Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 60943 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #570 on: April 03, 2021, 05:25:53 AM »
So a level view won't magically hide the RE.
The key is the FOV, that you keep ignoring.
You are ignoring the downward curve of your so called globe.
No, I'm not.
That downwards curve is the very reason we have a horizon in the first place.

You really should think carefully about that but I doubt you will.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #571 on: April 03, 2021, 05:27:50 AM »

Massive global adherent?  Severely indoctrinated.  Yeah that's just stupid.  It is definitely not unconditional, my conditions are that I can test and verify the theory for me to support it.  I can do so easily for the RE side, but can't even find a cohesive theory that explains anything while not contradicting something else claimed by the notion of a FE.
If you can do so then show me. Don't bring up copy and paste references. Show me from your own efforts. Can you do this?
Are you willing to do this to prove your side?
Absolutely, plus I don't do copy paste stuff, and you know it.  Do you want the data that was collected and then calculated by me about satellite TV signals and using them to determine the location of said broadcast location which shows it is impossible from a flat plane?  I posted that before, you left the conversation if I remember correctly, after screaming nuh uhh and claiming I didn't gather the data myself.  But you lie a lot so no-one pays attention to you.  Do you want the calculation of the offset of the gravitational acceleration from the ... OMG 1000mph spinTM centrifugal "force" that showed it to be almost nothing and therefore rendering that idiotic FE talking point ridiculous?  I don't remember you being in that one, but when you are more quiet I forget about you.  I much prefer your idiotic dancing.  Do you want me to rehash the Mt. Climbing trip I took when you claimed no-one could go above something like 12000 ft or some nonsense like that, which culminated with me flying from South America to New Zealand and meeting up with my wife who flew out from LAX and our flights took the same amount of time?  Oh yeah you could only claim I wasn't telling the truth because you have no honor.  Hell I could talk about simple sunrises and sunsets that I actually have gone out and watched to see the sun rise appearing to come up from behind the horizon or the sunset sinking behind the horizon, something simply impossible on a flat plane no matter how much hand wavy you can't see far enough stupid nonsense you parrot.  You guys sound like a big bunch of mocking bird just repeating the same nonsense back and forth.  Those are just a few of the things I have already brought up on this forum board.  Oh yeah you claimed nuh uhh my CONSPIRACYYYYYY says otherwise bullshit. 
Quote from: Mikey T.
  Provide a model that works with reality, a singular model that can explain the entire idea and I will consider it, thus far FE hasn't.  Provide support for claims or they are baseless.
The model I provide won't work for you. Your model works for you because it's set out that way.
My model works for me with what I have mused over. This is what counts....for me.
What model, you have never produced a model, oh wait that's right, you have no clue what a scientific model is.  Plus I never figured you for a my truth person.  News flash there is ... wait for it... the truth and not the truth, there is no personal emotional based truth.  Either you can support your claims or they are bullshit.

Quote from: Mikey T.
  Holding dear to something that doesn't even try to address issues is indoctrination.
No...it's not.
Oh it absolutely is, if everything shows it to be batshit crazy and you hold on tightly too it, enough to resort to constantly lying, you are indoctrinated.  And no, the FE doesn't ever honestly try to address in an honest way, just make 1 model, just 1 that doesn't fall apart to explain multiple observations made, no you have one that you try to peddle for the sky's apparent movement but then a separate one when it comes to explaining why the sun doesn't speed up and slow down during the seasonal changes like that model would demand, and yet another when someone brings up star movement from the Northern and Southern hemisphere.


Quote from: Mikey T.
  Crying about others not thinking for themselves while just believing whatever youtube video that makes you feel like you're some hero fighting the "man" and not bothering even try to support your textual vomit is indoctrination.
I don't need to use youtube videos. However, you people do use youtube as your proof so I have to use the very same to counteract.
You seem to be getting frustrated and mad that you can't beat me down.
Calm down a bit.
 
I'm not frustrated in the least, like I said you are my entertainment, I was getting a bit bored, so I poke you a bit and make you dance around more when I want.

Quote from: Mikey T.
I have plenty of evidence to support the globe, tested myself.
Then you should have no issue in showing it from your side....right?
Make sure it's your evidence and not any appeal to authority.

Quote from: Mikey T.
When you provide a testable model and stop playing the nuh uhh games then I may start to take you seriously, until then you are the fool that I use for enjoyment purposes.
You can take me however you feel you need to, in your mind, because that's all you have. You are free to type out your thoughts, if you feel the need, which you obviously do. Crack on.
All I have... funny.  I don't need to, like I said before you are my entertainment.  You only get the pleasure of me talking to you when I am bored.
Quote from: Mikey T.
  So thanks for being so dedicated to dancing and clowning for me.
No problem.
Great you know your role.
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.

Can you do this?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #572 on: April 03, 2021, 05:51:14 AM »
Go outside

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #573 on: April 03, 2021, 06:32:55 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #574 on: April 03, 2021, 07:26:03 AM »
Go outside
So you can't do it. No problem. It's what I  already suspected.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #575 on: April 03, 2021, 07:28:25 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

Like I said: adherence to a narrative rather than ability to prove from your own set up.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 03:56:28 AM by sceptimatic »

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #576 on: April 03, 2021, 08:56:32 AM »
Go outside
So you can't do it. No problem. It's what I  already suspected.
I gave you examples, and would type more but am on my cellphone.  But in effect, you won't accept data that you didn't gather yourself, you won't accept photos, you don't do logic, how am I supposed to give you physical proof when you deny everything that challenges your indoctrinated views?  But go outside, watch a sunset, with a proper filter so you do not burn out your retinas and you don't have a bunch of glare(cannot believe I feel I have to warn someone of not staring at the sun but you fit the type that would)  and try to figure out why the sun disappears bottom first.  Can't claim refraction unless you can explain it, news flash you cant.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #577 on: April 03, 2021, 09:19:33 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

The fact that you won't accept it as proof does not change the fact that pictures of the earth from space prove the earth is a globe. I know it's hard for you flat earthers to deal with, but that's your problem.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #578 on: April 03, 2021, 03:03:13 PM »
So a level view won't magically hide the RE.
The key is the FOV, that you keep ignoring.
You are ignoring the downward curve of your so called globe.
No, I'm not.
That downwards curve is the very reason we have a horizon in the first place.
You really should think carefully about that but I doubt you will.
I have thought carefully about it, and repeatedly explained it to you.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and actually think for once?

Again, that downwards curve is the very reason we have a horizon it.
Before the horizon, you can see Earth.
After the horizon, Earth blocks the view, making Earth not visible, and the lower portion of objects not visible.
This is why the horizon is a finite distance away and doesn't depend on what you use to view it.

It also explains why it varies depending on altitude, and why it typically is a clear division.

This is an actual explanation for the horizon, which also explains why the bottom of objects are apparently obscured by Earth.

This is quite unlike the FE, which should have the horizon infinitely far away, where parallel lines converge, which would effectively produce a horizon dependent upon what optics are used to view it, with better optics allowing you to see further without limit; unless you reach the actual edge of the FE, which can then produce a clear horizon. Otherwise, the best you get is a blur due to the atmosphere scattering the light, without any clear division.

Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Can you do this?
You have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from anyone that shows you are wrong.
Why do you continue to dishonestly ask for it as if it would change your mind?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #579 on: April 04, 2021, 03:58:56 AM »
Go outside
So you can't do it. No problem. It's what I  already suspected.
I gave you examples, and would type more but am on my cellphone.  But in effect, you won't accept data that you didn't gather yourself, you won't accept photos, you don't do logic, how am I supposed to give you physical proof when you deny everything that challenges your indoctrinated views?  But go outside, watch a sunset, with a proper filter so you do not burn out your retinas and you don't have a bunch of glare(cannot believe I feel I have to warn someone of not staring at the sun but you fit the type that would)  and try to figure out why the sun disappears bottom first.  Can't claim refraction unless you can explain it, news flash you cant.
You wanted to make me dance and you are providing no music or rhythm.

When you're put on the spot, you fail.
When you feel you can look up something and copy and paste it or reference it for your own ease, you can and it makes you feel nice and comfy but offers no realistic proof's of what you're conveying.

And yet you want me to dance.

Hand me physical proof.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #580 on: April 04, 2021, 04:04:30 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

The fact that you won't accept it as proof does not change the fact that pictures of the earth from space prove the earth is a globe. I know it's hard for you flat earthers to deal with, but that's your problem.
The fact that you are pushing it as a truth when you have no physical proof, is your problem, not mine.

By all means show me this image is a legitimate one shot image of your Earth. The oblate spheroid or the pear shaped Earth that Neil deGrasse Tyson mentions.

Can you do that or are you reliant on face value as fact?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #581 on: April 04, 2021, 04:11:52 AM »

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and actually think for once?
You have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from anyone that shows you are wrong.
Why do you continue to dishonestly ask for it as if it would change your mind?
I'm always thinking  and I'm always ready and willing to accept proof's of anything.
When you have that, let me know.
And I'm certainly not being dishonest. I'd call it having my own theories/musings/hypotheses on what I think, which may not be correct but fit a better pattern than the one I see or am asked to accept, unconditionally.

If you want to use dishonesty as your argument then carry on. Do it as many times as you feel you need to.
Either way it has zero input/effect on my mindset, nor does it stop me questioning and experimenting.


Sooooooo, Jackyblack. Fill your boots.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #582 on: April 04, 2021, 06:00:24 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

The fact that you won't accept it as proof does not change the fact that pictures of the earth from space prove the earth is a globe. I know it's hard for you flat earthers to deal with, but that's your problem.
The fact that you are pushing it as a truth when you have no physical proof, is your problem, not mine.

By all means show me this image is a legitimate one shot image of your Earth. The oblate spheroid or the pear shaped Earth that Neil deGrasse Tyson mentions.

Can you do that or are you reliant on face value as fact?
I believe in science and the scientific method.  I believe the things that science has proven.

Did I myself prove that atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons? No. And neither did you.

Have I proven myself that that semiconductors have a band gap? No. And neither have you.

Have I myself built a rocket and put a weather or GPS satellite in orbit? No. And neither have you.

There are endless facts scientifically proven by others (but not by you or me) and put into use by scientists and engineers all over the world. Including putting satellites with camera systems in space and sending back images of the globe earth.

That fact that you or I have not done them ourselves is of no relevance to the truth they reveal. If all we had to go on were things that you yourself had proven, we would still be hiding in caves. And we would certainly not be having this conversation  right now powered by science-backed technology.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #583 on: April 04, 2021, 06:36:55 AM »
Go outside
So you can't do it. No problem. It's what I  already suspected.
I gave you examples, and would type more but am on my cellphone.  But in effect, you won't accept data that you didn't gather yourself, you won't accept photos, you don't do logic, how am I supposed to give you physical proof when you deny everything that challenges your indoctrinated views?  But go outside, watch a sunset, with a proper filter so you do not burn out your retinas and you don't have a bunch of glare(cannot believe I feel I have to warn someone of not staring at the sun but you fit the type that would)  and try to figure out why the sun disappears bottom first.  Can't claim refraction unless you can explain it, news flash you cant.
You wanted to make me dance and you are providing no music or rhythm.

When you're put on the spot, you fail.
When you feel you can look up something and copy and paste it or reference it for your own ease, you can and it makes you feel nice and comfy but offers no realistic proof's of what you're conveying.

And yet you want me to dance.

Hand me physical proof.
Again, I do not do the copy paste stuff.  You know this very well, but you want to claim that lie to thinking you are scoring points, you are not.  I asked you what you wanted, I mentioned previous examples of what I have already posted here on this forum, you can search it out or if you were truly honest about it we would have rehashed it.  But you are not honest about considering anything, you never have been.  I know your game, I don't dance for you, you dance for me fool.  So what data would you actually consider, I mentioned them before.  Here is a summary of one:  I gave 4 different locations around the US that I have personally setup direcTV dishes, the little round 18 inch ones that only pick up one satellite location.  Pointing at the 101 location, the elevations and azimuths are different for each.  I gave those, and knowing that a microwave transmission signal such as the 12Ghz that 101 utilizes is a line of sight signal and the reflection angle of the dish's geometry we can get an accurate direction from those locations to the satellite it is pointing to.  When you use those 4 location to triangulate it's position, you find that you cannot do so on a flat plane, you have to have those 4 locations on a sphere, interestingly the size of what we know as the size of Earth.  Also it shows that the satellite's location works out be some 22000 miles about the surface of that sphere along the equator.  It will not work on a flat plane at all.  Microwave signals are most definitely line of sight, I personally installed the equipment in question way back when I trained installers, I have given this all before and you waved your hands around screaming I didn't do it and left the conversation.
This is just a summary of one example.  Your response is going to be that either, I did not do those installations myself, which I did, the signals are not LOS, which they are, or something about the math being too complicated.  You only have a couple of dance moves, they are a bit boring, but I want to see them.   


Perhaps you should follow your own advice and actually think for once?
You have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from anyone that shows you are wrong.
Why do you continue to dishonestly ask for it as if it would change your mind?
I'm always thinking  and I'm always ready and willing to accept proof's of anything.
When you have that, let me know.
And I'm certainly not being dishonest. I'd call it having my own theories/musings/hypotheses on what I think, which may not be correct but fit a better pattern than the one I see or am asked to accept, unconditionally.

If you want to use dishonesty as your argument then carry on. Do it as many times as you feel you need to.
Either way it has zero input/effect on my mindset, nor does it stop me questioning and experimenting.


Sooooooo, Jackyblack. Fill your boots.

Another lie, you never accept any evidence of anything that disagrees with your indoctrinated view. 
And ye your certainly are being dishonest, that is your shtick, you are a troll playing the fool.  You only want to argue for the sake of arguing, you do not consider the opposing points.  We all see what you are, you lie and misrepresent what is said to make yourself feel good.  That's ok, I get entertainment out of it. 
You do not question anything, you picked a side that made you feel like you were being rebellious, you offer nothing in the form of adding to that side, even if it is a totally flawed idea.  What have you personally offered to the FE argument?  Oh right, nothing, you are the dancing fool just here to be a forum troll.  I have more respect for the copy paste king, Sandy, than I have for you. 
You have no theories of your own, you just parrot what others have said before.  No one is asking you to accept anything, you just need to stop lying and you need to provide explanations for claims.  I still have not seen a proper explanation for why you cannot see the horizon if you are standing on a sphere that is very very very very very very very much larger than you.  I cannot stress this enough, we have a field of view, as in what you see comes in to your eye in a cone like shape extending outward infinitely, not  "level view"  what ever that garbage really is.  We also are very tiny when compared to the Earth.  You act like the Earth has a radius that is like twice the normal human height and their eyes are locked in some arbitrary angle that is tangential to the sphere at the point where that human is standing.  That's the only way to have the curve fall away from you fast enough to have it completely out of your field of view and that only if we use a narrow 45 degree down as our FOV to give your claim the best chance I could. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #584 on: April 04, 2021, 10:41:38 AM »
Let's see some physical proof's of your globe that you know are proof's for sure.
Here you go:

The fact that you won't accept it as proof does not change the fact that pictures of the earth from space prove the earth is a globe. I know it's hard for you flat earthers to deal with, but that's your problem.
The fact that you are pushing it as a truth when you have no physical proof, is your problem, not mine.

By all means show me this image is a legitimate one shot image of your Earth. The oblate spheroid or the pear shaped Earth that Neil deGrasse Tyson mentions.

Can you do that or are you reliant on face value as fact?
I believe in science and the scientific method.  I believe the things that science has proven.

Did I myself prove that atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons? No. And neither did you.

Have I proven myself that that semiconductors have a band gap? No. And neither have you.

Have I myself built a rocket and put a weather or GPS satellite in orbit? No. And neither have you.

There are endless facts scientifically proven by others (but not by you or me) and put into use by scientists and engineers all over the world. Including putting satellites with camera systems in space and sending back images of the globe earth.

That fact that you or I have not done them ourselves is of no relevance to the truth they reveal. If all we had to go on were things that you yourself had proven, we would still be hiding in caves. And we would certainly not be having this conversation  right now powered by science-backed technology.
Of course it's relevant.

If neither of us can physically prove what is said then we are both in the same boat.
Your only so called higher claim is purely based on your mindset on following a set of narratives also followed by the majority.
You believe this gives you a higher stance on a pedestal of truth but it does not.

Once you can directly prove something to me, only then do you have credence.
All you have at the moment, is appeals to authority.

That's fine for yourself but it's not for me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #585 on: April 04, 2021, 10:44:06 AM »
Go outside
So you can't do it. No problem. It's what I  already suspected.
I gave you examples, and would type more but am on my cellphone.  But in effect, you won't accept data that you didn't gather yourself, you won't accept photos, you don't do logic, how am I supposed to give you physical proof when you deny everything that challenges your indoctrinated views?  But go outside, watch a sunset, with a proper filter so you do not burn out your retinas and you don't have a bunch of glare(cannot believe I feel I have to warn someone of not staring at the sun but you fit the type that would)  and try to figure out why the sun disappears bottom first.  Can't claim refraction unless you can explain it, news flash you cant.
You wanted to make me dance and you are providing no music or rhythm.

When you're put on the spot, you fail.
When you feel you can look up something and copy and paste it or reference it for your own ease, you can and it makes you feel nice and comfy but offers no realistic proof's of what you're conveying.

And yet you want me to dance.

Hand me physical proof.
Again, I do not do the copy paste stuff.  You know this very well, but you want to claim that lie to thinking you are scoring points, you are not.  I asked you what you wanted, I mentioned previous examples of what I have already posted here on this forum, you can search it out or if you were truly honest about it we would have rehashed it.  But you are not honest about considering anything, you never have been.  I know your game, I don't dance for you, you dance for me fool.  So what data would you actually consider, I mentioned them before.  Here is a summary of one:  I gave 4 different locations around the US that I have personally setup direcTV dishes, the little round 18 inch ones that only pick up one satellite location.  Pointing at the 101 location, the elevations and azimuths are different for each.  I gave those, and knowing that a microwave transmission signal such as the 12Ghz that 101 utilizes is a line of sight signal and the reflection angle of the dish's geometry we can get an accurate direction from those locations to the satellite it is pointing to.  When you use those 4 location to triangulate it's position, you find that you cannot do so on a flat plane, you have to have those 4 locations on a sphere, interestingly the size of what we know as the size of Earth.  Also it shows that the satellite's location works out be some 22000 miles about the surface of that sphere along the equator.  It will not work on a flat plane at all.  Microwave signals are most definitely line of sight, I personally installed the equipment in question way back when I trained installers, I have given this all before and you waved your hands around screaming I didn't do it and left the conversation.
This is just a summary of one example.  Your response is going to be that either, I did not do those installations myself, which I did, the signals are not LOS, which they are, or something about the math being too complicated.  You only have a couple of dance moves, they are a bit boring, but I want to see them.   


Perhaps you should follow your own advice and actually think for once?
You have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from anyone that shows you are wrong.
Why do you continue to dishonestly ask for it as if it would change your mind?
I'm always thinking  and I'm always ready and willing to accept proof's of anything.
When you have that, let me know.
And I'm certainly not being dishonest. I'd call it having my own theories/musings/hypotheses on what I think, which may not be correct but fit a better pattern than the one I see or am asked to accept, unconditionally.

If you want to use dishonesty as your argument then carry on. Do it as many times as you feel you need to.
Either way it has zero input/effect on my mindset, nor does it stop me questioning and experimenting.


Sooooooo, Jackyblack. Fill your boots.

Another lie, you never accept any evidence of anything that disagrees with your indoctrinated view. 
And ye your certainly are being dishonest, that is your shtick, you are a troll playing the fool.  You only want to argue for the sake of arguing, you do not consider the opposing points.  We all see what you are, you lie and misrepresent what is said to make yourself feel good.  That's ok, I get entertainment out of it. 
You do not question anything, you picked a side that made you feel like you were being rebellious, you offer nothing in the form of adding to that side, even if it is a totally flawed idea.  What have you personally offered to the FE argument?  Oh right, nothing, you are the dancing fool just here to be a forum troll.  I have more respect for the copy paste king, Sandy, than I have for you. 
You have no theories of your own, you just parrot what others have said before.  No one is asking you to accept anything, you just need to stop lying and you need to provide explanations for claims.  I still have not seen a proper explanation for why you cannot see the horizon if you are standing on a sphere that is very very very very very very very much larger than you.  I cannot stress this enough, we have a field of view, as in what you see comes in to your eye in a cone like shape extending outward infinitely, not  "level view"  what ever that garbage really is.  We also are very tiny when compared to the Earth.  You act like the Earth has a radius that is like twice the normal human height and their eyes are locked in some arbitrary angle that is tangential to the sphere at the point where that human is standing.  That's the only way to have the curve fall away from you fast enough to have it completely out of your field of view and that only if we use a narrow 45 degree down as our FOV to give your claim the best chance I could.
Do you have any personal proof for your global belief's?

Or are you simply appealing to authority and passing that off as your own proof's?

You said you could show me real proof. So show me.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #586 on: April 04, 2021, 12:06:33 PM »
Re read what I said, twice.  Like I said, your only comebacks are the same old dance moves.  Fingers in ears, cry saying someone is lying when they tell you they personally gathered the data, calculated it, etc.  Dishonesty about considering alternatives to your indoctrination.  Dance on little sheep fool dance on.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #587 on: April 04, 2021, 02:17:52 PM »
When you feel you can look up something and copy and paste it or reference it for your own ease, you can and it makes you feel nice and comfy but offers no realistic proof's of what you're conveying.
Again, you have made it clear that you will simply reject any evidence provided by others.
Evidence provided by him will be dismissed by you just like evidence from NASA.

You have made it clear that the only evidence you accept is that which you obtain yourself or that which agrees with you.

The fact that you are pushing it as a truth when you have no physical proof, is your problem, not mine.
The fact that you need to continually dismiss the proof and lie and claim we have no proof or evidence that Earth is round is your problem, not ours.

I'm always thinking  and I'm always ready and willing to accept proof's of anything.
Stop lying.
You have repeatedly dismissed physical evidence as fake and entirely ignored logical proofs.
So no, you don't appear willing to accept anything that shows you are wrong.

You even did this yet again, by ignoring the images and arguments regarding how that downwards curve produces the horizon and matches what is observed in reality.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #588 on: April 04, 2021, 03:28:29 PM »
Once you can directly prove something to me, only then do you have credence.
All you have at the moment, is appeals to authority.
Ha Ha that's funny.  I gave you the proof that I and many others have personally seen:  A well-defined horizon when flying over water on a clear day.

That proves the earth is not flat.  You refuse to accept proof and just counter with nonsense.  I don't know if you are just a troll or intellectually limited or both.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #589 on: April 05, 2021, 12:28:18 AM »
Re read what I said, twice.  Like I said, your only comebacks are the same old dance moves.  Fingers in ears, cry saying someone is lying when they tell you they personally gathered the data, calculated it, etc.  Dishonesty about considering alternatives to your indoctrination.  Dance on little sheep fool dance on.
Surely you don't really want to play games like this, do you?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #590 on: April 05, 2021, 12:42:17 AM »
When you feel you can look up something and copy and paste it or reference it for your own ease, you can and it makes you feel nice and comfy but offers no realistic proof's of what you're conveying.
Again, you have made it clear that you will simply reject any evidence provided by others.
Evidence provided by him will be dismissed by you just like evidence from NASA.


If there's no proof then I have every right to reject it or at the very least, question it.
Surely you wouldn't expect me to tell you that terminators can come back from the future as metal inter skeletons covered by skin, being real because I saw it in the movies....would you?

But...but....this is the NASA, right?

I should reject what I see to be real in favour of something that has no proof to counteract it, other than magical mysteries?

Flat seas/waters that can be measured with lasers and levels to be just that in favour of convexly curved seas/waters that make no sense whatsoever and show nothing of a downward curve and in fact, if you wanted to play arguments on perceived vision and mindset of illusion, you could say the sea rises up from your standpoint, yet, to stand on any point on your so called globe you should absolutely be looking over a curve with that view rising with each foot, however small that is told to be.





*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #591 on: April 05, 2021, 12:52:31 AM »
Once you can directly prove something to me, only then do you have credence.
All you have at the moment, is appeals to authority.
Ha Ha that's funny.  I gave you the proof that I and many others have personally seen:  A well-defined horizon when flying over water on a clear day.

That proves the earth is not flat.  You refuse to accept proof and just counter with nonsense.  I don't know if you are just a troll or intellectually limited or both.
The fact you're flying over water on a clear day and seeing horizon with every forward movement should really tell you that your horizon changes with every millimetre of that movement.

Your theoretical horizon is just an ongoing convergence of light shades, not any defined line of reality.

Also, the fact you see this ongoing (theoretical) horizon line should also tell you you are flying over flat area.

Let's use another plane.
Would you expect a wood plane to travel flat and level over a wooden ball and shave that ball at the very same thickness as the plane moves over it?

You would certainly see that wood plane shave a little off the top before it misses completely, just like your plane would if it was level skimming the atmosphere.

What does that mean?
It means you get zero horizon, at all because your Earth would never converge with the sky. It would be sky only.


Of course magical mysteries can alter that but that's all they are.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #592 on: April 05, 2021, 02:44:55 AM »
If there's no proof then I have every right to reject it or at the very least, question it.
The problem is that there is proof, and you just reject it without cause.
You have shown you are not willing to accept ANYTHING anyone provides you which shows you are wrong.
If someone provides any evidence that shows you are wrong, you will just dismiss it as fake.
So asking for proof is an exercise in dishonesty.
So why do you continue to do it?

I should reject what I see to be real in favour of something that has no proof to counteract it, other than magical mysteries?
No, you should reject those magical mysteries you foolishly believe in, in favour of something with plenty of evidence to support which you dismiss due to your irrational hatred of it.

Flat seas/waters that can be measured with lasers and levels
You mean water which has been repeatedly observed to be curved, and only consistent with flat when the experimental error is so large that you can't tell the difference.

Curved seas, which clearly show a downwards curve, such as due to the existence of the horizon, and how objects behave near and beyond the horizon, where objects more distant than the horizon are obscured from the bottom up by the horizon and Earth, with more of the object obscured the further away it is; with these distant objects appearing lower, as if they have sunk into the water due to the downwards curve.

Just like the observations of the OP.

You know, those points you are yet to actually address and explain just how it magically works on a FE.

The fact you're flying over water on a clear day and seeing horizon with every forward movement should really tell you that your horizon changes with every millimetre of that movement.
Just like you would expect for a RE.

Your theoretical horizon is just an ongoing convergence of light shades, not any defined line of reality.
And we are not discussing a theoretical horizon. We are discussing a real horizon, the real horizon observed in reality, which is clearly observed a finite distance away.
The fact you are seeing a real horizon instead of just a theoretical one should tell you that you are NOT flying over a flat area, and that instead the surface you are flying over is curved.

What does that mean?
It means you are setting up yet another pathetic strawman to attack the RE.
Other than a round object, that strawman of yours in no way represents the RE model you hate so much.
Again, flat and level are not the same thing.
For your wood plane, that depends on the size of the ball and the size of the plane.
This wood plane is not magically kept flat. Instead it uses the material as a guide.
If you have appropriately scaled, it will follow the curve of the ball.

But the plane in your example isn't remaining level, it is travelling in a straight line.
If you had a plane which magically flew in a straight line, it would go to space in short order.
But back in reality, planes typically fly level, which means they remain roughly the same altitude above Earth and thus follow the curvature.

Stop pretending level and flat are the same thing.

It means you get zero horizon, at all because your Earth would never converge with the sky. It would be sky only.
You have spouted that pathetic lie countless times, and continually refused to justify it.

Again, a simple observation of a ball shows that we would have a horizon on a RE.
Simple math shows that when you are close to the surface, that horizon will appear quite close to eye level.
You are yet to refute any of that. So stop spouting the same pathetic lies.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #593 on: April 05, 2021, 04:35:15 AM »
Re read what I said, twice.  Like I said, your only comebacks are the same old dance moves.  Fingers in ears, cry saying someone is lying when they tell you they personally gathered the data, calculated it, etc.  Dishonesty about considering alternatives to your indoctrination.  Dance on little sheep fool dance on.
Surely you don't really want to play games like this, do you?
So stop playing games.  I'm just fine with an honest discussion.  Until you do so, I will enjoy watching you squirm and dance all around.  So it is your choice.  Stop lying and playing the troll or actually be an adult.  Your choice fool, your choice.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #594 on: April 05, 2021, 04:54:35 AM »
If there's no proof then I have every right to reject it or at the very least, question it.
The problem is that there is proof, and you just reject it without cause.

Show me the proof.
Do not appeal to authority. Show me the proof.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #595 on: April 05, 2021, 04:55:18 AM »
Re read what I said, twice.  Like I said, your only comebacks are the same old dance moves.  Fingers in ears, cry saying someone is lying when they tell you they personally gathered the data, calculated it, etc.  Dishonesty about considering alternatives to your indoctrination.  Dance on little sheep fool dance on.
Surely you don't really want to play games like this, do you?
So stop playing games.  I'm just fine with an honest discussion.  Until you do so, I will enjoy watching you squirm and dance all around.  So it is your choice.  Stop lying and playing the troll or actually be an adult.  Your choice fool, your choice.
My choice is to stay exactly as I am and have been.
You carry on if it makes you feel good.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #596 on: April 05, 2021, 05:38:19 AM »
Once you can directly prove something to me, only then do you have credence.
All you have at the moment, is appeals to authority.
Ha Ha that's funny.  I gave you the proof that I and many others have personally seen:  A well-defined horizon when flying over water on a clear day.

That proves the earth is not flat.  You refuse to accept proof and just counter with nonsense.  I don't know if you are just a troll or intellectually limited or both.
The fact you're flying over water on a clear day and seeing horizon with every forward movement should really tell you that your horizon changes with every millimetre of that movement.

Your theoretical horizon is just an ongoing convergence of light shades, not any defined line of reality.

Also, the fact you see this ongoing (theoretical) horizon line should also tell you you are flying over flat area.

Let's use another plane.
Would you expect a wood plane to travel flat and level over a wooden ball and shave that ball at the very same thickness as the plane moves over it?

You would certainly see that wood plane shave a little off the top before it misses completely, just like your plane would if it was level skimming the atmosphere.

What does that mean?
It means you get zero horizon, at all because your Earth would never converge with the sky. It would be sky only.

Of course magical mysteries can alter that but that's all they are.

Well at least this answers the question of whether you are a troll or intellectually limited.  If you were as dumb as your posts indicate, you couldn't come up with such baloney.

You're just a Troll yanking people's cords.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #597 on: April 05, 2021, 09:51:38 AM »
Once you can directly prove something to me, only then do you have credence.
All you have at the moment, is appeals to authority.
Ha Ha that's funny.  I gave you the proof that I and many others have personally seen:  A well-defined horizon when flying over water on a clear day.

That proves the earth is not flat.  You refuse to accept proof and just counter with nonsense.  I don't know if you are just a troll or intellectually limited or both.
The fact you're flying over water on a clear day and seeing horizon with every forward movement should really tell you that your horizon changes with every millimetre of that movement.

Your theoretical horizon is just an ongoing convergence of light shades, not any defined line of reality.

Also, the fact you see this ongoing (theoretical) horizon line should also tell you you are flying over flat area.

Let's use another plane.
Would you expect a wood plane to travel flat and level over a wooden ball and shave that ball at the very same thickness as the plane moves over it?

You would certainly see that wood plane shave a little off the top before it misses completely, just like your plane would if it was level skimming the atmosphere.

What does that mean?
It means you get zero horizon, at all because your Earth would never converge with the sky. It would be sky only.

Of course magical mysteries can alter that but that's all they are.

Well at least this answers the question of whether you are a troll or intellectually limited.  If you were as dumb as your posts indicate, you couldn't come up with such baloney.

You're just a Troll yanking people's cords.
The usual go to retort with you people.
None of you can prove me wrong so you use this gunk.
You carry on and ramp it up if it makes you feel better and I'll just smile and keep showing you up.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #598 on: April 05, 2021, 09:57:59 AM »
Re read what I said, twice.  Like I said, your only comebacks are the same old dance moves.  Fingers in ears, cry saying someone is lying when they tell you they personally gathered the data, calculated it, etc.  Dishonesty about considering alternatives to your indoctrination.  Dance on little sheep fool dance on.
Surely you don't really want to play games like this, do you?
So stop playing games.  I'm just fine with an honest discussion.  Until you do so, I will enjoy watching you squirm and dance all around.  So it is your choice.  Stop lying and playing the troll or actually be an adult.  Your choice fool, your choice.
My choice is to stay exactly as I am and have been.
You carry on if it makes you feel good.
Ok then, you just keep on being the fool for my enjoyment.  I shall continue to treat you as such and will not waste my time considering that you are anything more than just that.  Kinda sad really but hey you do you.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #599 on: April 05, 2021, 02:06:52 PM »
If there's no proof then I have every right to reject it or at the very least, question it.
The problem is that there is proof, and you just reject it without cause.
Show me the proof.
You have been shown, in other threads, and dismissed it as fake.
Look at JJA, who gave you proof that you can see down a downwards slope through a level tube, and you just dismissed it as fake/manipulation.

When it is a logical argument, actual indisputable proof, you just ignore it or come up with excuses for why you shouldn't need to address it.

Again, you have shown that you will reject anything that shows you are wrong.
So you asking for proof or evidence is just an exercise in dishonesty as you have no intention of ever accepting it and admitting you are wrong.

If you want to show otherwise, deal with the proof that a RE would have a horizon, the simple logical proof you are yet to deal with in any honest way, where just like so many balls observed, a RE will have a boundary, where looking on one side of that boundary will have you see Earth, and looking on the other has you see not Earth (i.e. sky).

Then deal with the mathematical proof that the horizon would be located (ignoring refraction) at an angle below level of roughly acos(R/(R+h)), so when h is tiny (i.e. you are close to the surface) that is effectively 0 and thus would be easily visible with a level view.

You know, that proof you have been provided with countless times which you choose to ignore because it shows you are wrong?