curved path whilst keeping a level?

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #214 on: February 27, 2021, 03:31:36 PM »


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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #215 on: February 27, 2021, 10:56:00 PM »
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.
And if you continue to do that as you go around the RE Earth, you will see that level is not a straight line and that plumb lines point out from the centre, rather than all being parallel.

So how about you get your act together and explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of distance and height, and why my diagram does not show plumb lines.

Perhaps you can make your own diagram. Here is mine for reference:

The straight black and blue lines are plumb.
Just what do you think they should be on a RE?
Remembering that the surface of Earth is level (at least in this case where the terrain and thus changes in elevation are not shown).
Subs don't come from the centre of your globe so how about explaining how they manage to navigate using curved path whilst keeping a level?
This is focusing on plumb and level. So how about you stop dodging, and take the diagram I provided and show what you think "plumb" lines should be on a RE?
Once you figure that out, you can then connect these plumb lines together with a level line.

You have already pretty much shot yourself in the foot with one of your earlier diagrams. Remember this one:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZY8dnLk0/download.png
Level at the boat is clearly different to level at the lighthouse.

Again, the surface of Earth (ignoring terrain) is level. Plumb is perpendicular to that.
If you ignore the small offset due to the rotation of Earth which makes Earth oblate, those plumb lines intersect the centre of Earth.

And you can also try to explain what magic hides the lighthouse on a RE regardless of hieght and distance, without ignoring the fact we have a FOV.

Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?
For the same reason you can't draw a square circle.
It is impossible (on the RE in reality) for a line to be both straight and level. The closest you can get is when the 2 are close enough together that it doesn't matter which you use.

But in this case, the level of accuracy required was too great.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2021, 11:08:39 PM by JackBlack »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #216 on: February 28, 2021, 05:41:55 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #217 on: February 28, 2021, 05:50:27 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere? Down is to the center, a curved track is level.

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #218 on: February 28, 2021, 06:19:21 AM »

This is focusing on plumb and level. So how about you stop dodging, and take the diagram I provided and show what you think "plumb" lines should be on a RE?
Once you figure that out, you can then connect these plumb lines together with a level line.

Plumb lines will not work on your global Earth, nor will horizontally level lines.

It's easily provable on land or water or even ice.

A simple laser level will show up any discrepancy, immediately, over a short distance.

An 8 inch drop over 1 mile. A 2 inch drop over 1/4 of a mile or 1 inch drop of 1/8th of a mile...or to be a bit more clear..... 660 feet.
Or let's go down to a quarter of an inch drop and 165 feet from point to point.


Anyone ever measured it to that?

This would be at sea level or ice level or ground level.

Now here's the key.
If you were to set up two 50 feet high poles and took a measurement by adding a foot height marker all the way up those poles, you would expect to see a change in length of each raised foot of height from post to post.

This is like the bridge pillar carry on.

Sooo, regardless of whether you want to play the game of level being towards the centre of your Earth, you can clearly see how, in that scenario you put out, the lines (for you) converge all the way to your centre and obviously by that argument they must diverge with every foot of height as they reach into the sky.

Bearing this in mind, you have to accept a tilt over distance and the bigger distance the bigger the tilted angle of a point to point meeting of the lines like I showed you in my diagram.


Now then, back to the lighthouse.

The higher up each point is the more tilted angle will show, as I mentioned......over the distance of both objects (ship and lighthouse).


Basically you have a major problem on your globe, of seeing objects in the distance.
On a flat sea/water/ground/ice or whatever...you have none of the problems and this is the reason why you can see objects in the distance and also see more of an object over a greater distance when you elevate your position, because, unlike angling up and away on your globe; on the flat you angle up to an elevated object (lighthouse) but see much more of it if you are elevated yourself because you are looking through less dense atmosphere.


Your globe is nonsensical when looked at in the simplest terms.
Only magical unprovable explanations keep it alive.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #219 on: February 28, 2021, 06:31:37 AM »
If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere?
No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense and the idea of pulling means nothing when you look at it from a realistic point of view instead of the actions we call a pull to distinguish variations of effort...which is fine until we argue gravity and the rest of this global nonsense.

You substitute logic for the utter shambles of the globe and all of its magical trimmings.
I used to do that until I started to realise it was akin to a religion.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.

Quote from: JJA

 Down is to the center, a curved track is level.
A curved track can be level if you mean it's curving around a horizontal flat area.
If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.


Quote from: JJA

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.
  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity.
Of course I don't understand. I can't understand gobbledygook.
How about you try and see what reality is because you're living in fantasy world.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #220 on: February 28, 2021, 07:23:28 AM »
If you're going to argue against round earth theory, it would be good if you tried to understand that theory.

Are you not able to actually comprehend or imagine the idea of gravity pulling everything down towards the center of a sphere?
No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense and the idea of pulling means nothing when you look at it from a realistic point of view instead of the actions we call a pull to distinguish variations of effort...which is fine until we argue gravity and the rest of this global nonsense.

You substitute logic for the utter shambles of the globe and all of its magical trimmings.
I used to do that until I started to realise it was akin to a religion.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.

Quote from: JJA

 Down is to the center, a curved track is level.
A curved track can be level if you mean it's curving around a horizontal flat area.
If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.


Quote from: JJA

On a flat Earth a track needs to be straight, on a curved Earth using gravity it needs to be curved.
  Do you understand?  Try and separate what you think reality is, with the actual theory of gravity.
Of course I don't understand. I can't understand gobbledygook.
How about you try and see what reality is because you're living in fantasy world.

See, this is a perfect example of you missing the entire point, again.

I ask you to try and understand the theory, and you go on a rant about how it's all lies and fantasies.

You don't even try to understand it, you just outright reject it as nonsense... but how can you reject it if you don't even understand how it's supposed to work?

It's no wonder you think gravity is nonsense, because to you it is because you simply can't understand it.  Or won't.  No idea at this point.

It's why all of your 'takedowns' of gravity are just you saying it's dumb and confusing. You have no real understanding of what the theory is trying to say.  It's a stance of pure, deliberate ignorance.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #221 on: February 28, 2021, 10:46:51 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:



Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #222 on: February 28, 2021, 01:25:44 PM »
Plumb lines will not work on your global Earth, nor will horizontally level lines.
It's easily provable on land or water or even ice.
You mean it is easily assertable with absolutely no evidence or proof at all.

Without appealing to reality which you claim is a flat Earth, can you prove it? Clearly explaining how it wouldn't work?

Because it is quite easy to show logically that it would.

For a perfect spherical Earth, gravity (I know you have an irrational hatred of this, but it is part of the RE model, you can't just ignore it to pretend nothing can work on a RE, but if you like, as repeatedly explained, we can use your BS air instead) causes objects to fall towards the centre of Earth.

This means that plumb lines will intersect the centre of Earth. So there is plumb working perfectly fine.

Then, if you actually understood what level meant, you would also realise it makes perfect sense and works perfectly fine on Earth.

A level surface is one in which the energy doesn't not change over the surface.
Water adopts a level surface, because if it had a non-level surface, water is able to flow along the surface from a high point, falling down to a low point to lower its energy.
But with a level surface, it cannot do that, no matter where it moves on the surface, it has the same energy. It has no where to fall.
And in general, level is perpendicular to plumb.
This means level lines on the RE will be a circle.

This is exactly what I have shown in my diagram. Plumb lines that intersect the centre, and a level line which is perpendicular to those plumb lines.

So can you actually explain why plumb and level should magically cease to work just because Earth is round, rather than it merely not being what you want.

A simple laser level will show up any discrepancy, immediately, over a short distance.
You mean over such short distances that you are completely incapable of detecting the insignificant drop.
That just proves you have no honesty as you don't bother considering the errors/uncertainty of your observations.
If you want to be able to prove no curvature you need to first establish that you can measure the curvature you are trying to, rather than just saying you don't detect any and thus it can't be there.

An 8 inch drop over 1 mile. A 2 inch drop over 1/4 of a mile or 1 inch drop of 1/8th of a mile...or to be a bit more clear..... 660 feet.
Or let's go down to a quarter of an inch drop and 165 feet from point to point.
Try again.
The simple formula to measure drop is d^2/(2R).
Or as commonly expressed by FEers, 8 inches per mile squared.

The important part is that if you halve the distance you cut the drop down by 1/4.

This means over 1/4 of a mile, you cut the drop down to a 16th of what it initially was, not 1/4.
This means you go from an 8 inch drop for the 1 mile down to a 1/2 inch drop for 1/4 of a mile.
If you drop it down to 1/8th of a mile you are down to a 1/8 inch drop.

Going all the way to 165 feet, or 1/32 of a mile, you end up with a drop of 1/128 inches. That is roughly 0.2 mm.

In order to get 1/4 of an inch drop you need the distance to be roughly 1/6 miles.

This is why people tell to learn the model that you hate so much so when you try to make claims regarding it they aren't trivial to show are wrong.
But the really ridiculous part is you already accepted that it is 8 inches per mile squared. But now that you want to exaggerate the drop over a short distance you instead pretend it is 8 inches per mile. So this isn't a case of you not knowing any better, this is yet another example of your intentional misrepresentation of the globe to pretend there is a problem where none exists.

Anyone ever measured it to that?
What you should really be asking is if anyone has ever measured the drop over a long distance accurately enough to be able to measure the curvature or absence of it.
And yes, the makers of LIGO had to account for curvature, and that is effectively the same.
Likewise, surveyors using theodolites routinely measure the drop by measuring its angle.

So yes, IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.
You not liking that fact, and not being able to measure the near 0 curvature in your bath tube or sink has no bearing on that fact.

If you were to set up two 50 feet high poles and took a measurement by adding a foot height marker all the way up those poles, you would expect to see a change in length of each raised foot of height from post to post.
Assuming you could measure that change, assuming your tools were accurate enough to measure the small difference over a long distance.

Sooo, regardless of whether you want to play the game of level being towards the centre of your Earth, you can clearly see how, in that scenario you put out, the lines (for you) converge all the way to your centre and obviously by that argument they must diverge with every foot of height as they reach into the sky.
Bearing this in mind, you have to accept a tilt over distance and the bigger distance the bigger the tilted angle of a point to point meeting of the lines like I showed you in my diagram.
No, I don't.
That is because you are pretending the poles are tilted relative to plumb. THEY ARE NOT!
The point is they are plumb, and the fact that plumb lines are not level is what causes them to tilt.
If you wanted to be honest you would accept what is shown in my diagram, with the towers aligned with a plumb line which intersects Earth.
Any 2 towers you pick will be tilted AWAY from each other, with the distance between the tops greater than that between the bases.
And the further apart the 2 towers are, the greater that "tilt"
Again, this tilt is purely due to plumb lines not being parallel.
You do not get them tilted towards each other, like your nonsense pretends.

So no, your diagram remains refuted garbage.


Basically you have a major problem on your globe, of seeing objects in the distance.
That is your claim, which you need to substantiate. You are yet to even attempt that. The closest you have come is by pretending we don't have a FOV.

see much more of it if you are elevated yourself because you are looking through less dense atmosphere.
The difference in density of the atmosphere is insignificant.
And that doesn't address why we don't see it on a globe.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #223 on: February 28, 2021, 01:36:27 PM »
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
If level tracks require them to run into something else, then no, that isn't better.

For example, typically when on the surface of Earth, train tracks follow terrain for the most part, rather than just being level.

If you would like a simple example, how about a train track which needs to go from a port at sea level (technically a few m above), to an inland town with an elevation of a few hundred m.

Would you make the train track level, so it ends up at the sea a few hundred m above the ground?
Or run it level so at the inland town it is a few hundred m underground?
Or level in between so it is way up in the air at sea and quite far underground at the inland town?
Or would you run it mostly following the terrain rather than being level?

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.
If you understood what level was, you would understand why there is a curve.

No. Gravity is utter made up nonsense
You not liking something doesn't mean it is made up nosnense.
Gravity is a force which has been established to exist beyond any sane doubt.

the idea of pulling
Is essential when you look at things like ropes and chain links.
You are entirely incapable of explaining how these work without a pulling force.
Magnets are another example where you have failed to explain how they work with only pushing.

Your idea of gravity pulling in the moon but the moon is orbiting the Earth like it's on some kind of swing ball set up
As if gravity is acting akin to a string, which pulls the 2 objects togehter.
Not hard to understand at all.

as we supposedly spin at over 1000 mph.
Or to express it more honestly, at the staggering rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, half the angular speed of a standard analogue clock.

How people who take the time to study it and can't see the disgusting nonsense of it....well......well...I have no real words.
And that really is the problem isn't it?
You have no words.
You can't explain why it is nonsense, you can't show anything wrong with it, you just repeatedly dismiss it as nonsense.

People don't see the "disgusting nonsense" of it, because it isn't disgusting nonsense.

If you mean curving down is level then there's no helping you.
You mean there is no helping you as you still seem to have no idea what level is.
Again, your own diagrams refute you.
You provided a diagram showing level lines for the RE, which are not parallel. If you tried to connect the 2 locations with a level line, you would see it curves.
If you try doing it with a straight line, it will not be level at the 2 locations.

Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

The other way to look at it is through elevation.
A level line, has the same elevation. For a RE, that is the distance to the centre of Earth.
What is line which has the same distance to a point all along it? A circle.
So again, on a RE, a level line will curve in a vertical direction.

If you truly don't understand that, then you do not understand the model you are trying to refute, and don't understand something so incredibly simple it isn't funny.
And this means you have no chance of refuting the RE.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #224 on: February 28, 2021, 01:38:17 PM »
Your globe is nonsensical when looked at in the simplest terms.
Only magical unprovable explanations keep it alive.
No, it is quite simple and understandable, with plenty of evidence supporting it.

For example, one simple thing which RE defintetly explains far more simply than your FE fantasy:
Time zones and regions of day/night.
Different regions of Earth have daylight at different times because Earth is round and only part of Earth can face the sun at any given time.
The side of Earth facing the sun is day, the side facing away is night.
The sun "rises" as the location moves (due to the rotation of Earth), such that Earth no longer blocks the way to the sun.
It sets as the location moves such that Earth starts blocking the way to the sun.
The direction the sun appears to be at is simply the direction to the sun.

Pretty damn simple.

Meanwhile, for a FE, in defiance of all other flat objects, the sun magically illuminates a very strange portion of Earth, not even matching simply to the distance to the sun. Instead you have a magical sun sending out magical light which magically bends to illuminate these strange regions of Earth, and make the sun appear near the horizon, rather than the ~26 degrees it should be above the horizon given the common 5000 km height, noting that this bending is the in the opposite direction and to a far greater magnitude than that caused by refraction. Not only that, it also bends horizontally, so those in the south still somehow see the sun rise from south of east when the sun is meant to be to the north.

That is not simple and relies upon so much magic it isn't funny.

Or more relevant to the discussion, THE HORIZON!
The RE has a horizon because Earth obstructs the view, like repeatedly shown in my diagrams.
This likewise causes the bottom of objects to be obscured because Earth blocks the view.
The object appears lower due to the curvature of Earth.
All explained with a simple diagram which you can find no fault with (and no, you rejecting FOV is not a fault).

Meanwhile the FE relies upon so much contradictory magic that it cannot come up with a coherent explanation.
The bottom of the object is invisible because the atmosphere apparently obscured the view, unless you want to claim that it is merely the limit of resolution, even though you can clearly resolve the objects and parts of it comparable to the parts which are hidden, so resolution is clearly not the issue. But then instead of it merely being the bottom is blurred, pure magic results in the object appearing lower, for no reason at all.

Or would you prefer stuff relevant to the other thread, why things fall and why some things float?
The RE:
Gravity causes a downwards force on all objects. This "down" is towards the centre of mass of Earth.
The force on any object is proportional to its mass, as gravity is a force that acts on mass.
If you consider any layer of a fluid, you have the force from above pushing down, the force from below up, and the force of gravity also going down.
In order to remain in place, the pressure below needs to be greater to counter the pressure from above and gravity. This means the pressure increases as you go down.
This means that for any object immersed in this fluid, the pressure greater and the bottom and thus it pushes the object up. When you do the math this force is equal to the mass of the fluid displaced multiplied by g.
If the object is denser than the fluid, gravity wins and it goes down, but its weight is still reduced by the fluid.
If the object is less dense than the fluid, the pressure wins and it is pushed up.

If you take an object and evacuate the air from it, you increase the volume of air displaced and thus increase the buoyant force, reducing its weight.

If you try to move through the air the air resists that due to its inertia and thus it applies a force to try to stop that relative motion, and this is based at least somewhat on area. This allows a parachute to safely have an object fall from a considerable height.

The FE:
Air simply has a pressure gradient, for no reason at all. (So far the only attempt at an explanation has implicitly appealed to gravity).
But the air then acts in complete defiance of this pressure gradient and magically pushes things down.
Except, when it decides to push objects up, for no apparent reason, as it is observed to do plenty of times.
There is no explanation at all for why the air defies this pressure gradient.

Even more nonsensical, when falling, the air pushes you down, yet somehow it also resists you being moved down through it. The force pushing you down is somehow magically related to your mass, but the force resisting you moving down is then completlely unconnected to your mass and instead is based upon your area.

The RE sure seems much simpler.
So no, when looked at in its simplest terms, the globe makes sense.
The FE appears to be pure fantasy relying upon so much magic it isn't funny.

It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.
You are unable to show a single fault with it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #225 on: March 01, 2021, 03:20:16 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:



Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #226 on: March 01, 2021, 03:23:27 AM »


Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #227 on: March 01, 2021, 03:29:27 AM »
It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.

No. It's not hatred. It's called waking up to the endless amount of bull crap I've realised we're all subjected to from cradle to present

*

Mikey T.

  • 2561
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #228 on: March 01, 2021, 03:29:36 AM »

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.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before. 

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #229 on: March 01, 2021, 04:36:20 AM »


Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #230 on: March 01, 2021, 04:48:33 AM »

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.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #231 on: March 01, 2021, 04:50:44 AM »


Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?
Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?

This is plumb, is it?


You people need to make your mind up.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #232 on: March 01, 2021, 05:02:46 AM »


Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.

That's because you still can't understand round earth theory.  Until you do, your arguments will be empty.

Level on a round Earth under gravity is pointing to the center of mass.  Both the ship and the lighthouse are level.  Can you understand that concept?
Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?

This is plumb, is it?

You people need to make your mind up.

I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27328
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #233 on: March 01, 2021, 07:05:49 AM »


I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.
The concept is just that. It's not a reality.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense. And you feel free to laugh because you're laughing at yourself. It has zero effect on me.


Don't ever use a trade that requires you to use a level. You're likely to deliberately bend it.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #234 on: March 01, 2021, 08:11:24 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #235 on: March 01, 2021, 08:26:42 AM »


I'm laughing so hard right now. 

Yes, bridge towers tilted away from each other are plumb because they are both level with the center of mass of the Earth.  It's the same reason the ship and lighthouse are level.

You really, truly can't understand the very simple concept, do you? Another display of your astounding ignorance.
The concept is just that. It's not a reality.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense. And you feel free to laugh because you're laughing at yourself. It has zero effect on me.

Don't ever use a trade that requires you to use a level. You're likely to deliberately bend it.

Uh... your comments here show that no, you do not understand the concept.  Otherwise you wouldn't be confused as to why skyscrapers don't fall over in the round Earth model.

You seem simply incapable of grasping the basic concepts of the theory of gravity.  It's no wonder you are so confused by all of it.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #236 on: March 01, 2021, 08:29:05 AM »
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #237 on: March 01, 2021, 09:13:18 AM »
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #238 on: March 01, 2021, 09:28:43 AM »
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.

You are totally correct about this.

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.

Laughable.

You should familiarize yourself with the theory of gravity before making fun of it.  Debating from ignorance just makes you make absurd statements like you just did.  Put a little effort into trying to understand the concept.  I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.

You're the one who made the comment about trains running on a globe, showing you don't understand the theory of gravity.  You were responding to skepti who was confused about what level means on a globe, which is all about gravity.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention.  At least try and understand the basic concepts of a subject before making ignorant statements like your confused 'uphill' comment.

*

Stash

  • 7299
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #239 on: March 01, 2021, 10:31:21 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?
Tell me why they couldn't tunnel in a straight and level line?

I don't understand your question or what it may have to do with anything.

The Crossrail engineers re-surveyed the London underground taking into consideration the curvature of the earth in order to get an updated hyper-accurate view into how they could weave their new long running tunnels for the project. The question to you is, how do you explain their accuracy and success and how their survey was predicative to achieve their goals using globe earth calculations/surveys and such? If the earth was flat as you claim, they would have been way wrong in their approach and tunnels would be misaligned, etc. They weren't. They were spot on within a few mm's tolerance. How do you explain the discrepancy between that effort and your world view?
I think trains would be better set up by running on level track...right?
To run on level track it would require level digging.

I have no clue what the hell you're on about with what you are mentioning about a curve.

I've explained it umpteen times now, everytime you've asked. You continue to play the obtuse game. I know why.

The Crossrail engineers found that the existing surveys of the very complex and crowded London underground infrastructure was not accurate enough for them to bore the long running tunnels required for the project. The inaccuracies were 200mm per km due to the CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. They re-surveyed using modern tech and techniques and got the accuracy down to 1mm per km.

As I referenced before, the new London Survey Grid they created used the following parameters/data points:



Notice the references to a spherical (ellipsoid) earth.

So the question to you has been, over and over again, what's your refutation as to what the Crossrail engineers claim, that they mapped out their boring of long running tunnels factoring in the SPHEROID CURVATURE OF THE EARTH?
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.

What is it about this from the Crossrail engineers makes you think they didn't factor in the curvature of the earth:

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

As well, the chart I shared that shows the parameters used is very specific.

Parameter: Spheroid
Value: WGS-84

WGS: "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.[1]
The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563. The refined value of the WGS 84 gravitational constant (mass of Earth’s atmosphere included) is GM = 3986004.418×108 m³/s². The angular velocity of the Earth is defined to be ω = 72.92115×10−6 rad/s.


WGS-84 Oblate Spheroid:


What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.