« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 24   Go Down

My impossible challenge for FE'ers

  • 711 Replies
  • 54659 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #420 on: July 09, 2022, 12:43:55 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on July 08, 2022, 11:53:32 PM
The non-existent, unseen, curve, you want to be real
No, the very real curve you are so desperately and pathetically trying to pretend isn't real.
The very real curve which causes the horizon, something you still refuse to explain on a FE.

Quote
Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across the surface
You have already admitted that is pure BS.
Why repeat the same lie?
You have admitted the horizon is a circle.
That means it is not a straight line.

Quote
When we look at that surface, it appears to be rising, and is ENTIRELY flat
No, it doesn't.
Again, the fact there is a horizon, rather than it continuing to appear to rise shows it isn't entirely flat.
The fact that objects disappear beyond the horizon shows it isn't entirely flat.
There is nothing at all to indicate it is flat.

If you want to continually spout the same BS that it looks flat, clearly explain how.
Just what aspect of the view do you think makes it look flat, and just how do you think this would look for a round object like Earth?

Quote
What we see is a flat surface, appearing to rise due to perspective, and the horizon is it's vanishing point.
That is what we would see if Earth was actually flat.
Instead, what we see is a round surface, initially appearing to rise due to perspective, before the effects of curvature become more significant, causing it to appear to sink and hide behind the closer portions of the surface, creating the horizon.

If Earth was flat, it would continue to rise, with no horizon.

We also know the horizon is not the vanishing point.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away, while the horizon is a finite distance away.
We can even draw in parallel lines (parallel in reality, not the image) showing how they meet at the vanishing point which is not the horizon. You were provided with such an image before:


So it is quite clear that the horizon is not the vanishing point. It is not caused purely by perspective.
Instead, the horizon is caused by the curvature of Earth.

Quote
when all the evidence shows it is FLAT, from every viewpoint, in all directions of it.
What evidence?
So far, all the available evidence either can't tell, or clearly shows it is round.
Why don't you provide any evidence that shows it is flat?
Is it because you know there is none so you just need to repeatedly claim that the evidence shows it is flat?

Quote
If horizons were 'curved', we'd SEE it curving constantly
And we do, as a circle that continues to curves around us, at the same angle of dip all around.
Again, just how do you think it should appear?

Quote
Making up a phony 'curve' that doesn't even exist, cannot be seen, anywhere, doesn't explain why objects vanish beyond horizons.
Again, I will stick to the real curve, which does exist, which can be seen, and which does explain why objects vanish beyond the horizons.

Quote
PERSPECTIVE explains it
No, it doesn't.
We have been over this repeatedly.
You keep asserting the same BS, that perspective magically explains it, while refusing to ever provide an explanation of how.
You even fled from a trivial question which exposes your BS.

For objects below your eye level, for a hypothetical flat surface, perspective will make them appear higher.
This is simply a fact of how your vision works.
You can express the angular position (or "apparent height"), as a function of the distance to the object, and its height relative to your eyes.
a=arctan(h/d).
As the object gets further away, the size of that angle shrinks, so it appears higher.
This always continues. It never magically stops and reverses direction.
So you can consider the ground at 5 km away. (The distance to the horizon in reality for an observer with height of ~ 2 m).
This will be at some angular position or apparent height.
Now consider the ground 10 km away.
For this hypothetical flat surface, it MUST appear higher. That means the view to it cannot be obstructed by the ground at 5 km away.
If you consider an object sitting above that surface at a distance of 10 km, then it still must appear higher. That means the view to it cannot be obstructed by the ground at 5 km away.

And with this you can pick any 2 arbitrary distances.
The nearer ground cannot obstruct the view to the more distant object.
This shows that the horizon, and objects being obscured by the horizon CANNOT be explained by perspective alone.

In order to obstruct the view, you need the more distant ground to appear at an equal or lower apparent height.
And this would require it to be physically lower (noting that that does not mean a lower elevation for a RE, as this "lower" using cartesian coordinates based upon the observer). And this isn't just any amount lower; it needs to be sufficiently lower such that after accounting for perspective making it appear higher it is still appearing at the same height or lower.
e.g. if the ground is 2 m below your eye level at 5 km, then the ground at 10 km would need to be 4 m or more below your eye level to allow the ground at 5 km to obstruct the view.

This can also easily be shown graphically:

For a FE, the ground always continues to appear to rise, never creating a horizon, and never obstructing the view.

But for a RE, the curvature makes the ground lower, and eventually that becomes the dominant effect (rather than perspective) making the ground appear lower and giving a horizon.

So as has been explained to you repeatedly, a FE cannot explain the horizon, nor how objects disappear behind the horizon. Conversely, a RE does explain both.
This means the mere existence of the horizon is quite good evidence that Earth is round. The fact that objects disappear behind it is more evidence that Earth is round.

If you want to disagree, you need to clearly explain how perspective would make an object 2 m below you at 10 km distance appear lower than an object 2 m below you at 5 km distance.

Quote
The physical evidence shows it is a flat surface, all measurements show it is a flat surface
You keep spouting this BS, but you can provide nothing to justify it.
What physical evidence shows it as flat?
What measurements show it is flat?
So far, all I have found either quite clearly shows it is round (like the mere existence of the horizon, the measured angle of dip to the horizon, the change in the angle of dip and distance to the horizon with altitude, the fact objects are obscured by the horizon, photos from space, measurements of the apparent position of celestial objects, and so on); or they are unable to tell the difference (like using a ruler to measure the drop over 1 m).

I am yet to find a single thing which indicates Earth is flat rather than round, and you are yet to provide a single example.

Quote
it's nonsense to claim there's a curved surface, when it's the very OPPOSITE of it, in reality.
You mean if it was the opposite of reality.
In reality, there is a curved surface. This means it is nonsense to claim it is flat in its entirety.

Quote
Saying a curve is there, when there's NONE at all, never seen, never measured, is competely absurd.
But saying a curve is there, when there quite clearly is a curve, which is repeatedly seen and measured, is completely sane.

Quote
But look across a horizon, and show me where a curve appears over it, the curve that makes ships drop down and vanish from all view....
The curve you are looking for is from the observer to the horizon.
Get me a picture of a basketball and show me the curve that makes objects behind the ball vanish from view.
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #421 on: July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on July 09, 2022, 12:43:55 AM
Again, the fact there is a horizon, rather than it continuing to appear to rise shows it isn't entirely flat.
The fact that objects disappear beyond the horizon shows it isn't entirely flat.
There is nothing at all to indicate it is flat.

If you want to continually spout the same BS that it looks flat, clearly explain how.
Just what aspect of the view do you think makes it look flat, and just how do you think this would look for a round object like Earth?

A curved surface would constantly 'win' over perspective, and the reason for that, is blatantly obvious - a curved surface will have MORE of curve, the greater the distance away.

The surface of Earth CONTINUALLY appears to keep rising higher and higher, with more and more distance away. If it was curved, the surface would continually curve downward, with more and more distance away. If ships really went down below the surface of Earth because it was curved, they would constantly curve downward, from the start, and curve down more and more with more distance away from your position.

Again, simply look at the surface, from one position, outward...

Do you see the ENTIRE surface, up to the horizon? Of course you see the whole surface to that point, as it appears to be rising upward over the entire distance, up to the horizon.

There is NOTHING of a curve ever seen along the entire surface, up to that point, right?

In fact, when you see the surface at it's HIGHEST, 3 miles away, there would be MORE of a curve DOWNWARD, right? Perspective over a curved surface would have LESS and LESS of an effect, with MORE and MORE distance away from you. If it curved 8 inches over the first mile out, that's where perspective would have it's greatest effect. But at 2 miles out, the surface would curve about 32 inches downward, and perspective would have much less effect on your view of the surface, as it has curved much further down by that point. The surface would STOP appearing to rise any further, by that point, and at most, would be seen the SAME height from that point on. It would NOT keep rising up more and more, up to the horizon, and suddenly pop up, past the horizon, in one great slope, which nobody can even SEE! That's ludicrous.

What CAUSES the surface to appear to rise the ENTIRE DISTANCE, is that it IS flat. Just as we SEE it as - entirely flat, while appearing to rise up more and more until the horizon.

A curving surface would not keep rising up and up, with more distance away, because it would curve DOWNWARD more and more with greater distance away. There IS no curve seen on the surface, anywhere at all, it is completely flat, and that's why we see an entire ship over that distance, because if it was curving downward, we'd see less and less of the ship, with more distance away, until it was out of all view - WELL BEFORE it was 3 miles away.

A curve cannot suddenly ;win out' over perspective, after it was a flat surface, which appeared to CONTINUALLY RISE UP, for the first 3 miles out!

The proof of it being a flat surface, is simply to SEE it is flat, the entire distance out from you. More proof, is seeing the surface appears to KEEP RISING UP AND UP, while seen AS flat, the entire distance out from you. It does NOT stop rising up at ANY distance out from you, as it MUST BE, if it was curving down more and more in the distance. That is the FIRST thing we would see if it WAS curved - a surface that slowly rises up, at first, and then, we'd see the surface STOP rising up, further out. And then a slightly curving horizon would be seen, and nothing beyond it.

There would be a horizon on curved surface, as there is on our flat surface. The difference is, a horizon on a curved surface would not keep rising up to it, because it would curve more and more, and not continue to rise, as it does on our flat surface.

The problem is, you do NOT understand how perspective and vanishing point work, on either a flat, OR a curved surface, you still think flat surfaces cannot HAVE horizons, which is simply wrong, proven by OUR horizons on Earth.

Perspective only applies to surfaces which are flat, or ALMOST flat. An almost flat surface would be your ball Earth surface, except it is only almost flat for a short distance, but then it becomes more and more curved, and less and less flat. That means perspective would NOT make it appear to rise up and up, because it would curve more and more with greater distance away from your position.

The continually rising upward surface, which we see, is only possible on a FLAT surface, it is impossible on a curved surface, as it would not keep rising upward the whole way out to a horizon, it would curve more and more out from you, not rise up from 'perspective'.

I've made it clear to you, that if you believe the surface IS curved, you have to show EVIDENCE of it being curved. When you refuse to accept that the surface IS flat, you have no proof it is NOT flat, while I have proof it IS flat, when we SEE it is flat, all the time, when we see horizons are flat across, all the time, at any altitude above Earth.

When you don't accept horizons are flat, when we can SEE they're flat, you're simply denying the reality we see every day on Earth.

You make excuses about drawing of horizons, and long distances, not representing EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE OF HORIZONS, and long distances, which is complete BS.

They show what we DO see, in the real world, on a canvas, or on paper, or in computer models.

They ALWAYS have STRAIGHT LINES on them, no curved lines at all. Why is that relevant? Because if Earth was curved, it would look very different than it actually DOES look. And our drawings would show that, too.

Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #422 on: July 10, 2022, 05:22:23 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
A curved surface would constantly 'win' over perspective
No it wouldn't, as already explained repeatedly, in many different ways.
That kind of nonsense of yours is equivalent to claiming that if you look towards a ball or any round object, you should only ever be able to see a single point.
It is quite clearly pure garbage.
A very simple way to show your claim is garbage is with this diagram, showing the combined effects:


Another simple way is by noting that for a small enough portion of a large enough sphere, it will be indistinguishable from a flat surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
and the reason for that, is blatantly obvious - a curved surface will have MORE of curve, the greater the distance away.
And that is no better than saying:
"and the reason for that, is blatantly obvious - perspective will cause a surface to appear higher, the greater the distance away."

The simple fact is there are 2 competing effects.
Perspective to try and make things appear higher, and curvature making them physically lower.
For a RE, this means perspective wins initially, and then eventually curvature wins and we get a horizon.
For a FE, without curvature, perspective always wins and there is never a horizon.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
The surface of Earth CONTINUALLY appears to keep rising higher and higher, with more and more distance away.
No it doesn't.
That is the very point you keep fleeing from.
In reality it does not continually appear to rise.
Instead it appears to rise until it reaches the horizon, after which it appears to sink.
That is what you cannot explain.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
If it was curved, the surface would continually curve downward, with more and more distance away.
And as perspective allows things to appear higher, this still allows the ground to initially appear to rise, before appearing to sink.
Do you understand the difference between appearing higher and being higher?
And object can be lower but appear higher.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
Do you see the ENTIRE surface, up to the horizon? Of course you see the whole surface to that point, as it appears to be rising upward over the entire distance, up to the horizon.
Just like you would expect for a RE.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
There is NOTHING of a curve ever seen along the entire surface, up to that point, right?
Wrong.
To start, why don't you try explaining just what a curve should look like up to that point.
For example, consider this cropped image, is it curved?


Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
Perspective over a curved surface would have LESS and LESS of an effect, with MORE and MORE distance away from you.
It is more a case of the effect of perspective will be less and less with more distance.
The curvature is irrelevant here.
In addition, the effect of curvature becomes more and more significant.

Again, you are just refuting yourself here.
Initially perspective wins and the surface appears to rise. But with greater distance, curvature wins and the surface appears to sink.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
If it curved 8 inches over the first mile out, that's where perspective would have it's greatest effect. But at 2 miles out, the surface would curve about 32 inches downward, and perspective would have much less effect on your view of the surface, as it has curved much further down by that point. The surface would STOP appearing to rise any further, by that point, and at most, would be seen the SAME height from that point on.
Why?
Why that particular distance?
Why not a further distance?
Why isn't it at ~ 5 km?

We can see the combined effect by combining both equations.
For perspective, the main one, we have a=atan(h/d) (noting h and a are both measured downwards)
And for the curvature of Earth, we have h=d^2/2R.
Combining them, by noting our observation point is 2 m above the surface we end up with:
a=atan((0.002km+d^2/2R)/d)
Alternatively, you can set the observer height to be a variable, lets call it o:
a=atan((o+d^2/2R)/d) = atan(o/d + d/2R)

You can see how the angle changes by looking at the derivative.
da/dd = (1/(1+(o/d + d/2R)^2))*(-o/d^2 + 1/2R) = (1/2R - o/d^2)/(1+(o/d + d/2R)^2)
And this allows you to find where it changes (i.e. the horizon) by finding when the derivative is 0.
0=(1/2R - o/d^2)/(1+(o/d + d/2R)^2)
0=1/2R - o/d^2
1/2R = o/d^2
d^2 = 2*R*o
d=sqrt(2*R*o)

So putting in R=6371 km, and o = 0.002 km (2 m), we get d=5.05 km.
Quite different to the 1 or 2 miles you baselessly asserted.

So can you explain why it should be at 1 or 2 miles, instead of what the math and relaity shows?


Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
It would NOT keep rising up more and more, up to the horizon, and suddenly pop up, past the horizon
Why?
All you have argued above is that the horizon should be at 1 or 2 archaic units, instead of ~ 5 km for an observer height of 2 m.
But you have effectively just explained why you are wrong.

Initially perspective wins, causing the ground to appear to rise, but as the effect of perspective diminishes and curvature becomes more dominant, you end up with the ground appearing to sink.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
What CAUSES the surface to appear to rise the ENTIRE DISTANCE, is that it IS flat.
As you have just explained, a curved surface allows it to initially rise before appearing to sink, creating a horizon.
If it was flat it would appear to rise FOREVER! There would be no horizon for a FE.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
if it was curving downward, we'd see less and less of the ship, with more distance away, until it was out of all view - WELL BEFORE it was 3 miles away.
WHY?
Stop just asserting pure BS.
Justify your claims.
Why should it be well before 3 archaic units?
Why shouldn't it be at 3 archaic units, or 10 archaic units?
All you are doing is asserting BS which doesn't match reality to pathetically try and dismiss the RE.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
A curve cannot suddenly ;win out' over perspective, after it was a flat surface, which appeared to CONTINUALLY RISE UP, for the first 3 miles out!
It was never a flat surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
The proof of it being a flat surface, is simply to SEE it is flat, the entire distance out from you.
Except we don't.
We see a surface with unknown curvature, because in that direction it is incredibly hard to see the less than 1 degree of curvature.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2022, 05:23:59 AM by JackBlack »
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #423 on: July 10, 2022, 05:23:24 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
More proof, is seeing the surface appears to KEEP RISING UP AND UP, while seen AS flat, the entire distance out from you. It does NOT stop rising up at ANY distance out from you, as it MUST BE
And more wilful rejection of reality.
You are so close.
This is actually proof that Earth isn't flat.
This is because it doesn't keep rising up and up.
It eventually stops rising at the horizon, and then starts sinking.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
if it was curving down more and more in the distance. That is the FIRST thing we would see if it WAS curved - a surface that slowly rises up, at first, and then, we'd see the surface STOP rising up, further out.
And that is exactly what we do see, showing Earth is round.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
And then a slightly curving horizon would be seen, and nothing beyond it.
Pure BS.
The "slightly curving horizon" would be a circle around you, with the same angle of dip all around.
It will be not curved in the way you want it to be.
As for seeing nothing beyond it, that only applies to things which are obstructed from view.
If an object is tall enough, there would be some portion visible.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
a horizon on a curved surface would not keep rising up to it
This makes no sense at all.
Just what are you suggesting here?
A visible horizon with the ground visible above it?

The difference is what happens beyond the horizon.
For a RE, curvature is winning and the more distant level ground is not seen. Likewise, objects above the surface start to be obscured as they go visually below the horizon.
For a FE, there is no horizon as the ground continues to appear to rise.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
because it would curve more and more, and not continue to rise, as it does on our flat surface.
Again, you are rejecting relaity.
In reality, it does not continue to rise. This causes the horizon.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
The problem is, you do NOT understand how perspective and vanishing point work, on either a flat, OR a curved surface, you still think flat surfaces cannot HAVE horizons, which is simply wrong, proven by OUR horizons on Earth.
No, I understand both quite well.
Neither perspective nor vanishing point creates a horizon.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, and you just keep on ignoring it.
Instead of you continually baselessly asserting crap, how about you explain what magic causes perspective to stop making objects below you appear to rise.
The simple fact is that the only horizon for a flat surface is the edge of that surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
Perspective only applies to surfaces which are flat
PURE BS!
Perspective applies to ALL surfaces and all observations.
It is simply a fancy way to say a=atan(h/d).

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
The continually rising upward surface, which we see, is only possible on a FLAT surface
Wrong. A hypothetical surface which appears to continually rise upwards would require a flat surface.
But that isn't what we see.
What we see is a surface that initially appears to rise and then appears to sink.
This is not possible on a flat surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
I've made it clear to you, that if you believe the surface IS curved, you have to show EVIDENCE of it being curved.
You have been provided that evidence.
If you wish to assert such BS as the Earth is flat, you need to provide evidence.
You repeating the same pathetic lies wont help your case.

Again, the very observation of the existence of the horizon is evidence that Earth is curved and a disproof of a flat Earth.
If you wish to disagree then you need to explain what magic causes perspective to stop.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
I have proof it IS flat
Then why do you refuse to provide any?
While I have provided plenty for a RE.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
when we SEE it is flat, all the time
No, we don't.
The best we get is not being able to tell.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
When you don't accept horizons are flat
I fully accept that the horizon is a flat circle, what you would expect for the intersection of a plane and a sphere.
i.e. what you would expect for a round Earth.
What I don't accept is your blatant lie that it is straight and not curved.
This is because a circle is curved.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
You make excuses about drawing of horizons, and long distances, not representing EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE OF HORIZONS, and long distances
Because they don't, as the image I provide above clearly shows. The horizon is not the vanishing point. It is below it.
This shows your claims about it are pure BS.

Again, if you want to continue falsely claiming Earth is flat, explain what magic causes perspective to stop.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 10, 2022, 02:11:12 AM
They ALWAYS have STRAIGHT LINES on them, no curved lines at all. Why is that relevant? Because if Earth was curved, it would look very different than it actually DOES look. And our drawings would show that, too.
Simple drawings for children have straight lines, because they are easier.
Renderings that try for that extra bit of realism, or involve long distances, will use curves.
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #424 on: July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM »
If you cannot accept seeing the surface is entirely flat, throughout the distance it appears to be rising upward, you're simply in denial of what is there to be seen - a completely flat surface, not any curve seen at all. That's the reality.

Horizons are not real, and the surface doesn't really rise upward, in the distance, and parallel lines or objects don't really start to converge together in the distance, either.

We're seeing things that aren't true, aren't real, all illusions of perspective and vanishing point. At the point we see parallel objects converging together as one thing, it is the vanishing point. Two separate lines or objects become only one line or object, then are out of all sight, beyond the horizon. The lines or objects didn't curve down, or curve together, they were in two straight lines or paths, throughout the time.

If you saw both a flat surface, and a curved surface, side by side, it would look very different with the curved surface, than it really does now, on a flat surface.

What we know about a curved surface, is that it curves more and more with distance, but it stays the same on a flat surface. That means, perspective acts the same way over a flat surface, which always appears to be rising upward, to the horizon. A curved surface would rise less and less with more distance out, because it curves more and more with greater distance outward. A curved surface would slightly rise up, before it stops rising at all, perspective dies out, at that point.

Parallel objects or lines are the best examples that show what happens on a flat surface.

If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them. If we PUT parallel lines objects ONTO a curved surface, they would become CURVED lines or objects, and no longer run parallel to one another. And they would curve AWAY from one another, as each one is curving away on the surface, they wouldn't appear to be converging, as they do on the flat surface. They'd still be smaller and smaller, in the distance, but would split away from each other, not converge as one.

Horizons are seen as a perfectly flat, straight line across the surface of Earth, wherever we look out to it. From our viewpoint, it is the middle of a flat surface, surrounding us, so if you wish to call it a circle, at least call it a FLAT circle, because that's what it REALLY is. Earth itself is a great, flat circle, where all things exist within it, which surrounds the entire Earth.
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #425 on: July 23, 2022, 12:06:53 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
If you cannot accept seeing the surface is entirely flat, throughout the distance it appears to be rising upward, you're simply in denial of what is there to be seen - a completely flat surface, not any curve seen at all. That's the reality.
No, that is your fantasy.
The fact we see a horizon is quite clear evidence that it is curved.
If it was flat, there would be no horizon.

Just how do you expect a curved surface that large to look?

There are only 2 ways to see that the surface is curved.
One is to see a significantly different reflection of light/shadow because of the different angle.
The issue with that is the sheer size of Earth makes that insignificant.
The other is to see the horizon, which we do.

If you can't bring yourself to admit the horizon should not appear on a flat Earth, then YOU are in denial.

If you want to claim it looks flat rather than curved, clearly explain just how a curved surface should look and how this differs from Earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
Horizons are not real
They are quite real in the sense that they are a physical phenomenon based upon the physical curvature of Earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
We're seeing things that aren't true, aren't real, all illusions of perspective and vanishing point.
We have been over this countless times, perspective and vanishing point do not create the horizon that is repeatedly observed on Earth.
The vanishing point, the only way to get anything like a horizon for a flat surface (other than the edge) is infinitely far away and would be at eye level.
But the horizon is a finite distance away, it blocks the view to more distant objects, and is below eye level.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic BS and instead clearly explain just how perspective/vanishing point magically makes objects appear to sink.
Explain why the ground 10 km away does not appear higher than the ground 5 km away (for an observer height of 2 m).

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
If you saw both a flat surface, and a curved surface, side by side, it would look very different with the curved surface, than it really does now, on a flat surface.
HOW?
Clearly explain just what would be different.

I can tell you how a flat surface would be different. There would be no horizon. You would be able to see much further off into the distance. Objects would never appear to be obscured from the bottom up.

Everything we see is consistent with a round Earth, and plenty are not consistent with a flat Earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
A curved surface would rise less and less with more distance out, because it curves more and more with greater distance outward. A curved surface would slightly rise up, before it stops rising at all, perspective dies out, at that point.
And that is exactly what is observed.
Initially the ground appears to rise up due to perspective, but that rise is less and less as the distance increases, until eventually it stops rising and instead appears to sink.
We can't see the ground that has apparently sunk because the closer ground is blocking the view. But we can see it indirectly in the form of distant objects beyond the horizon where the bottom is obstructed.

So all you are doing here is clearly explaining why we know Earth is round, and that Earth isn't flat.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
Parallel objects or lines are the best examples that show what happens on a flat surface.
That's right, and no matter how far you go, you never have the line magically obstruct the view to more distant parts of it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them.
Firstly, pure BS, we can have parallel lines. Parallel lines do not require them to be straight. Curves can be parallel.

But more importantly, this ties into the other thread, where over a small distance the curvature is so insignificant you wont be able to tell.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
And they would curve AWAY from one another, as each one is curving away on the surface
Wrong again.
You can happily place them parallel on a curved surface, like train tracks are.
If instead you wanted them to follow the curvature of the surface but otherwise be "straight", then they would converge, not diverge.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM
Horizons are seen as a perfectly flat, straight line
Stop repeating the same BS.
You have already admitted the horizon is a circle.
Guess what? Circles aren't straight.
The horizon is a flat circle, exactly as you would expect for a round Earth.
And as already pointed out, a flat Earth shouldn't have a horizon at all.

Stop just repeating the same refuted BS and instead start explaining how any of this would work on a flat Earth.

Start by explaining why there is a horizon in the first place.
Then explain why the horizon is a certain distance away, and how to determine that distance.
Then explain why objects beyond the horizon appear to sink.

Until you do that, we have a round Earth model, which is entirely consistent with observations, which can actually explain what is observed; and we have flat earth nonsense which can't even explain quite basic things like where there is a horizon in the first place.
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10461
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #426 on: July 23, 2022, 06:09:03 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM


Parallel objects or lines are the best examples that show what happens on a flat surface.

If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them. If we PUT parallel lines objects ONTO a curved surface, they would become CURVED lines or objects, and no longer run parallel to one another. And they would curve AWAY from one another, as each one is curving away on the surface, they wouldn't appear to be converging, as they do on the flat surface. They'd still be smaller and smaller, in the distance, but would split away from each other, not converge as one.




Amazing

So railway tracks DO converge in the distance?

How do trains stop fo crashing?



Hey heres a thought.
Turn thr image 90drgrees.
Do they still converge?
Sort of rises up even though its going out straight?




https://images.app.goo.gl/hdHej5DGwK5Bv17V8
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #427 on: August 06, 2022, 09:49:04 PM »
Quote from: Themightykabool on July 23, 2022, 06:09:03 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM


Parallel objects or lines are the best examples that show what happens on a flat surface.

If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them. If we PUT parallel lines objects ONTO a curved surface, they would become CURVED lines or objects, and no longer run parallel to one another. And they would curve AWAY from one another, as each one is curving away on the surface, they wouldn't appear to be converging, as they do on the flat surface. They'd still be smaller and smaller, in the distance, but would split away from each other, not converge as one.




Amazing

So railway tracks DO converge in the distance?


How do trains stop fo crashing?[/quote]

What IS amazing, is that you post my words, and don't even READ them!

I'll make it easy for you. Here's what I said, which you posted above, and, somehow, didn't even read...

".. they wouldn't appear to be converging, as they do on the flat surface."
nclude
Note the word APPEAR? I've made sure to say it as much as possible, because in the past, I've always seen some moron jump on something I left out, assuming everyone knew what I as talking about at that point.

But in this case, I DID mention it, and you STILL tried to jump on it!

I hate wasting my time on this BS, and I shouldn't HAVE to waste time on it. After all, we are all mature adults, with intelligence, and common sense, right? So let's USE our brains, and common sense, in future..
Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #428 on: August 06, 2022, 10:40:40 PM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 06, 2022, 09:49:04 PM
Quote from: Themightykabool on July 23, 2022, 06:09:03 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 22, 2022, 11:49:58 PM


Parallel objects or lines are the best examples that show what happens on a flat surface.

If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them. If we PUT parallel lines objects ONTO a curved surface, they would become CURVED lines or objects, and no longer run parallel to one another. And they would curve AWAY from one another, as each one is curving away on the surface, they wouldn't appear to be converging, as they do on the flat surface. They'd still be smaller and smaller, in the distance, but would split away from each other, not converge as one.

Amazing

Yes, amazing how you are wrong yet again. We can just start with your, "If we had a curved surface, parallel lines or objects could not even EXIST, because curved surfaces don't HAVE straight, parallel lines or objects on them."

Curved surfaces can't have straight, parallel lines on them???



I see lots oif parallel lines on this curved surface:

Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #429 on: August 07, 2022, 06:48:12 AM »
How did the plane end up in Alaska, I'm still waiting for your excuse(s) on it.

It's a real stumper, so take your time, I'm you'll invent something eventually, and I can't wait to hear it!
Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #430 on: August 07, 2022, 12:41:45 PM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 07, 2022, 06:48:12 AM
How did the plane end up in Alaska, I'm still waiting for your excuse(s) on it.

It's a real stumper, so take your time, I'm you'll invent something eventually, and I can't wait to hear it!

So you now admit that you were wrong. Curved surfaces can have straight, parallel lines on them. Good

As you can clearly see here, the diversion of China Flt 8 was far shorter to Anchorage than to LAX:



Same flight from 8/4/22:







Lastly, your flight diversion document is not genuine because you haven't proved that it's genuine. It's all fakery, according to you. Remember? You said:

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 06, 2022, 09:57:22 PM
Again, YOU haven't proved they ARE genuine, to begin with.
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #431 on: August 09, 2022, 02:57:39 AM »
And yet again you flee from simple arguments that show you are wrong; completely jumping topic.

Again, the horizon clearly shows Earth is round.
Care to explain what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
What magic causes the ground to first appear to rise up but then magically switch and appear to sink?



Quote from: turbonium2 on August 06, 2022, 09:49:04 PM
What IS amazing, is that you post my words, and don't even READ them!
No, we just understand the stupidity of your statement and the logical implications of it.

Earth is round, and railway tracks appear to converge in the distance.
According to your complete absence of reasoning, this means the railway tracks must actually converge.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 06, 2022, 09:49:04 PM
I hate wasting my time on this BS, and I shouldn't HAVE to waste time on it.
And you don't have to waste your time on it.
All that takes is for you to stop spouting this BS.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 06, 2022, 09:49:04 PM
After all, we are all mature adults, with intelligence, and common sense, right? So let's USE our brains, and common sense, in future..
Again, follow your own advice.
We already have been.
We recognise that parallel lines appear to converge in the distance.
We also recognise that placing them on a round surface wont magically stop that.

But you instead throw all reason to the wind and boldly assert that such a setup should result in railway tracks appearing to diverge; with no rational justification at all.
Instead the only attempt at such a justification is effectively the assertion itself, where you boldly claim that they should magically curve away.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 07, 2022, 06:48:12 AM
How did the plane end up in Alaska
What plane? Did you mix up your threads?
Is this from your other thread where you want to pretend the RE is actually a flat Earth in the layout of the Mercator projection?
If so, that BS can stay in the other thread, where you already have your answer, even if you hate it.
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #432 on: August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2022, 02:57:39 AM
Again, the horizon clearly shows Earth is round.
Care to explain what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
What magic causes the ground to first appear to rise up but then magically switch and appear to sink?

Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth's surface, which prove the surface is NOT curving at all. Horizons that stretch across hundreds of miles, are all flat, straight lines across Earth, circling around us, within it. The higher we are, the longer the fat horizon is, and the larger the circle is, when we look at them.

It is not magic that causes horizons on a flat surface, it is due to perspective, which makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance it is from us, and forms as a horizon, where we can see nothing of the surface beyond, or objects on it, or the highest part of objects on it, being higher than the horizon is, like a plane above the surface is seen beyond a horizon, because it is higher than it. Same thing in reverse happens with objects above the surface, going out in the distance, appear to go lower and lower, while at the same height throughout, is due to perspective.

But just seeing that all horizons ARE flat, and straight across Earth's surface, in a circle around us, proves it is flat, and not at all curved.

Again, you can keep saying Earth's surface is curved, you cannot draw it as a curved surface, with a flat horizon on it, with curved lines on each side, rising up, while appearing flat throughout the distance out, and finally draw a curve at the horizon, because it's impossible to draw such a thing, and there's never been a drawing of it, for that very reason.

Perspective can only be drawn with STRAIGHT lines, because Earth is flat, and not curved.
Logged
*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #433 on: August 28, 2022, 04:40:43 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2022, 02:57:39 AM
Again, the horizon clearly shows Earth is round.
Care to explain what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
What magic causes the ground to first appear to rise up but then magically switch and appear to sink?

Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth's surface, which prove the surface is NOT curving at all. Horizons that stretch across hundreds of miles, are all flat, straight lines across Earth, circling around us, within it. The higher we are, the longer the fat horizon is, and the larger the circle is, when we look at them.

It is not magic that causes horizons on a flat surface, it is due to perspective, which makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance it is from us, and forms as a horizon, where we can see nothing of the surface beyond, or objects on it, or the highest part of objects on it, being higher than the horizon is, like a plane above the surface is seen beyond a horizon, because it is higher than it. Same thing in reverse happens with objects above the surface, going out in the distance, appear to go lower and lower, while at the same height throughout, is due to perspective.

But just seeing that all horizons ARE flat, and straight across Earth's surface, in a circle around us, proves it is flat, and not at all curved.

Again, you can keep saying Earth's surface is curved, you cannot draw it as a curved surface, with a flat horizon on it, with curved lines on each side, rising up, while appearing flat throughout the distance out, and finally draw a curve at the horizon, because it's impossible to draw such a thing, and there's never been a drawing of it, for that very reason.

Perspective can only be drawn with STRAIGHT lines, because Earth is flat, and not curved.
Wrong, the horizon itself, being a sharp point between sky and ground disproves flatness. 
You are very very very small when compared to the Earth.  There is curvature, it is just very very tiny from our perspective point. 
Show me a picture from ground level that shows hundreds and hundreds of miles of horizon.  Not the tops of mountains, it needs to show all of the mountains. 
This again is a pathetic strawman attempt, you keep lying about what should be observed and claiming those lies dont happen so Earth must be flat or lying about what is observed and then claiming those lies can't be on a Spherical Earth.  It's pathetic, fun to laugh at how stupid some humans are, but still pathetic.
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #434 on: August 28, 2022, 05:30:00 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines
Why do you insist on repeating the same delusional BS which is so obviously false?
The horizon is a circle, that means it can't be straight.
There is no way to have a circle that is a straight line. (not unless you want to extend the concept of a straight line to non-Euclidean geometry like spherical geometry and use a something like a great circle on a sphere as a straight line).

Yes, it is flat, just like you would expect for the RE.

And that is important. For the RE, you would expect a horizon.
For a FE, you would not.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
It is not magic that causes horizons on a flat surface, it is due to perspective, which makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance it is from us, and forms as a horizon
This is the same BS you have repeatedly plenty of times, yet refused to provide any justification for and refused to answer trivial questions which expose it to be pure BS.

Perspective doesn't magically form a horizon.
The closest you get to that is the vanishing point which is infinitely far away.
That requirement of being infinitely far away excludes it from being the cause of the horizon, as the horizon is a finite distance away.

You do need magic.
You start out correct with what perspective does, it makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance.
That is if you had a flat surface, which was parallel to a line passing straight through your eyes in the direction you are looking, then it will appear to rise in the distance.
The surface 100 m away will appear higher than the surface 1 m away.
The surface 1 km away will appear higher than the surface 100 m away.
The surface 5 km away will appear higher than the surface 1 km away.
The surface 10 km away will appear higher than the surface 5 km away.
The surface 100 km away will appear higher than the surface 10 km away.
The surface 1000 km away will appear higher than the surface 100 km away.

It will never stop.

At no point will magically decide to make the surface appear lower.
At no point will it magically form a horizon which obstructs the more distant regions from view.

But what is observed in reality is that the surface appears to rise until it reaches the horizon, and then it stops.
Beyond the horizon, it appears to go down, and causes objects to appear to sink.

This is why you need curvature, to make it go up and then down.

If you wish to claim otherwise, then stop just asserting the same delusional BS and instead clearly explain what magic causes the ground at 10 km to appear lower than the ground at 5 km to someone standing 2 m above the surface.

That is what you need to address. Clearly explain what causes the horizon in your delusional fantasy.
Don't just assert that there is magically a horizon for no reason at all. Clearly explain what causes it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
But just seeing that all horizons ARE flat, and straight across Earth's surface, in a circle around us, proves it is flat, and not at all curved.
Good thing no one ever sees that as it is literally impossible.
You cannot have a straight circle.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
while appearing flat throughout the distance out
In what way does it appear flat?

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
Perspective can only be drawn with STRAIGHT lines, because Earth is flat, and not curved.
No, simple kid friendly instructions for perspective can only be done with straight lines.
But perspective works with any lines, including curves.
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10461
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #435 on: August 28, 2022, 08:04:01 AM »
The horizon is flat?

Take a circle of paper
Look at it on edge
Do you see a round circle?
Or flat line?

O vs I
Logged
?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 4142
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #436 on: August 30, 2022, 01:30:41 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM

Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth's surface, which prove the surface is NOT curving at all.


Then why does this ship disappear below the horizon?  Become physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.  Which would be impossible on a flat earth?

« Last Edit: August 30, 2022, 01:33:58 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »
Logged
*

Timeisup

  • 3629
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #437 on: August 31, 2022, 01:55:17 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2022, 02:57:39 AM
Again, the horizon clearly shows Earth is round.
Care to explain what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
What magic causes the ground to first appear to rise up but then magically switch and appear to sink?

Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth's surface, which prove the surface is NOT curving at all. Horizons that stretch across hundreds of miles, are all flat, straight lines across Earth, circling around us, within it. The higher we are, the longer the fat horizon is, and the larger the circle is, when we look at them.

It is not magic that causes horizons on a flat surface, it is due to perspective, which makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance it is from us, and forms as a horizon, where we can see nothing of the surface beyond, or objects on it, or the highest part of objects on it, being higher than the horizon is, like a plane above the surface is seen beyond a horizon, because it is higher than it. Same thing in reverse happens with objects above the surface, going out in the distance, appear to go lower and lower, while at the same height throughout, is due to perspective.

But just seeing that all horizons ARE flat, and straight across Earth's surface, in a circle around us, proves it is flat, and not at all curved.

Again, you can keep saying Earth's surface is curved, you cannot draw it as a curved surface, with a flat horizon on it, with curved lines on each side, rising up, while appearing flat throughout the distance out, and finally draw a curve at the horizon, because it's impossible to draw such a thing, and there's never been a drawing of it, for that very reason.

Perspective can only be drawn with STRAIGHT lines, because Earth is flat, and not curved.

The earth is flat and not curved? Says who? You and a few other individuals. Why do you imagine this belief is NOT held by one single professional scientist? 

You speak about being adult. You speak about being intelligent. You speak about many things and waste all that time and effort doing so.  You nit pick, dodge and weave, while ignoring not just one elephant but the countless herds all stamping and running over all the comments you make.
If you were intelligent as you claim why are you wasting your time arguing against the truth? It looks like you have been infected by the brain rotting dogma of flat earth belief.

It’s been said countless times before and some idiots would even take issue with it, but stop and think for a moment. You say you are intelligent so use it and answer this one question without resorting to; oh that’s just an appeal to authority bullshit.

Why is it that every single academic institution on the planet. Every single astronomer, physicist, earth scientist bar none…..  etc. basically everyone all agree that the earth is a globe? Why in all your arguments do you ignore all the day to day in your face evidence that the earth is a globe?

Why do you imagine you have some ‘special insight’ into the nature of the planet that has eluded the rest of humanity and every professional scientist on the planet ever? In your world everyone is wrong and only you are right! Is that likely?

What about the few  who share your beliefs. How credible are they?

Putting your fingers in your ears ignoring reality and the all the multitude of elephants running around, while singing la la la la with your fingers in your ears while pretending  you alone are privy to some unique knowledge and understanding that has escaped the greatest minds in the world ……. That’s the question that you really should be contemplating.

Logged
Really…..what a laugh!!!
*

Smoke Machine

  • 3146
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #438 on: August 31, 2022, 02:52:36 PM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on August 28, 2022, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2022, 02:57:39 AM
Again, the horizon clearly shows Earth is round.
Care to explain what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
What magic causes the ground to first appear to rise up but then magically switch and appear to sink?

Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth's surface, which prove the surface is NOT curving at all. Horizons that stretch across hundreds of miles, are all flat, straight lines across Earth, circling around us, within it. The higher we are, the longer the fat horizon is, and the larger the circle is, when we look at them.

It is not magic that causes horizons on a flat surface, it is due to perspective, which makes flat surfaces appear to rise with more distance it is from us, and forms as a horizon, where we can see nothing of the surface beyond, or objects on it, or the highest part of objects on it, being higher than the horizon is, like a plane above the surface is seen beyond a horizon, because it is higher than it. Same thing in reverse happens with objects above the surface, going out in the distance, appear to go lower and lower, while at the same height throughout, is due to perspective.

But just seeing that all horizons ARE flat, and straight across Earth's surface, in a circle around us, proves it is flat, and not at all curved.

Again, you can keep saying Earth's surface is curved, you cannot draw it as a curved surface, with a flat horizon on it, with curved lines on each side, rising up, while appearing flat throughout the distance out, and finally draw a curve at the horizon, because it's impossible to draw such a thing, and there's never been a drawing of it, for that very reason.

Perspective can only be drawn with STRAIGHT lines, because Earth is flat, and not curved.

Turbo, the last time I checked, a circle is a curved line, yet you use it in the same sentences to describe the flat horizon and fully contradict yourself. "Straight lines circling around us....", "the higher we are, the longer the flat horizon is, the larger the circle is, when we look at them."

Hmm, yes, exactly like what happens when you hold a basketball close to your eye and slowly move it away. The circle of the horizon gets bigger, until you can see the entire basketball. Exactly what happens on "your" globe Earth.

Circles are curved, buddy. So, for that reason, if I draw the Earth's horizon as you describe it, (a circle) I'm drawing Earth's curvature. Remember, curvature on a ball occurs in all directions (360 degrees) at any point on the ball's surface.

If you own a compass, you can draw the horizon too, Turbo.

I'm going to correct your last sentence to read, "Perspective can only be drawn with straight lines because light travels in straight lines."
Logged
*

Timeisup

  • 3629
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #439 on: September 01, 2022, 12:29:51 AM »
Many on this forum love to get their proverbial knickers in a twist arguing the toss about a non argument like this one while totally ignoring day to day reality. Turbo what’s his name carries on as though huge parts of todays society and technology don’t exist!
How many trans continental aircraft leave and arrive daily for destinations that are thousands of miles from their starting point? How do they do that?
Turn on your tv switch to the weather channel or install a weather satellite app on your phone. What’re does all that data come from?
Just a couple of the thousands of examples of everyday life that prove his ridiculous argument to be silly and a complete waste of time. And he has the audacity to call himself intelligent!
Some people will distort the truth and reality for their own ends. Then again people are gullible and have a strong desire to believe in fringe whacky ideas. Alex Jones and his outpourings are a classic example. For his thousands of readers the dead bodies of children and the grief of parents were just not enough. The idea of some conspiracy was far more ‘entertaining’ and opened up a whole new world of make believe where they could live where anything was possible. All you had to do was to be prepared to swallow any old crap you were fed. Ironically that’s the very argument flat earth believers use to discount the reality of the real world!
The pointless argument here is not about the nature of the horizon it’s about what certain so called intelligent people choose to believe. It’s also about their tunnel vision which allows them to discard and ignore all the glaring examples of reality that are all around them 24/7.
The horizon is as it’s always been. Sure it appears flat but that’s because the planet is BIG and we are small. Not being able to understand  simple geometry shows a lack of intelligence so Turbo what’s his name may want to redefine his own.

Logged
Really…..what a laugh!!!
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #440 on: September 02, 2022, 11:17:56 PM »
Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Turbo, the last time I checked, a circle is a curved line, yet you use it in the same sentences to describe the flat horizon and fully contradict yourself. "Straight lines circling around us....", "the higher we are, the longer the flat horizon is, the larger the circle is, when we look at them."

Hmm, yes, exactly like what happens when you hold a basketball close to your eye and slowly move it away. The circle of the horizon gets bigger, until you can see the entire basketball. Exactly what happens on "your" globe Earth.

Circles are curved, buddy. So, for that reason, if I draw the Earth's horizon as you describe it, (a circle) I'm drawing Earth's curvature. Remember, curvature on a ball occurs in all directions (360 degrees) at any point on the ball's surface.

If you own a compass, you can draw the horizon too, Turbo.


A compass is flat, and shaped as a circle, same as Earth's surface is flat, and shaped as a circle.

Do you think a compass has 'curvature', then? No, it is flat, shaped as a circle. Not hard to understand it. A pizza or pancake are flat, and shaped as circles, right? I hope you get it now
Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #441 on: September 02, 2022, 11:56:26 PM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on September 02, 2022, 11:17:56 PM
A compass is flat, and shaped as a circle, same as Earth's surface is flat, and shaped as a circle.

Do you think a compass has 'curvature', then? No, it is flat, shaped as a circle. Not hard to understand it. A pizza or pancake are flat, and shaped as circles, right? I hope you get it now



3D compass shows the inclination of the poles, strangely, one Pole points upward, the other, downward. How does that work on a flat earth?



Well, here's how it works on a sphere earth:

Magnetic dip, dip angle, or magnetic inclination is the angle made with the horizontal by the Earth's magnetic field lines. This angle varies at different points on the Earth's surface. Positive values of inclination indicate that the magnetic field of the Earth is pointing downward, into the Earth, at the point of measurement, and negative values indicate that it is pointing upward.
The dip angle is in principle the angle made by the needle of a vertically held compass, though in practice ordinary compass needles may be weighted against dip or may be unable to move freely in the correct plane. The value can be measured more reliably with a special instrument typically known as a dip circle.



How does magnetic dip work on a flat earth?
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #442 on: September 03, 2022, 12:02:39 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on September 02, 2022, 11:17:56 PM
A compass is flat, and shaped as a circle, same as Earth's surface is flat, and shaped as a circle.

Do you think a compass has 'curvature', then? No, it is flat, shaped as a circle. Not hard to understand it. A pizza or pancake are flat, and shaped as circles, right? I hope you get it now
Do you think a circle is a straight line?
If so, you failed basic math.

If Earth had no curvature, the horizon would not exist.
The horizon is effectively the intersection of a sphere and a plane.
That is a circle, which follows the surface of the sphere, i.e. an object with curvature.


And again, you have fled from the planes.
Does that mean you fully accept that the flight path would place it near Alaska, and that the flight and the emergency stop makes perfect on a round Earth, and that it in no way presents any problem for the RE, and that you were wrong to continually bring it up and repeatedly spout ignorant nonsense about it?
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #443 on: September 03, 2022, 01:34:59 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on September 03, 2022, 12:02:39 AM
If Earth had no curvature, the horizon would not exist.
The horizon is effectively the intersection of a sphere and a plane.
That is a circle, which follows the surface of the sphere, i.e. an object with curvature.

No, if Earth was a ball, the horizon would be curved, not flat and straight across the surface.

When you say that the surface appears to rise, on a curved surface, because of perspective, but the curve 'wins out' over perspective at the horizon, look at the horizon going ACROSS you, instead of OUT from you, which shows NO perspective at all, right? The horizon doesn't appear to be rising anywhere at all, it is completely flat, and straight across your view of it, end to end, no curve, anywhere at all is seen over it.

By your argument, it is curving, but it's clearly NOT curving at all, it is flat and straight across, no matter HOW long it is, it remains flat and straight across.

How much of a 'curve' would there be on a horizon that's 200 miles long? The highest point of it, would be at the center of a horizon, right? It would be miles higher in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, than it is at each end of it, right?

It would be an arc that's much, much higher than any mountain on Earth is, by far.

When we see a mountain range from 200 miles away, in a plane, what would a curved horizon look like from that distance? It would be more pronounced, more obvious to see, than a mountain range is, but in a smooth curve, rising up in the middle, much higher than at each end of it.

If Earth WAS a ball, THAT is what a horizon would look like, not completely flat and straight across, which it IS, because Earth's surface IS flat.

You cannot keep saying it only 'looks' flat, over a small distance, because it WOULD be seen as a curve, over that distance. When do you think it suddenly looks 'curved'? And how could it be perfectly straight before that? A curve just 'pops up', on a totally flat horizon?

Try to draw a 200 mile long horizon, that is curved, without ever showing any visible curve on it. Is this even POSSIBLE to draw such a thing? I don't think so, do you?

There is NO curve, that cannot be drawn on paper, in fact. But you cannot draw it, without SHOWING a curve on it, there must be a visible arc over it, no matter what length it is. The curve only becomes MORE visible with more length. But there always is a CURVE on it, otherwise, it cannot be a curve at all. A curve cannot magically appear on a flat line, anyone knows that much, even YOU do. Or you should know it, anyway.


Represent how a curved horizon would look, over a 200 mile length, If it is flat, show it over 400 miles, and 800 miles, and so on. Show me how it suddenly has a curve over it, and at what length it 'pops up' at, too!

They've NEVER shown us a horizon going from flat and straight, to a curve, from any rocket.

I've seen simulations of it, though, have you?

Look at one, frame by frame, and see when the curve appears on it. Not at all what we DO see from such an altitude in a plane, is it? No, we do NOT see a curve at such altitudes, nor at higher altitudes either.

They go through this part very quickly, it is easy to see why, when looking at it frame by frame, though. They HAD to make it start curving at that point, or it would not become a ball at the end.

That's what I'm talking about here. A ball must have a curved surface, and it would certainly be seen before it morphs into a 'ball in space', too.


Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #444 on: September 03, 2022, 01:57:55 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 01:34:59 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on September 03, 2022, 12:02:39 AM
If Earth had no curvature, the horizon would not exist.
The horizon is effectively the intersection of a sphere and a plane.
That is a circle, which follows the surface of the sphere, i.e. an object with curvature.

No, if Earth was a ball, the horizon would be curved, not flat and straight across the surface.

Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #445 on: September 03, 2022, 02:24:15 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 01:34:59 AM
No, if Earth was a ball, the horizon would be curved, not flat and straight across the surface.
Why must you continually repeat the same pathetic lie?
The horizon is not a flat straight line.

Does this look straight to you:


A circle is not a straight line.

As Earth is roughly a ball, the horizon is roughly a circle.
This is the intersection of a plane and a ball.
This is what we observe and what is expected for a round Earth.

Quote
When you say that the surface appears to rise, on a curved surface, because of perspective, but the curve 'wins out' over perspective at the horizon, look at the horizon going ACROSS you, instead of OUT from you
Which is at the same distance from you, and therefore has the same drop from your position to it, and so it should appear at the same angle of dip all around.

Quote
By your argument, it is curving, but it's clearly NOT curving at all
It has to be curving.
This is the only way you can follow it all around you (unless you want to try appealing to non-Euclidean geometry, like that of the surface of a sphere).
The fact that you can look at a point on the horizon, and then follow the horizon around as you continually turn to the right, and get back to where you started, quite clearly demonstrate that is is curving, that it is not straight.

You have to be pretty delusional, or pretty hard in denial to claim that such a line is straight.

Quote
How much of a 'curve' would there be on a horizon that's 200 miles long?
360 degrees, just like all circles.

Quote
The highest point of it, would be at the center of a horizon, right?
The centre of the horizon is where you are standing.
It is the centre of a circle.

You are seriously failing at incredibly basic geometry.

The closest you can get in reality to that delusional BS of yours is a great circle.
But that great circle is hidden by the horizon.

I have already provided you with a diagram to show the difference.
Remember this:


The blue circle is your horizon.
It is a circle all around you.
The great circle you are effectively trying to appeal to is the grey line.
But notice how the grey line is beyond the horizon except for a single point?
That means that drop you are trying to see is hidden by the horizon.

Quote
rising up in the middle, much higher than at each end of it.
Please take that image of a circle I provided, and mark where the ends of the circle are and where the middle is.
Again, what you are appealing to is a great circle of Earth, which is obstructed by the horizon.
The horizon, being the same distance all around, will be at the same angle of dip all around.

Quote
If Earth WAS a ball, THAT is what a horizon would look like, not completely flat and straight across, which it IS, because Earth's surface IS flat.
Again, PURE BS!
As already explained to you repeatedly.
As Earth is round, we observe the horizon as roughly a circle, at the same distance from you all around, and thus with the same drop and the same angle of dip all around.
This is a flat circle, formed from the intersection of a plane and a sphere.

If Earth was flat, THERE WOULD BE NO HORIZON!
You seem to love ignoring that fact and refusing to justify what magical BS magically makes a horizon appear on a flat Earth such that more distant land appears lower (and thus is obstructed from view) by nearer land at the same elevation.

Quote
You cannot keep saying it only 'looks' flat, over a small distance, because it WOULD be seen as a curve, over that distance. When do you think it suddenly looks 'curved'?
It is seen as a curve, as a circle all around you, and as a horizon.
Again, if it was flat, there would be no horizon. You would see to the edge.

In order to clearly see it as a circle like you want, you need to be high enough up such that you can look down and easily fit that circle into your FOV.

Quote
And how could it be perfectly straight before that?
It isn't.
Stop just repeating the same BS.

Quote
Try to draw a 200 mile long horizon, that is curved, without ever showing any visible curve on it.
By "200 archaic unit long horizon", do you mean a circle centred on you which is 321 km long? Making it roughly 51 km in diameter, and requiring an observer height of 200 m, and placing that circle ~400 m below the observer? (For later, that is 0.4 km).

Or did you mean an arc of a circle, representing the portion of the horizon in the FOV of the observer, with that arc being 321 km long?

Regardless, have you tried drawing such a circle?
Or even trying to compare it to one in real life (other than the horizon)?
As a comparison, a hula hoop is roughly 50 cm in radius.
So to scale that down to the horizon example above, you would need to hold that hula hoop 0.4 cm, or roughly 4 mm below your eye level.
Do you think you will be able to see the curve there?

NO!

It is also quite trivial to simulate using software like POV-Ray

Quote
There is NO curve, that cannot be drawn on paper, in fact. But you cannot draw it, without SHOWING a curve on it, there must be a visible arc over it, no matter what length it is.
That depends on what you mean by "drawn on paper". You appear to be appealing to the ability to draw it.
It is quite possible to draw a curve where the error in the drawing is greater than the curve.
And again, this relates to the other thread you fled from.
If you have a small enough section of a large enough circle, you are not going to be able to tell if it is curved or straight.
If you disagree, feel free to draw a circle of radius 6371 km, but only draw 1 m of it.

So yet again, you are wrong.

But more importantly for this, it is entirely possible to draw an object which is curved in 3D, without it appearing in the 2D projection. That is by drawing a circle from the view point of the centre of that circle.
So yet again, YOU ARE WRONG!

Quote
A curve cannot magically appear on a flat line, anyone knows that much, even YOU do. Or you should know it, anyway.
And there is a fundamental difference between a curve appearing on a flat line, and a curve being indistinguishable from a flat line. Even children know that, and can understand that a curve can appear as a flat line.

Quote
Represent how a curved horizon would look, over a 200 mile length
Do you mean a 200 archaic unit distance to the horizon, or a 200 archaic unit round horizon, or an arc that is 200 archaic units long which forms part of a horizon?

Also, WHY DON'T YOU?

You are yet again making bold, baseless claims, with no rational justification, and trying to demand others prove you wrong.

Why don't you show what the horizon of the very real round Earth should look like?

Quote
If it is flat, show it
If it is flat, there is no horizon so it cannot be shown.

Quote
They've NEVER shown us a horizon going from flat and straight, to a curve, from any rocket.
What you mean is you have never bothered checking frame by frame to see when the curvature becomes significant enough to count as curvature.
This is because it is gradual.

For simulations, it will be different because it is typically done as pixel by pixel, without an atmosphere blurring it.
But again, this is it going from not being able to tell if there is curvature, due to the angle involved, into it having curvature which is clear.

Quote
That's what I'm talking about here. A ball must have a curved surface, and it would certainly be seen before it morphs into a 'ball in space', too.
And the RE clearly does, as evidenced by the fact it has a horizon.
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10461
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #446 on: September 03, 2022, 06:18:34 AM »
Try drawing a 300,000sided polygon andletting us know the angle between segments.
Logged
?

turbonium2

  • 1610
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #447 on: September 04, 2022, 04:50:44 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on September 03, 2022, 02:24:15 AM
The horizon is not a flat straight line.

Does this look straight to you:


A circle is not a straight line.

As Earth is roughly a ball, the horizon is roughly a circle.
This is the intersection of a plane and a ball.
This is what we observe and what is expected for a round Earth.

It has to be curving.
This is the only way you can follow it all around you (unless you want to try appealing to non-Euclidean geometry, like that of the surface of a sphere).
The fact that you can look at a point on the horizon, and then follow the horizon around as you continually turn to the right, and get back to where you started, quite clearly demonstrate that is is curving, that it is not straight.

You have to be pretty delusional, or pretty hard in denial to claim that such a line is straight.

Quote
How much of a 'curve' would there be on a horizon that's 200 miles long?
360 degrees, just like all circles.


The centre of the horizon is where you are standing.
It is the centre of a circle.

You are seriously failing at incredibly basic geometry.

The closest you can get in reality to that delusional BS of yours is a great circle.
But that great circle is hidden by the horizon.

I have already provided you with a diagram to show the difference.
Remember this:


The blue circle is your horizon.
It is a circle all around you.
The great circle you are effectively trying to appeal to is the grey line.
But notice how the grey line is beyond the horizon except for a single point?
That means that drop you are trying to see is hidden by the horizon.

Quote
rising up in the middle, much higher than at each end of it.
Please take that image of a circle I provided, and mark where the ends of the circle are and where the middle is.
Again, what you are appealing to is a great circle of Earth, which is obstructed by the horizon.
The horizon, being the same distance all around, will be at the same angle of dip all around.

Quote
If Earth WAS a ball, THAT is what a horizon would look like, not completely flat and straight across, which it IS, because Earth's surface IS flat.
Again, PURE BS!
As already explained to you repeatedly.
As Earth is round, we observe the horizon as roughly a circle, at the same distance from you all around, and thus with the same drop and the same angle of dip all around.
This is a flat circle, formed from the intersection of a plane and a sphere.


It is a FLAT surface, not a curved surface. Do you believe a pancake is curved, or that it IS flat, and is SHAPED as a circle? You don't even know the difference, between a sphere, and a flat circle? The curve of a pancake, isn't on the main surface of it, since it is a FLAT surface. The circle is it's shape, around the flat surface.

Unlike a sphere, which is completely curved, in all directions. Nothing of it is flat, only curved, not like Earth, which has a flat surface, shaped as a circle, same as a pancake is.

When you look at a horizon, it is a flat line, across Earth, you cannot see it as a circle, from your position on the flat surface. If you were standing on a giant pancake, which was so big, you couldn't see the edge of it, or a flat field, shaped as a massive square, that you couldn't SEE was shaped as a square, both of them would look the same to you - flat, everywhere you looked around your position on them.

But if you were on a giant baseball, which you didn't know was a sphere, you would see everything curving, in all directions. The horizon would never be flat, it must be curved, being it is a sphere, because NOTHING is flat on a sphere, only curved.

You're trying to twist two different terms, which don't mean the same thing, as if they DID mean the same thing!

A sphere is not a circle. Circles are linear, in 2 dimensions, and are not spherical.

A circular shaped object, like the Earth, or an LP record, are NOT considered curved objects, because they are mainly FLAT objects, which are round in shape, or circular in shape.

I'm sure you don't call pancakes curved objects, right? No, you call them flat objects, shaped as a circle, which they are. Same as the Earth is a flat planet, shaped as a massive circle.

Earth's circular boundary is not seen, no curve is ever seen on it's surface, it is entirely FLAT, and that is EXACTLY what we see it as - entirely flat, all around us. Even if Earth were shaped as a giant wedge, it would still be flat on it's surface.
Logged
*

JackBlack

  • 21706
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #448 on: September 04, 2022, 05:27:05 AM »
Quote from: turbonium2 on September 04, 2022, 04:50:44 AM
It is a FLAT surface, not a curved surface.
Repeating the same BS wont help you.
The surface of Earth is round.
The horizon is a circle, formed from the intersection of that round surface, and a plane.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
You don't even know the difference, between a sphere, and a flat circle?
Do you know the difference between a circle and a straight line?
You don't seem to.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
Nothing of it is flat, only curved, not like Earth
You mean exactly like Earth, which does not have a flat surface.
Or are you talking about your fantasy again?

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
When you look at a horizon, it is a flat line
A flat circle.
But the important point is that it is there.
A FE shouldn't have a horizon at all.
The horizon we observe on Earth is what we would expect for a round Earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
If you were standing on a giant pancake, which was so big, you couldn't see the edge of it
Why can't I see the edge of it?
What is obstructing the view?

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
But if you were on a giant baseball, which you didn't know was a sphere, you would see everything curving, in all directions.
And this now relates directly back to the other thread you fled from.
If that ball was large enough, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was flat or round.
And again, just how do you think this "curving, in all directions" would appear, other than as a horizon, the same distance from you in all directions and thus at the same angle of dip?

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
The horizon would never be flat, it must be curved
Again, it is the same distance all around. This makes it a FLAT CIRLCE on that sphere.
And that is curved.
If you want to try claiming it is curved in some other way, you need than your pathetic baseless assertions.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
You're trying to twist two different terms, which don't mean the same thing, as if they DID mean the same thing!

A circular shaped object, like the Earth
If they don't mean the same thing, why did you use "circular shaped"
to refer to a roughly spherical object (the Earth)?

Are you sure it isn't you getting them confused?

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 03, 2022, 10:31:50 PM
Earth's circular boundary is not seen
Then what do you call the horizon?
It certainly seems to be a circular boundary.

Sure it isn't a great circle of Earth, because the horizon blocks the view to it.

Why don't you try drawing what you think you should see on the RE we live on?
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10461
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #449 on: September 04, 2022, 08:08:32 AM »
Thsts amazing

If you stood on a ball your head as the point to the tangent of the ball essentially makes a cone.


What is the bottom of a cone?
Is it flat or a ball?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 24   Go Up
« previous next »