Horizon did not block duck from view

Stop being absurd.

Stop running away from demonstrable proof the earth is spherical, and your parabola rants are crap.



The lead that put the Greeks on the path to demonstrable proof the earth is spherical.



How does flat earth explain the earth casting a shadow on the moon, a round shadow, and the moon stays a consistent size when viewed simultaneously from different regions of the earth?

A moon orbiting a spherical earth that is orbiting the sun explains it perfectly with no magical perspective needed.

When you look out, you can see the sky, and objects start to sink off in the distance, all the way to the limits of the horizon. After that, objects blend into the ground. The higher the object, the farther the distortion as it moves past your line of sight. The sun very definitely doesn't actually sink into the water at a beach, but neither is there a curve in the ground that we can't see.  Mountains don't chop at the bottom, they sink toward the ground from the top. Likewise, this city can clearly be seen connecting with the ground, it just gets shorter.



Stop being absurd.

Uhm no...

You do realize that this duck is all but invisible until you point it out as near the fire extinguisher.

You mean it is too small to easily resolve, vastly different to being obstructed from view by Earth.

And yet again, you completely misunderstand what the horizon is, and how it relates to the parabola.

Perhaps that is because your claims make no sense.

Again, consider a shipping pass from within to outside your magic parabola of magical vision magically making a FE look round:


If your fantasy was true, as the boat moves further away, the top intersects the parabola first. This means it should disappear from the top down.
But in reality, we observe it disappearing from the bottom up, as it appears to sink into Earth.

Likewise, if the horizon was caused by your magic parabola or magicness, then it needs to be 5 km away, meaning the sun would be well out of reach for the vast majority of locations the vast majority of time.

With the horizon a mere 5 km away at ground level, and the stars not changing much as you gain altitude, having these objects project straight down wont work. So why don't they project everywhere, e.g. why can't they project with the purple lines here:


You need nature itself conspiring to project an image of these objects onto these magic parabolas, to make Earth appear round.

Which is the more rational explanation, that nature itself is conspiring against you, or that Earth is round?

Higher objects become more visible

The exact opposite of what is expected with your nonsense.
With your nonsense, the furthest away point is low.
The higher an object is, the sooner it should disappear from view.

Again, in the image above, the top of the boat is outside the parabola and should no longer be visible, but the bottom of the boat is inside and should be visible.



, similar to a parabola curving inward at a higher point. Or in more common language, people simply aren't likely to see things at ground level.

Yet you insist on performing all these stupid experiments at dead ground level. Why? Because you need me to be wrong. It would destroy your whole worldview if you were to finally accept this idea is nonsense.


Fine then. I'm taking your duck and I'm holding it hostage.

Duck is within the parabola rather than above it (sun always has same size) so as I toss your ducky, playing keep away from you, it gradually shrinks. Bottom line, had you put the duck on a shelf instead of near a fire extinguisher, even though it is the same height as the camera, it should be more visible than it is at ground level.
[/quote]

The bottom doesn't get truncated.  Look at what happened to the duck in this picture.

On a flat surface, no it doesn't.
But in reality, over the curved surface of Earth, it does. That is the problem FE can't explain.

Only, contrary to how most artists depict, the vanishing point is a parabola.

Arbitrarily drawing a crappy curve over an image doesn't mean that is how most artists depict it.

Most artists depict the vanishing point like your previous images, parallel lines converging, without taking the curvature of Earth into effect.

Stop being absurd.

Follow your own advice.
Curvature will not necessarily cut the object off at the bottom.
It will only cut off an amount based upon your distance to the object and your elevation.
A simple calculation is:
hidden=(d-sqrt(2*R*h))^2/2R
However this is only valid if d-sqrt(2*R*h)>0. If that isn't the case, no amount will be cut off.
And to account for refraction, R should be roughly 7/6ths of Earth's radius, but it varies depending on the exact conditions.

But as pointed out in plenty of locations, we see the bottom cut off quite frequently, and the sun is just another example of that.

Notice that the sun doesn't shrink to a point like what would happen with perspective.
Instead it appears to sink and get cut off by Earth.

And even your image appears to show the bottom of the buildings missing.
Why don't you try zooming in and showing us the ground level entrance to the building?

Wanted to make this easy to find…

Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons,

Ok.  Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.

Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.



Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.



Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?




Hmm.  Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal.  Like this.  Did have to weigh down the ends.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.



Well.  The bottom is physically blocked from view.

Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.



vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.

Over compkicating life.


How does a mountain have a distint edge??

How does a hill have a distinct edge?

How do trees have distint edges?

Arent they all round?


What isbthat edge?

Ok.  Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.

Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.



Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.



Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?




Hmm.  Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal.  Like this.  Did have to weigh down the ends.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.



Well.  The bottom is physically blocked from view.

Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.



vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.

Why would you show a flat surface too small to ever form into a horizon?

Do you not know that a horizon takes a distance of about 3 miles of Earth’s surface to first appear, when seen on the ground?

Not a 10 or 20 foot piece of flat metal?

If you saw that horizon 3 miles out, at a view of 5 feet above the surface with your eyes…

What happens if you see over the same surface from a couple inches above it, with a camera on the ground as your ‘eyes’?

The horizon would be closer than 3 miles away, right?

And past that closer horizon, there is no curve, yet there still is a horizon seen on the surface.

A horizon is seen when a distance long enough for viewing outward over the surface at a certain height above it. The higher above the surface, the further away horizons form and seen.

So with a curved surface, the higher above ground you are, the more it curves downward in the distance, and the horizons would not keep rising up, because the surface keeps on curving down more and more.

The only way we can see the horizon keep rising up higher, when we are higher above the surface, is if it is a flat surface, which it is.

Because perspective is always acting on us over flat surfaces,,the entire way out.

When we see a horizon from 30000 feet in a plane, it is seen across from us, because  of perspective always showing the surface rise upward on flat surfaces.

Why would you show a flat surface too small to ever form into a horizon?

Because every flat surface is "too small" to ever form a horizon.
You need an infinite distance to do that.

Do you not know that a horizon takes a distance of about 3 miles of Earth’s surface to first appear, when seen on the ground?

Due to Earth's curvature.
Appealing to the horizon formed from Earth's curvature is not going to help you.

Why should a flat surface magically produce a horizon at 3 miles away?
What magic causes this?

If magic produces a horizon on a flat surface 5 km away from an observer 2 m high, then at 20 cm, it should be 500 m, and at 2 cm it should be 50 m.
At 1 cm, it would be 25 m.

Can you demonstrate any flat surface (so not Earth) producing a horizon?
Or can you just baselessly assert that Earth is magically flat and magically produces a horizon unlike every other flat object?

What happens if you see over the same surface from a couple inches above it, with a camera on the ground as your ‘eyes’?

Do you mean over the same round surface of Earth, or over a flat surface?
Over a flat surface, we still don't see a horizon.

The horizon would be closer than 3 miles away, right?

And past that closer horizon, there is no curve, yet there still is a horizon seen on the surface.

Rejecting that a curve exists, to pretend a flat surface magically produces a horizon, doesn't help your case.

A horizon is seen when a distance long enough for viewing outward over the surface at a certain height above it. The higher above the surface, the further away horizons form and seen.

Yes, as expected based upon simple geometry for a round Earth.

So with a curved surface, the higher above ground you are, the more it curves downward in the distance, and the horizons would not keep rising up, because the surface keeps on curving down more and more.

And as we make observations of the horizon with varying altitude, we see that the horizon gets LOWER with increasing elevation.
Again, matching a round Earth.

Because perspective is always acting on us over flat surfaces,,the entire way out.

That's right, the ENTIRE way out. Not just until it decides to magically stop for no reason at all.

When we see a horizon from 30000 feet in a plane, it is seen across from us

Lying wont save you.
At a high enough altitude even simple instruments can demonstrate the horizon is below eye level.
You lying wont change that:

There is no such measurement called ‘eye level’.

Any height can be called ‘eye level’ over a large range of variances.

Eye lecel can be skewed any number of ways in it,

It is a meaningless term.

Why would you show a flat surface too small to ever form into a horizon?

And at what distance would that be?




Anyway, this thread has covered that.

360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


The light bulb is only about 1/2 inch off the ground. 

25” per step times 360 steps comes to an estimate of 750 feet.  Or 9000 inches.  With the light bulb about .5 inches off the track.   If you divide .5 inches height by 9000 inches length , you get a height to length ratio of 0.000055555555556.

Again.  For a 300 mile height for a flat earth sun, at 12,000 miles length maximum viewing distance.  300 miles divided by 12,000 miles equals 0.025.

For the flashlight viewed at 9,000 inches,  to get a ratio of 0.025 height to distance.  9,000 inches multiplied by 0.025 comes to the flashlight being a height of 225 inches above the track.  Or 18 feet above the track to keep the same scale as the flat earth scenario.


My experiments give every advantage to perspective, and more so than the observed world.

 Perspective dose not physically blocked an object from view.

There is no such measurement called ‘eye level’.

Any height can be called ‘eye level’ over a large range of variances.

Eye lecel can be skewed any number of ways in it,

It is a meaningless term.

I don’t know what you want Turbs.   It’s been shown, experiment, calculated, demonstrated, drawn, modeled a flat earth would not create a horizon as needed. 

We see horizons directly across from our view out of plane windows, appearing to have risen up 30000 feet above the surface, a thousand plus miles away from us, going a thousand plus miles across the surface, and are perfectly flat and horizontal lines.

All of these features of horizons could never be seen above a ball surface.

At such a height, the horizons on a ball Earth would be lower than us and not right across from us. Because a ball must curve ever more downward, when above it, and curve down more when we are higher and higher above it.

And horizons would appear to curve over a thousand miles of surface, it cannot be perfectly flat and horizontal over it.

They cannot look perfectly straight and horizontal by that point, and suddenly curve out of nowhere. They are always curved, no matter how slight, and curve more and more with longer and longer horizons seen across the surface.

They have to show a curve somewhere above,

We see horizons directly across from our view out of plane windows,

WTF Turbs..

This thread and a load of other stuff proves a flat earth would not produce the needed “horizon”?

Answer the question…

Why would you show a flat surface too small to ever form into a horizon?

And at what distance would that be?



The only thing you have left Turbs is not accepting proven and demonstrated reality. 

And horizons would appear to curve over a thousand miles of surface, it cannot be perfectly flat and horizontal over it.

You have a picture that shows a thousand miles left to right in a photo.  Note added.  That would be a photo showing land or sea equivalent to the distance between the Mississippi and east coast of the USA. 

As pointed out there is a dip to the horizon.

Using surveying and the dip of the horizon, it’s long been known that you can calculate the curvature of the earth.



Which can be verified.

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment

 that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

I

There is no such measurement called ‘eye level’.

Eye level is a simple way of saying the angle of elevation is 0.

But notice how yet again, you flee from the issue.
You flee from that fact that simple observations, and simple geometry demonstrate your claim is pure BS.

You have nothing to magically cause a horizon on a flat Earth.
You have no explanation at all for why a horizon should exist in the first place.
You have no explanation for why it should appear at a certain distance.
You have no explanation for how it magically blocks things from view.
You have no explanation for why it appears lower as you get higher.

In short, you have no explanation nor justification for your dishonest BS. Instead you just keep on asserting it because you need it for your fantasy to hold, because these simple facts destroy your fantasy and show Earth is round.

We see horizons directly across from our view out of plane windows, appearing to have risen up 30000 feet above the surface, a thousand plus miles away from us, going a thousand plus miles across the surface, and are perfectly flat and horizontal lines.

As I said before, LYING WONT SAVE YOU!


We do not see the horizon at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.
You are appealing to your wilful ignorance, where you have no idea what the angle actually is so you just dishonestly pretend it is level.

You also have absolutely no justification for the surface being flat. You just keep on asserting it because you are desperate to pretend it is flat.

Again, THE HORIZON SHOWS IT IS NOT FLAT!!!

If you want to say it is flat, you need to explain the horizon.

Because so far, the observations are 100% consistent with a round Earth.

You are yet to show a single thing which is not.
You lie to pretend there are faults, only to have those lies refuted, only to then entirely ignore the refutation.



(and the horizon in a plane is not over 1000 miles away).

All of these features of horizons could never be seen above a ball surface.

Do you mean the actual observations from reality, or your blatant lies about it?

At such a height, the horizons on a ball Earth would be lower than us and not right across from us.

And it is, as shown above.

And horizons would appear to curve over a thousand miles of surface, it cannot be perfectly flat and horizontal over it.

Wrong again.
For a ball, the horizon is a circle.
A circle is flat.
It would be a horizontal circle.

Again, if you want to see the curve, you need to look down, and be far enough away.

To understand this, go get a ring, hold that ring basically at eye level, i.e. at the same height as your eye.
Does that match what we see for the horizon? Yes.
Then, if it is a ring with a radius of 50 cm, you need to hold it 0.2 mm below eye level to match your FE fantasy for a person standing on the ground.
For the RE, you need to lower it to 0.4 mm.
Do you see it curve, when you are that tiny amount above it? NO!

For a plane, with a cruising altitude of 10 km, you would need to hold it 1.4 cm below you.
Again, still no clearly visible curve because it is still basically at eye level.
To see the curve easily you need to lower it down and look down.

And again, just how would this surface appear to curve down?

Oh, I know, BY FORMING A HORIZON!

How else are you expecting it to appear?
To have a giant label on it saying "CURVED"?

Can you explain exactly what you are expecting to see on a round Earth?

Sorry.  The title was shorten.  And should read, “Perspective and vanishing point did not physically block duck from view.”

So.  I placed this blue duck 58 paces from my SLR camera.  The camera was placed with its base / bottom flat on the shop concrete. (I can get the exact distance, but why waste extra effort on flat earther’s!)

Duck close



This picture has the lens Set to 135mm



Duck 135 mm crop zoom



This picture has the lens Set to 50mm



Duck 50 crop zoom



The duck is never physically blocked from view like this ship beyond the horizon.



If the earth was flat, the earth would never physically block the sun from view.

Perspective and vanishing point does not physically block objects from view. 

The sun setting beyond the horizon to be physically blocked from view is a property and proof of a spherical earth.  Especially in the case the sun is a single light source.

Are you for real! Why bother when this is available which is a total slam duck or dunk! Sure beats your duck…

https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/intuitive-machines-moon-lander-beams-home-stunning-photos-of-earth-from-space

Are you for real! Why bother when this is available which is a total slam duck or dunk! Sure beats your duck…

To actually address the argument.
To show how a flat surface doesn't produce a horizon.

The real question is why do you bother.
You seem to just want to say "EARTH ROUND!".
Why come to a debate forum when you have no interest in debate?

In math

There are people who like to know and understand first principles.
And there are people who just want to get the answer-checkmark.

Are you for real! Why bother when this is available which is a total slam duck or dunk! Sure beats your duck…

I like photography and science.  And also Trigonometry. 

Other than time, it was simple to put  the things demonstrated in the thread together. And show how people can test certain things out for their selves. 

Sure.  On can trust the “experts”.   But science isn’t about faith.  Especially if you work at a power plant.  It’s about understanding science and engineering principles and applying them to make old and new process as safe as possible.

Let’s take your crazy attitude, and apply it to real life.  There are way better expert cooks at restaurants, I shouldn’t make pancakes for my kid?  There are way better experts in photography, I shouldn’t practice my hobby?  There are way better expert mechanics in the world, should I bother them to just change my oil, windshield wipers, brakes.  There are experts with way better telescopes in astronomy, but I shouldn’t show my kid how to use and enjoy our modest telescope. 

If “amateurs” aren’t allowed to duplicate things “experts” do, (note added) and question how it’s done, how do you develop a new source of “experts”. 

Are you for real!

Or.  Are you just trolling, and getting attention you don’t deserve. 

Why bother when this is available which is a total slam duck or dunk! Sure beats your duck…

Then take the time to write up, layout, and present a coherent thread based on someone else’s work.  Vs showing a bunch of flat earthers that claim everything outside their world view is a lie how individuals can test and document certain things for themselves.  Where they don’t have to rely on spherical earth nor flat earth established personalities. 

Because every flat surface is "too small" to ever form a horizon.
You need an infinite distance to do that.

No, you only need a flat surface 3 miles long, or less than that when viewed nearer to the surface. 

If you want proof of whether or not a horizon appears on a flat surface, then all we need is a flat surface 3 miles long, right?

Do we have such a surface anywhere now?

What measures for a flat surface, if you believe levels don’t measure for flatness?

When levels are used, they measure for flatness, and if you don’t think they do, we’d measure for a curve, no matter how slight or minuscule it may be, a curve must be measured over it, to exist as a curved surface being measured by our instruments.

Trying to say that this curve over a small distance, is ‘too small of a curve’ to measure for, by levels, is saying a wedged, or wavy surface is over Earth, but is too small to be measured over small distances.

They don’t hold up as an answer for any surface at all, by saying it is ‘too small’ to be measured for it!!

When anything is measured for, we have made instruments to measure them with.

So that’s what we would have done for measuring a curved surface, if it was really there, to be measured for.

Our instruments would have to measure for the slightest curves, as that would be the normal state of our surface, to design and develop instruments for use.

Whatever the smallest of fraction of your curve may be, that would be our measurement used in our instruments, they must be.

If they know our surface is curved, they’d have to make their instruments based on it as a curved surface.

If you really believe surveyors, the very profession and science which measures the Earths surface, for its flatness over an area or a distance over it, would all be morons, that ignore the real surface, being curved, because it’s such a small curve over these areas they survey over, it’s useless to measure for it. And that’s the reason they assume it’s flat all the time, because it’s ‘easier’ to do it that way, even if it’s wrong to do that.

That’s nonsense. They don’t assume that, nor work from that as an assumption, it is not an assumption at all.

It is known and used in practise as a flat surface, because they know it is a flat surface, not because it is ‘easier to figure things out’, they’re all too stupid to figure it out as a curved surface, and it’s almost like it’s flat!

Right, who cares if it’s complete bs, nobody would be that stupid, nobody would work from that stupid thing.

No, because they would know it, and account for it, and be accurate in working from it, and that would be far easier to do, using the correct surface, not a false surface that is simpler to use!!

 

No, you only need a flat surface 3 miles long, or less than that when viewed nearer to the surface.

You mean a curved surface that you will lie and pretend is flat.

What you need is an explanation for what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface.

Notice how you entirely flee from this? And instead start spouting pure BS which has been refuted countless times?

What magic causes a flat surface to block the view when it has no physical way to do so?
What magic causes perspective to magically stop the flat surface from rising?

If you want proof of whether or not a horizon appears on a flat surface, then all we need is a flat surface 3 miles long, right?

Or a much smaller surface and an understanding of basic geometry which proves it doesn't.

we’d measure for a curve, no matter how slight or minuscule it may be

Repeating the same dishonest BS wont help you.
Again, over a distance of 100 m, the drop from the peak to the side would be 0.2 mm. The variation in a concrete floor is more than this.
So no, they wouldn't

Trying to say that this curve over a small distance, is ‘too small of a curve’ to measure for, by levels, is saying a wedged, or wavy surface is over Earth, but is too small to be measured over small distances.

Or a curved surface, i.e. reality.

When anything is measured for, we have made instruments to measure them with.

Notice your argument is now circular?
You claim it should be measured for, to claim there are instruments to measure it to claim it should be measured for.

If it is to insignificant to matter, then they wont bother making a tool to measure for it, and they wont measure for it.

So that’s what we would have done for measuring a curved surface, if it was really there, to be measured for.
Our instruments would have to measure for the slightest curves, as that would be the normal state of our surface, to design and develop instruments for use.

WHY?
Just continually asserting the same BS wont help you.
Why should everything measure for it?

If you really believe surveyors, the very profession and science which measures the Earths surface, for its flatness over an area or a distance over it, would all be morons

They aren't morons. They know Earth is round.
And when appropriate, i.e. large scale mapping or projects requiring incredible accuracy, they do account for it.

Right, who cares if it’s complete bs,

You don't seem to, as you are happy spouting complete BS all the time.

No, because they would know it, and account for it, and be accurate in working from it, and that would be far easier to do, using the correct surface, not a false surface that is simpler to use!!

Great job contradicting yourself.
How is doing it accurately instead of using a simpler surface that is simpler to use, going to be simpler?
If the "false surface" is simpler to use, then it would be the simpler one to use.

Even FEers do this all the time with the 8 inches per mile squared.
This is first approximating the round Earth as a parabola. And then going a step further and changing it from d^2/2R, to 8 inches per mile squared.
That is because it is so much simpler to do. Take the distance, square it, and multiply by 8, instead of dividing by 2 times the radius of earth and convert units.

Now stop repeating the same BS, and explain what magic causes a flat surface to block things above it from view.

But it wouldn’t be used because it’s a simpler surface than it actually IS, that’s nonsense, and it’s not the actual reason they do it.

Accurate measurements don’t use false assumptions of the entire surface, how would that be ‘easier’ to being accurate at all? Get serious.

It’s their ridiculous excuse that’s a complete joke, and nothing more than that.

If you believe that crap, you live in fairy tale land, same as always.

But it wouldn’t be used because it’s a simpler surface than it actually IS, that’s nonsense, and it’s not the actual reason they do it.

No, your claim that they would unnecessarily complicate it is nonsense.

The simple fact is that it IS simpler. And there is no way around it.

So when you need a level of accuracy of 1 mm, and the curvature has an effect of 0.2 mm, why would you bother?

Accurate measurements don’t use false assumptions of the entire surface, how would that be ‘easier’ to being accurate at all? Get serious.

For the same reason you don't use the most accurate instrument possible. You use an instrument which is as accurate as needed.

Would would you do, spend $100 on an instrument that gives the needed level of accuracy, or spend $1 000 000 dollars on an instrument which gives much better accuracy, but takes much longer to use and offers no actual benefit to the project?

And if you would like a simple example of this being done all the time; with lots of calculations, computers use floating point numbers.
In the past they were quite simple, having what is known as single precision.
But as computers developed, the floating point arithmetic units in them were able to handle double or even quadruple precision in the same cycle.
But there is nothing limiting you from even greater precision. Except it will take more time for the calculation, and you may need to code it yourself.

So which do you use, the simple, in built method, or a custom made method for greater accuracy?

Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflection and explain what magic causes perspective to stop and magically hide more distant objects/ground from view?

 3 miles long,

Hello.  McFly.

 Why does the distance have to be 3 miles long.  Why is that the “magic number”.  It’s like the earth is spherical with so much drop every mile or so. 

No, you only need a flat surface 3 miles long, or less than that when viewed nearer to the surface. 

Do you read what is actually posted?

360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


The light bulb is only about 1/2 inch off the ground. 

25” per step times 360 steps comes to an estimate of 750 feet.  Or 9000 inches.  With the light bulb about .5 inches off the track.   If you divide .5 inches height by 9000 inches length , you get a height to length ratio of 0.000055555555556.

Again.  For a 300 mile height for a flat earth sun, at 12,000 miles length maximum viewing distance.  300 miles divided by 12,000 miles equals 0.025.

For the flashlight viewed at 9,000 inches,  to get a ratio of 0.025 height to distance.  9,000 inches multiplied by 0.025 comes to the flashlight being a height of 225 inches above the track. 

For a more accurate scale model of the sun.  The flash light would be around 18 feet above the track to keep the same scale as the flat earth scenario. I have gave advantage to perspective by placing it right on top of the track. And the flat surface still failed to block the flashing from view.


My experiments give every advantage to perspective, and more so than the observed world.

 Perspective dose not physically blocked an object from view.

If you believe a flat surface would keep rising up more and more, look at how high it has appeared to rise at only 3 miles out. And you would believe it would rise up higher and higher past 3 miles out? It’s only risen more and more up to 3 miles out, so it would keep rising even more and more past 3 miles out, not suddenly stop rising more, and rise less and less, that makes no sense at all.

If the surface keeps on rising up, where is it seen at 3 miles out?  Blocking out half the sky above the surface. After it has risen 6 miles out, or 600 miles out, all we would see in the distance is the surface blocking out the entire sky above us, and nothing past it would be seen at all.

You can’t have both, a rising up forever surface, and a surface that can’t block out our view of things on it.

It’s totally absurd.

Being as accurate in measurements is not only a benefit, it serves their very goal, to measure the surface as accurately as possible.

Being as accurate as possible is  how engineering has kept advancing, and all the other fields of science and technology.

They aren’t idiots who still use outdated and less accurate instruments from the past because they’re ‘easier to use’ than the superior instruments that are more ‘complicated’ to use or figure out how to use. That’s not how it’s ever done, why would it be?

Have a look around, we always have better and more accurate instruments, and they often are much more complicated and difficult to use than their previous instruments. That’s how technology advances, new instruments are both less and more easy to use, less or more complicated and finicky to use, less or more durable, and so on.

To claim that surveyors ‘assume’ surfaces are flat, under a belief that it is NOT flat at all, but think it is ‘near enough to a flat surface to take it as flat’, is pure bs.

The main purpose in surveying the surface for projects, for a building, on that surface, and all the rest, is to measure for the FLATNESS of the surface. That is the entire goal of surveying land, in almost all cases. The primary goal of all projects, is to have a flat surface to start with.

Any and all deviations from being flat, are imperfections, and if any of them impact their project, they make them flat.

They do not ignore a curve or dip or slant on the surfaces, if they’re ‘small’ or not. Why would they ever do that?  The slightest imperfections on the surface can have major implications on projects. That’s why they remove them all, no matter how small they are, and make it flat.

When they assume surfaces are flat, it is their goal to have it flat, make it all flat, that’s why they start with that purpose in mind. 

The more perfectly flat the surface, the better it is, and that’s what they want to have.

Your imaginary ‘curve’ does not exist over the Earth’s surface, so it’s ignored because it’s not there.

It’s funny that every field which would be effected by a long curved surface, don’t need to account for it, like it doesn’t even exist at all !  It doesn’t exist at all, that’s why we never have to account for it.

If ships vanish down a curve over a 3 mile distance, we’d know it would be measurable and we’d measure it, being large enough of a curve to sink down a ship from being seen only 4 miles away.

Except it cannot be measured, since there is no curve at all to measure for.

If you believe a flat surface would keep rising up more and more, look at how high it has appeared to rise at only 3 miles out. And you would believe it would rise up higher and higher past 3 miles out?

Yes. I do. Because that is what all the evidence shows.

Again, if you are 2 m high above the ground, look at how far it has risen in the first m.
It has gone from -90 degrees to -63.4 degrees.
That is an increase of 26.5 degrees.
How much more should it go?
Well, if it continued at that rate, the horizon would be 3.4 m away and the entire sky would be obstructed from view after 6.8 m.

But we no it isn't.
We know it slows down.

After 2 m, it is only at -45 degrees, not the -36.9 you would expect from doubling the rise in the first m.
That is a change of only 18.4. That is quite a slow down.
Then at 10 m, it is only -11.3 degrees.
At 20 it is only -5.7. A change of 5.6 from 10 degrees.

It is quite clear that the rate slows down.
As above, if we just extrapolated from the first m, we would end up with 0 degrees at 3.4 m and 90 degrees at 6.8 m.

It’s only risen more and more up to 3 miles out, so it would keep rising even more and more past 3 miles out, not suddenly stop rising more, and rise less and less, that makes no sense at all.

That's right. Your claim that it suddenly stops rising more and more makes no sense at all.
Why should perspective magically switch like that?

With an observer height of 2 m, at a distance of 5 km, the a flat surface should appear at an angle of elevation of -0.023 degrees.
At a distance of 10 km, it should appear at -0.011 degrees.

So at 5 km out, it blocks 0.023 degrees less than half (on each side).
At 10 km, it blocks 0.011 degrees less than half (on each side).

Why should it magically stop?

If the surface keeps on rising up, where is it seen at 3 miles out?  Blocking out half the sky above the surface.

No, it hasn't.
It has blocked up slightly less than half
After 6 miles, the amount over half that is still visible will be halved.

After it has risen 6 miles out, or 600 miles out, all we would see in the distance is the surface blocking out the entire sky above us, and nothing past it would be seen at all.

Following this dishonest pile of BS, after 4 m the entire sky should be obstructed.

Why should ANYONE believe this delusional BS of yours?

You can’t have both, a rising up forever surface, and a surface that can’t block out our view of things on it.

Yes, I can. As that is exactly how a flat surface would behave.

What you can't have is a flat surface which magically blocks the view to distant objects and produces a horizon.

The only way for it to block the view to a more distant part of it, is if it stops rising.
In order to not block the view it must continue to rise.

Being as accurate in measurements is not only a benefit, it serves their very goal, to measure the surface as accurately as possible.

What makes you say that is their goal?

Being as accurate as possible is  how engineering has kept advancing, and all the other fields of science and technology.

No, it isn't.
It is being as accurate as needed.

That is why parts are listed with a tolerance. Because only a certain level of accuracy is needed.
The less accurate it needs to be, the cheaper it can be made.
This is what has allowed us to mass produce loads of cheap crap.

They aren’t idiots who still use outdated and less accurate instruments from the past because they’re ‘easier to use’ than the superior instruments that are more ‘complicated’ to use or figure out how to use. That’s not how it’s ever done, why would it be?

That is exactly how it is done.
Look at how many people still use a spirit level.
That is because it is cheap and easy to use. Even though it isn't as accurate as other levels, like a digital level, which can give a precise angle reading.

To claim that surveyors ‘assume’ surfaces are flat, under a belief that it is NOT flat at all, but think it is ‘near enough to a flat surface to take it as flat’, is pure bs.

No, the idea that they would try to account for the curvature when it is entirely insignificant, and often with measurement uncertainty is pure BS.

Any and all deviations from being flat, are imperfections, and if any of them impact their project, they make them flat.

Notice what you said?
IF THEY IMPACT THEIR PROJECT!

That means if that imperfection does not impact the project, they don't care.

They are not trying to make the floor atomically flat.

Why would they bother wasting their time and money to try to measure for and remove imperfections that don't matter?

That’s why they remove them all, no matter how small they are, and make it flat.

Do you honestly think they make all surfaces atomically flat?
Are you truly that delusional?

Go outside, take a look at some concrete. Notice how the surface is textured? That shows it isn't atomically flat like you want to pretend.

Your imaginary ‘curve’ does not exist over the Earth’s surface, so it’s ignored because it’s not there.

No, your magic doesn't exist.
The curve, which produces the horizon and blocks things from view, clearly does exist.

It’s funny that every field which would be effected by a long curved surface, don’t need to account for it, like it doesn’t even exist at all

You mean it is funny how you repeatedly lie, even after you are refuted, to continually falsely claim that they would be effected, when you can't demonstrate that to be the case at all.

In projects where it actually matters, it is accounted for.
In projects where it doesn't matter, it isn't accounted for.

If ships vanish down a curve over a 3 mile distance, we’d know it would be measurable and we’d measure it

And we do, and have.
But notice how that is over 3 miles? Not 3 m?

Now care to stop with all the BS and explain the magic on a flat surface which magically creates your magical horizon which magically blocks more distant points from view?

It’s funny that every field which would be effected by a long curved surface, don’t need to account for it,

Which would be a lie.

Naval and Marine Performance Testing and Simulation

https://dewesoft.com/blog/marine-performance-testing-and-simulation



There is one huge towing tank of about 500m, so long that the tank has been built following the Earth curvature - as the water surface would do - and not straight to avoid vertical position offset of models under test (about 18 cm).

If ships vanish down a curve over a 3 mile distance, we’d know it would be measurable and we’d measure it, being large enough of a curve to sink down a ship from being seen only 4 miles away.

You mean something like this?

Perspective can’t physically block things from view.

Why does the Turning Torso tower increasingly get blocked a measurable amount by the curvature of the earth as distance from the tower increases?  The windows on the floors act like a giant measuring stick. And why does zooming in on the tower not change how much of the tower is blocked physically blocked from view in the provided video clip.