Boats Over The Horizon

It has been refuted before. By me, personally.

Where?
Do you mean where you have made excuses and had them refuted?

But also by a few videos I've posted

You mean the ones which also post nonsense and have already been refuted?

I went on vacation last week, and we went to a park on Jamestown. There was a pointed tower that you could walk to. The thing is, as I walked closer to the tower, the point disappeared, and it just looked like a four-sided wall.

This isn't curvature. It's top-down vanishing of an object at its point.

You couldn't be further from the truth.
Notice this part:

Where the surface changes angle?
That change in angle is effectively the same as curvature which has been localised to a narrow region.
So great job refuting yourself.

You have shown that you can see the entire flat surface, with the regions beyond the curve hidden.
So that is entirely explained by curvature.
Try showing part of the flat surface that you can see being hidden.

the top, but not the bottom... not because it disappeared top down but because when we saw it at distance, it was obscured into the trees.

Yes, because that is how vision works.
You can see it, unless something is obstructing the view.

This makes sense with curvature, with the tip not being planar with the side and with the tree obstructing the view.
But it makes no sense with your fantasy.



So again, you have refuted yourself.
Until you get to the point where the side obstructs the view to the top, the top is visible.

it has already been explained under my theory listed in the signature.

You mean where you spouted complete garbage in a thread and then fled from the refutation of it?
Your signature is full of false information and explains nothing.
If you wish to disagree, why don't you go back to that thread and try dealing with the refutations?

1. At close distances, high objects angle in, to the point from you can't see their peaks.

Correction, at close distances, the side blocks the view to the top.

2. At long distances, high objects angle out, with their lower half blending with nearby objects

That isn't blending, that is just being hidden.
But this point isn't really relevant.

3. Neither of these are explainable by your crudely drawn hill that is supposed to represent curvature.

The first is.
The "curvature" from the main side, to the side of the tip, means that when you are close enough to the side, the regions beyond that "curve" (i.e. the tip) are hidden from view.

You have refuted yourself.

What is actually happening is not an object "sinking into the horizon".
It's blending due to angles of perception. Like how the obelisk got cut off by the surrounding forest when I was at sea from Jamestown to Surry.

Again, pure garbage.
You were not far enough away for the curvature to have any significant effect.
But notice how it is just that the bottom of the tower is obscured by the trees, trees above the ground.
The tower did not appear to sink.
Compare this to the boat. The boat has appeared to sink, with the bottom obstructed by the water.
If you want to claim that the water is just blending in, you need to claim that the water is above the water, i.e. above the bottom of the boat that was visible before.
That only works if you want to claim the water's surface is curved.
i.e. that what you are seeing is due to the curvature of Earth.
This means it isn't an optical illusion at all.

you're perceiving it wrong because of your stupid presuppositions that the Earth should curve.

You mean you are doing whatever you can, making up whatever excuses you can, to support your stupid false believe that Earth is flat, while ignoring that all the evidence supports a RE?
That you need to blatantly lie and invent all sorts of nonsense to prop up your fantasy?

Quote from: globalist powertrooper on October 15, 2022, 03:24:00 AM

 bottoms of boats obscurred by ocean swells possibly.

The boast should come in and out of view as it bobs up and / rides the waves.

Quote

nevertheless, it is my understanding that this effect does not continue inaccordance with theorized curvature.

What effect?  You post some random links of videos alluding to something you cannot screenshot.

With no explanation why the bottom of the boat is physically blocked from view.

Quote

leading me to believe undesrcibed refaction tyope effect.

Mean like well documented mirages? 

Quote

Fata Morgana: The Strange Mirages At Sea

https://www.farmersalmanac.com/fata-morgana-mirage-28630

You again

Quote

look up snells law long distance examples and not much available...

Not my job to create your argument and produce evidence for you.

I did my own research here..
“Horizon did not block duck from view”
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

Just one of many threads where this subject has been “beaten to death”


https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beat+to+death

you got a lot of work ahead of you

See my signature? This is my proof, which I constructed about a week and a half ago. It already refutes this entire notion, based on my own observations riding in a car between two times and two distinct times of day.

There wasn't a damned thing blocking my view. I could see the sky above the tower (gasp, the curvature wasn't there to obstruct it). I could see below it. I could circle around it, which I did. At no point, could I not see past the tower to the sky above it. But I could not see the point at all. 



Now if you're all done here, I'll give you back the point I lost. The point is that this is nothing but an angle trick. No curvature, just angles. In fact, if there was a curvature, say, I was standing along a hill, the slope would be such that should be at about 70 to 80 degree slope.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/slope-calculator.php



This works if the the Earth is flat. But you say it's round... As such, a curve should push my perception back, enough so that we get something like this...



Unlike picture 1, the adjustment results in an angle that is not cut off. In other words, because of the backtilt produced by curvature, you should be able to see the point at a very high tilt, similar to looking up a hill from a sitting position. But this isn't the case. The point is cut off, and then we see past it.

But now you're telling be that the curve is actually the sky (parabola) rather than the ground (curvature). Good job refuting yourself too.

you got a lot of work ahead of you

Me?

I have two threads in the flat earth debate forum evidently you don’t have time to debate in for lack of time spamming this thread with your free advertising.  Or you just have no actual substance.

See my signature? This is my proof, which I constructed about a week and a half ago.

It's not proof.

It already refutes this entire notion, based on my own observations riding in a car between two times and two distinct times of day.

No it doesn't.

See my signature? This is my proof,

Your parabola delusion.

With no proof of it actually existing? 

Like the straight lines of sunshine?



No prof of any force or item causing your delusion?



Not in the straight layers of mist where your parabola has to be powerful enough to hide the sun always above the earth in the flat earth delusion three miles to the horizon.

Not the way dust settles on everything.

Not in the way birds and planes fly freely.

The only thing I found close is stack exhaust.



Who’s atmospheric disturbance causes a noticeable shadow.

which I constructed about a week and a half ago. It already refutes this entire notion, based on my own observations riding in a car between two times and two distinct times of day.

Again.  You have provided no proof, and no explanation of force or items that create the effect.

And doesn’t explain things like how multiple people over a wide area  can witness the same lunar eclipse.  The earth’s shadow on the moon

There wasn't a damned thing blocking my view.

Then why couldn’t you see the top of the obelisk?  Because you were standing to close where the damn side was blocking the view of the top.



Are you for reals?  This has to be some ridiculous joke?

I could see the sky above the tower

Why is that if you think things magically blend into the top of the obelisk.  I’m guessing there was nothing physically blocking the sky.  Well, except where the obelisk was blocking the sky…

(gasp, the curvature wasn't there to obstruct it).

Why would it be if you weren’t three miles away from the horizon with the obelisk beyond the horizon?

I could see below it. I could circle around it, which I did. At no point, could I not see past the tower to the sky above it. But I could not see the point at all. 

You couldn’t see the top because you were so close to the obelisk the side blocked the view of the top.  Like how you cannot see the sky behind the obelisk.

You have some real issues.  Your sure this isn’t some joke? 

Now if you're all done here, I'll give you back the point I lost.

Not if you keep posting delusional crap with no bases in reality.

The point is that this is nothing but an angle trick.

First is was blended.  Now you rebranded to angle trick?

You mean like this?  Where the side physically blocks the top from view because your to damn close?

No curvature, just angles. In fact, if there was a curvature,

Like the cube equivalent to curvature?


 

But now you're telling be that the curve is actually the sky (parabola) rather than the Earth (curvature). Good job refuting yourself too.

You mean that delusional thing you have no proof exists and can’t explain what force or objects create it?

And doesn’t explain how the sun can be below this airplane?



Thanks again stash…

OKAY, THAT GOT OFF TO A LITTLE WACK OF A START UPON REREADING. I AM JUST GOING TO POST SOME VIDS TITLED FLAT EARTH SO AND SO

So unsurprising.
You post 2 videos claiming they support a FE, one of which relies upon outright lying to people.
They are quickly refuted, and rather than even acknolwedging that they support a RE, you just want to spam more videos.

You seem to want to do the typical FE tactic of spamming as much nonsense as you can with no effort and hoping that something sticks, or that it would take too much time for REers to refute.

If you aren't going to put in effort to substantiate your claims why should we put in effort to refute them, rather than dismissing them as BS?

any passersby will have a bit of an understanding that this isnt total bs as all you have stormed the forum and burried the good info

What "good info"?
Do you mean a video which is literally lying to pretend Earth is flat?
Or another video which also shows Earth is round?

Considering your response to the refutation of your claims, it sure seems like your claims are BS.

i do believe it is a god place to start in uunderstading or rather witnessing the flat earth as it is big and level

I also believe it is a good place to start, but that it shows Earth is round, as your 2 initial videos did.
Yes, Earth is big (and level, not flat), which makes it hard to see the curvature. But that doesn't make it flat.

lots of reports of seeing way to far - like lighthouses from 40 miles out to sea.

You mean vague with no significant details which make it impossible to tell if they are compatible with a RE?

How tall is the lighthouse?
How high was the observer?
Did they see the lighthouse itself, or just the light from it?
Did they account for refraction?
Is there any evidence to support this claim, or is it just an empty claim?

The latter is especially important, as I have heard FEers claim that you can see the statue of liberty from 60 miles away at sea level, when there is no way to do that even if Earth was flat, as there are obstructions in the way.

As for your video spam, the first appeals to refraction, where you have a layer of distortion preventing you from seeing things close to the horizon, an occurrence which doesn't happen all the time, to pretend that means the RE explanation is wrong. They make no attempt to explain what is actually blocking the sun, or why it appears so low.

The second video is more FE dishonesty.
They falsely claim that you can bring ships into view which have allegedly disappeared beyond the curvature. But in reality, they are just bringing ships into view which are too small to be resolved initially. Quite different.
An actual demonstration would be observing a ship disappear from the bottom up as it goes over the horizon, and then zooming in to bring it back into view.
They then repeat the same pathetic lie about magical FE perspective from the high prophet Row Boat, which makes the bottom of objects magically disappear for no reason. In reality, the smallest part disappears first, not the lowest. So if you can make out something at the top of the object, then you should be able to make out something of the same angular size at the bottom.
There are also plenty of examples of where the horizon is shown to clearly be below eye level. Yet again FEers ignore the sheer size of Earth and just how little below eye level the horizon appears, to falsely claim it is at eye level. But with accurate enough devices, or being high enough, you can clearly see that isn't the case. Even the high prophet Row Boat accepts that, but then demands you remove the lens to make it so you can't see accurately enough to tell if the horizon is at eye level or below.
Here is an example:


It also repeats the nonsense about wanting to see a great circle of Earth, even though it is obstructed by the horizon.
They fail to grasp the difference between seeing curvature going away, vs curvature going around.
FEers want to pretend you should see the horizon as if it is a circle in front of you. But in order to do that, you need to be standing above Earth looking straight down.
The horizon is at the same angle of dip all around.
This means if you look at the horizon and then follow it around in a circle, it will remain at the same elevation. It doesn't and shouldn't appear to drop down.

In addition, in order to see the boat near the horizon you have to zoom in a lot, at which point you only see a small portion of the horizon, not 3 archaic units of it.
The bulge expected over the 10 km they appear to is roughly 2 m. That is 1 part in 5000. So if you had a camera that took an image 5000 pixels wide, that bulge would be a single pixel. And again, that bulge is hidden by the horizon.

They then appeal to high altitude balloons, which typically use fish eye lenses with the horizon below the centre of the lens which distorts it. The clip they chose shows this distortion, with the horizon appearing to bend back and forth. We observe that when the horizon passes through the centre of the FOV, it is clearly curved.

The second starts off with more dishonesty of failing to comprehend the different ways you can see curvature.
Earth is large and this makes it hard to directly see the curvature as if Earth was a tiny ball.
This is due to how much of your FOV it takes up.
Try seeing the curvature of a ball that is taking up roughly 179 degrees of your FOV.

None of these people claiming you should be able to see the curvature even attempt to show how it should appear. Because if they did, they would see it matches what is observed. Instead they just make vague appeals as if it should be obvious.

They also try and make a mockery of this by appealing to a toilet roll Earth theory. But go take a picture of a tiny portion of a ball, and you will see that you can't see the curve going left to right. That "toilet roll" is an approximation of the great circle of Earth passing under you. And when you repeat that in all directions, you get a sphere.

They Also show an image of a boat with the lower portion obstructed by the curvature, and just ignore it and move on. Quite dishonest.

With more dishonesty, they appeal to an image of someone walking over a hill, and having the lower portion hidden, and claiming it is due to their magic perspective, which they can never explain.
The person's head is clearly visible and resolvable. That means their legs should be easily resolved. This shows it isn't perspective. But FEers have to resort to using whatever nonsense they can find.

It is just more and more BS. Why should I waste any more of my time on it when you aren't willing to put in any effort?

See my signature?

Do you mean the pile of BS you spouted in another thread before fleeing with it entirely refuted?
Do you mean your collection of lies about the RE so you can pretend the RE doesn't match reality?
Do you mean your appeal to a magical parabola which explains nothing as you cannot explain how any of it works?

If so, yes.
What is your point? It has already been shown to be garbage and doesn't help your case at all.
If you want to claim it does, go back to the thread and defend your nonsense.

There wasn't a damned thing blocking my view.

Yes there was. The side of the tower.

Modifying my picture to falsely claim there was nothing blocking doesn't help your case. Not unless you can explain what magic is stopping you from seeing or providing math to prove it.

Here does this picture help more, showing what is visible and what isn't?:

If you are standing close to the tower and start looking at the base and then look upwards, you will see the side of the tower, miss the top and go straight to the sky.

This is just like what happens on Earth.
If you start looking straight down, you will see a section of Earth, but then miss a bunch of Earth and go straight to the sky.

I don't think why you think appealing to the sky should help your case at all?
If anything, it just destroys it.
The sky is further away than the tip of the tower, so if your vision was magically limited, how can you see further than what it is limited to?

The point is that this is nothing but an angle trick.

Do you mean how the angle at the top is different to the angle at the side?
i.e. if you follow the side to the top, you change the orientation, just like curvature would?
The difference is that with the tower, it turns at a single point, but with a smooth curve it does so continually.

It isn't the curvature of Earth that is hiding it.

the slope would be such that should be at about 70 to 80 degree slope.

Where are you pulling these numbers from?
They are worthless without an explanation of just what they are meant to mean and how you obtained them.

This works if the the Earth is flat.

No, it works regardless.
Curvature wont magically stop it working.
Over that distance the curvature is effectively nothing. Also, it is on a hill.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3882c.ct009039r/?r=0.078,0.406,0.054,0.033,0

But you say it's round... As such, a curve should push my perception back, enough so that we get something like this...

Why?
Again, you are just spouting vague BS with no justification at all, all to pretend there is a problem for a RE.

Unlike picture 1, the adjustment results in an angle that is not cut off.

Do you mean the red? If so, that is still not cut off. You can still see the tip.
If you mean the green, that is still blocked by the side, so you can't see the top.
Notice how I picked my lines? I picked a location at the top and draw a line to a hypothetical observer. In one case, this just passes through the air, in the other case it passes through the monument.
In the case of passing through air, you can see it. In the case of passing through the monument, that means the monument is obstructing the view.

Even your pathetic blue line, with no explanation at all, still doesn't allow you to see the top of the monument.

Now stop just spouting vague garbage, and try to come up with something coherent.

But now you're telling be that the curve is actually the sky (parabola) rather than the ground (curvature). Good job refuting yourself too.

No. I'm telling that the curve in that example is the curve as it goes from the side to the top of the monument, the region I highlighted.
So no, I didn't refute myself.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 07:04:47 PM

See my signature? This is my proof,

Then why couldn’t you see the top of the obelisk?  Because you were standing to close where the damn side was blocking the view of the top.



Are you for reals?  This has to be some ridiculous joke?

No, it's not. But I am laughing at your expense.

Had I been sitting back at a 135 degree angle (which I would probably have to do in order to see the point, reducing the wall to a 45 degree or so), I probably would have been able to see the top.

I also would have made a scene. This is literally how you would have to be standing with curvature in order to see the point. This is the sort of insane logic of RE. But it isn't, and you can't. You see the obelisk, not at a slant, certainly not at enough of a slant to see just over the lip. You see it consistent with someone looking on a flat plane. Nor were any of the bricks disturbed as they would be for even a fairly mild curve. Same vacation, a shelf had a slight curve near the edge, too subtle to notice easily. An item fell off when it get too close. Exactly. Even subtle curves screw with architecture.

This is why I'm laughing. Because of everyone here so unbelievably naive to buy this crap which they only believe because they refused to question what is possible.



Ride that obelisk! :cowboy:

Your parabola delusion.

With no proof of it actually existing?

(Don't steal my sunshine)

Turn in a circle. You can see a circular area all about yourself. But we can tell from this picture that the ground is a straight line in every direction. This is how we get the flat green circle. We get a downward angle from straight ahead to the ground, which is why the ground appears uphill even though it is flat. If we look straight ahead to straight up, as the camera captured, we get a right angle.  However, it is not an unlimited right angle. We cannot, for example, see straight up to the ionosphere. This is the vertical limit of the parabola. The line is also limited horizontally at both the ground/tree line and the sky line. But here's the interesting part. The skyline is actually further away. The typical distance that you can see of the ground line is roughly 3 miles (higher at a mountain peak), whereas some clouds are more distant. Notice how this is shaped? It cuts inward. That is, high objects appear closer, making distant objects in the air appear level to near objects on the ground.
It also cuts downward from the center. This is approximately how the sun behaves as it moves past noon or before noon. It dips. Not because it is moving closer (it gets no bigger or smaller), but because it is gradually traveling through our line of sight.

This is clear as water (the good kind) to me, but all of you seem incapable of grasping it to the point where I strongly suspect you are being willfully ignorant. We had a person in our church like that. If she wasn't offended somehow by what the priest had to say, she'd claim she didn't get it. He was speaking plain English.

This is the vertical limit of the parabola.

There is no parabola. Our eyes don't work that way. Just go ask an opthomologist.

But I am laughing at your expense.

Why? Because of the time spent refuting you when you are happy to just ignore it and keep on spouting the same refuted BS?

Had I been sitting back at a 135 degree angle (which I would probably have to do in order to see the point

Do you mean if you had your head moved back further so you could see the top?
Otherwise, why would you have to sit back? Why can't you just tilt your head up?

This is literally how you would have to be standing with curvature in order to see the point.

Again, you are just spouting garbage with no justification at all, and without any clear indication of what you actually mean?
Just where do you think curvature comes into this?
Again, it is the "curvature" of the monument, the edge where it goes from the side to the top portion.

Here is yet another diagram to further show you are just spouting garbage:

If you are in the grey regions, you can't see the tip, because the side will obstruct the view.
If you want to see the tip, you need to be standing outside that area, with nothing else obstructing the view.

Other than that edge, there is no need to discuss any curvature. The direction you are leaning doesn't matter.

This is the sort of insane logic of RE.

No, that is your insane absence of logic and blatantly lying about the RE.

The RE logic is incredibly simple, if something obstructs the view you can't see it.
If nothing obstructs the view, then you can.

It can't get much simpler than that.

they only believe because they refused to question what is possible.

You mean because they don't claim that the impossible happens?
Because they don't just outright reject reality and cling to fantasy?

Turn in a circle. You can see a circular area all about yourself.

Yes, just like you would expect for a RE, with the horizon the same angle of dip all around.
This is not proof of your delusional BS.

But we can tell from this picture that the ground is a straight line in every direction.

No, we can't.
The fact we see a horizon shows that it ISN'T a straight line.
If you want to claim the ground is flat, you will need evidence.

This is how we get the flat green circle.

No, we get a flat green circle by first constructing a cone from the position of your head to the Earth, with it being tangent to the round Earth.
This point of intersection is where the flat circle comes from.

We cannot, for example, see straight up.

Yes we can.

Just what makes you claim we can't?
What magic stops us?

But here's the interesting part. The skyline is actually further away.

You mean here is the part that shows your claim is delusional BS.
As I pointed out in the other thread, which you fled from, if it was due to some magical parabola, you would be able to see less the higher an object is.
This was shown by this simple example of a boat:

The top of the boat is outside the parabola, and thus shouldn't be visible. But the bottom of the boat (at least the near part) is inside the parabola, and should be visible.

But the exact opposite happens in reality, with the bottom of the boat disappearing first.

This makes no sense with your delusional garbage, just like you can't explain what magic causes high up objects to suddenly drop down to appear near the horizon.
But this makes perfect sense on a RE.
Again, refer to the image above, reposted here:

The observe is the line shown in purple. The line of sight to the horizon, which is tangent to Earth, is the grey line.
Before the horizon, an object can be any height to be visible.
But once it goes past the horizon it enters into the region that is hidden. As it gets further away, the height needed to remain outside of the hidden area is higher and higher.
And more importantly, if something has just that height, it will appear to be quite close to the horizon.

So what is observed matches what is expected on a RE.
It doesn't match your parabola fantasy at all.

Here is yet another diagram to further show you are just spouting garbage:

If you are in the grey regions, you can't see the tip, because the side will obstruct the view.
If you want to see the tip, you need to be standing outside that area, with nothing else obstructing the view.

I can't believe it's come to this to explain something so basic and fundamental a even toddler would understand it. Instead there are mystery personal parabolas everywhere. Insane.

The fact the rays of light are straight where you think the mythical parabola should be bending the rays shows there is no parabola.


Now.  Let me get this straight.  You think ever person has the equivalent of a stack exhaust plume “parabola” above them to make the flat earth delusion work like spherical earth.  But the parabola plume would have to be thousands of times bigger? With each person assigned a personal parabola.



Hahahahahaha

   

Oh, my.

Your delusional.  With no proof.  And nothing based in reality.

This is why I'm laughing.

No.  Your being dodgy and delusional.

Again..

I could see the sky above the tower

Why is that if you think things magically blend into the top of the obelisk.  I’m guessing there was nothing physically blocking the sky.  Well, except where the obelisk was blocking the sky…. Like being too damn close to the side was blocking your view to the top. 

And doesn’t explain things like how multiple people over a wide area  can witness the same lunar eclipse.  The earth’s shadow on the moon.  With the moon staying the same size for each person.




And doesn’t explain how the sun can be below this airplane?

Turn in a circle. You can see a circular area all about yourself. But we can tell from this picture that the ground is a straight line in every direction.

What are you babbling about?

You seem to forget drawing in two dimensions that your parabola delusion has to distort light in three dimensions.  Your the one claiming the parabola has to distort light with such power it makes the sun that would always be above the flat earth delusion appear to go below a horizon three miles away.

Your parabola should be doing this.




It should be wrapping the light rays around a person as it was distorted by their parabola.

The sun near sunset is thousands of miles away from a single viewer.  And that view has to cut through hundreds of thousands of other viewers.  Hundreds of thousands of personnel parabolas distorting rays from the sun. 




Do birds in the sky have personal parabolas?  Or would that be a sphere in your delusion?  Would that be the same for people in an airplane? 

When a plane is between me and the sun in your delusion, should this kind of distortion take place because of the personal parabola/globes on the plane?


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

Because your parabola delusion would have to act like a lens to distort the flat earth delusion to make it appear like what is on a spherical earth.


The fact the rays of sun are just straight, with zero curving by your parabola crap disproves your delusion.



Other words, your parabola has no evidence of existing.  With zero possible causes/sources of projections for your parabola.

Angle/Distance...No parabola...Basic Geometry...

Angle/Distance...No parabola...Basic Geometry...

When you understand geometry, you understand that angles and distance are part of the parabola.

Just as you can divide a sphere into an endless series of points, you can find angles within a parabola. The parabola is just a system to properly understand that the sky is vaulted, as it should be in a flat Earth, and that this dome is centered around our own perspective. You can function just fine without believing in the parabola, but you cannot function properly in math while constantly imagining a curvature under your feet.

Geometry and math prove a flat Earth. So does architecture.


https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20221015/15022429/Geometry-proves-flat-Earth.htm

If you try to build a bridge by accounting not for the pylons in the water but some idea that the water should curve, we end up with a bridge that collapses.

Just as you can divide a sphere into an endless series of points, you can find angles within a parabola. The parabola is just a system to properly understand that the sky is vaulted

There is no parabola.  You just see out into three dimensions unless your view is obstructed. 

Why is the sky blue in the flat earth delusion anyway? 

As for a”vaulted” the atmosphere is curved.  But there is no solid restrictions. 

When you understand geometry, you understand that angles and distance are part of the parabola.

Your parabola delusion is not needed at all.
It in no way helps to explain what is observed in reality.

The tower is just simple geometry.

The parabola is just a system to properly understand that the sky is vaulted, as it should be in a flat Earth, and that this dome is centered around our own perspective.

No it isn't. It is your pathetic attempt to try ignoring all the evidence supporting a RE. It offers nothing useful and makes no sense at all.
You have no explanation for what magic causes it, nor are you able to use it to actually explain anything.
Instead you can just make vague appeals to your magical parabola as if it solves all of FEs problems.

If there is a magical vaulted sky, why should that be centred on you?
When we go stand in a building a vaulted roof, we don't get our own mini parabolas.
So why should we get them from a vaulted sky?
It makes no sense.

You can function just fine without believing in the parabola, but you cannot function properly in math while constantly imagining a curvature under your feet.

Good thing we aren't imaging it.

Geometry and math prove a flat Earth. So does architecture.

How?
Again you just spout pure garbage with no justification at all.

Actual observations, with mathematical analysis of those observations, clearly demonstrate Earth is round.

This very topic demonstrates Earth is round, yet because you can't accept that, you jump to a delusional parabola, which doesn't actually explain the observation.

Again, with your fantasy, the boat should disappear from the top down, not the bottom up.
Your delusional garbage has no explanation for why things disappear from the bottom up, nor why higher objects can be seen further.
But a RE does explain all that.

Don't just spam useless videos to try to waste our time.
If you think they support your BS, then clearly explain it yourself.

If you try to build a bridge by accounting not for the pylons in the water but some idea that the water should curve, we end up with a bridge that collapses.

Why?
Again, you are spouting vague garbage with no justification.
That seems to be one of your 2 options for attacking the RE.
You either just spout vague garbage, with no justification at all, or you outright lie about the RE.

Considering you have completely failed with the tower, why don't you try explaining how your magic sky parabola magically makes a boat disappear from the bottom up.
In your explanation, ensure you also tell us why the boat appears to sink.
Recall this diagram, which clearly demonstrates we should get the exact opposite:

Quote from: Stash on October 16, 2022, 09:18:23 AM

Angle/Distance...No parabola...Basic Geometry...

Geometry and math prove a flat Earth. So does architecture.

No it does not.

Here's an architectural example clearly showing you, explicitly, that you are wrong. And we've been through this. Are you claiming that the London Crossrail engineers did the math wrong and the subway extentions failed?



MAPPING LONDON

The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey
National Grid (colloquially called BNG), was determined
when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the
early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy
required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up
to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of
the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate
system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within
the Crossrail area. This became London Survey Grid (LSG)
and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones,
reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre
travelled.

London Survey Grid
A transverse Mercator projection with parameters chosen to
minimise grid distortion caused by curvature of the earth over
the LU area

The London Survey Grid is a Transverse Mercator Projection with parameters chosen
to minimise grid distortion caused by the Earth’s curvature over the LU area. The
distortion is such that for large portions of the area projection corrections can be
ignored.

And you realize that a transverse Mercator projection is a projection of a Globe.

Now go ahead, tell us that one of the more complex engineering feats got it wrong using a globe for their calculations. We deal in facts and actual calculations, not mysterious personal domes.

 You can function just fine without believing in the parabola, but you cannot function properly in math while constantly imagining a curvature under your feet.

If your parabola distorts reality.

When I was in the military.  I was able to shoot popup targets at 300 yards that represented a person from the waist up.  With peep sights. Say with my rifle level, the target was 300 yards straight north with the top of the target 3 feet below by rifle leveled.  A second target with the base of the target six feet above my leveled rifle.  Let’s put that on a x,y,x plane.  Both targets 300 yards out on the x axis.  One target -1 yard in the z axis.  The other target 2 yards in the z axis. Measured by laser rangefinder by distance off the origin point.  Height measured off the x axis. 

Where would these targets be in the coordinate system for your parabola? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 09:55:37 PM

Turn in a circle. You can see a circular area all about yourself. But we can tell from this picture that the ground is a straight line in every direction.

What are you babbling about?

You seem to forget drawing in two dimensions that your parabola delusion has to distort light in three dimensions.  Your the one claiming the parabola has to distort light with such power it makes the sun that would always be above the flat earth delusion appear to go below a horizon three miles away.

For like the seventeenth time, you are confusing the parabola for a prism. The dome of the atmosphere distorts light. Once. And that's assuming the sun is outside the atmosphere. In certain near Earth models, the sun could be inside the Earth's atmosphere. I honestly don't know or care where the sun is, but its position is consistent with its distance from us, that is the further it gets from the zenith, the more it "falls" in the sky. We can tell the is a parabola not from its distortion of light but its distortion of our view of the sky.




Unaffected means unaffected. The parabola determines what you see based on distance. It doesn't curve rays of light.

Do birds in the sky have personal parabolas?  Or would that be a sphere in your delusion?  Would that be the same for people in an airplane? 

Yup. The parabola has a base, a peak, and two sides. You could call it a sphere if it satisfies your sphere Earth sensibilities, but I've concluded it's not, since the shape is more domed (it does not curve inward below you).

The curvature has been "measured". By the same scientists who fake space travel shots?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nasa-movies-tv-shows-about-space-101691248232.html
It's about how Hollywood goes into space

Think for a second (I know it's difficult). If Hollywood can make a show of people going into space, how can we trust shots from NASA? Meanwhile, I think I'll stick with forms of travel that I can prove actually work.

Again, explain why bridges do not have a rise or dip of nearly 6000 ft in some cases. We can measure this! It doesn't happen!
But oh, we can talk about curvature when we want to excuse tunnel diggers for being bad drivers. I mean, it's not like they drive a tunneler as often as a car. I too can excuse them for being rubbish at it. But I won't excuse them for blaming it on something else. When you make a mistake, fess up about it!

But oh, we can talk about curvature when we want to excuse tunnel diggers for being bad drivers. I mean, it's not like they drive a tunneler as often as a car. I too can excuse them for being rubbish at it. But I won't excuse them for blaming it on something else. When you make a mistake, fess up about it!

So you're saying the you are right and the Crossrail engineers were all wrong, yet the extensions were built impeccably correct?

The curvature has been "measured". By the same scientists who fake space travel shots?

Think for a second (I know it's difficult). If Hollywood can make a show of people going into space, how can we trust shots from NASA?

As I have pointed out before, if you want to go down this path, that you mean you reject EVERYTHING, as everything could be fake.

Unless you want to reject literally everything you haven't obtained yourself, the default is to trust and ask why shouldn't we trust?

Again, explain why bridges do not have a rise or dip of nearly 6000 ft in some cases.

Why are you yet again fleeing from he topic?

The topic is boats over the horizon.
Explain how your delusional garbage has a boat disappear from the bottom up, causing it to appear to sink.

We can measure this! It doesn't happen!

Prove it.

If Hollywood can make a show of people going into space, how can we trust shots from NASA?

Who the F is talking about Hollywood or NASA.  People have looked for your parabola personally.  It’s not there.  And there is no evidence of a force or object that can project it. 

Because for some odd/insane reason bumble seems to think the CGI/VFX recently viewed in the craptastic 2022 'Moonfall' movie he just saw and became enamoured with (Now he believes that the Moon is hollow and an engineered structure...Based on that movie???) can somehow be applied to NASA 60+ years ago.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 07:04:47 PM

See my signature? This is my proof, which I constructed about a week and a half ago.

It's not proof.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 07:04:47 PM

It already refutes this entire notion, based on my own observations riding in a car between two times and two distinct times of day.

No it doesn't.

If you get to decide what is/isn't proof, we will never get anywhere.

Proof is a series of observations using logic that confirm a conclusion.

Using a chain of if-then logic, I observed the sky at day and at night. I also observed slopeand how it affected field of vision. Pictures 1 through 3 examine the rules of perspective given the  debated shape of the Earth. 4 onward, we start to rule out perspectives. Proof doesn't get to be decided, it's objectively defined. I observed the sky for roughly 3 hours total, in addition to the ground. Making an observation and then testing it and having it work, yes this is proof.

 "I don't like the answers so it's not proven"  is not valid.

If you get to decide what is/isn't proof, we will never get anywhere.

Whatever you have presented has been debunked.

You seriously think each persons walks around with something like stack exhaust distorting reality?  Just 1000’s of times bigger?

Proof is a series of observations using logic that confirm a conclusion.

That allows you to predict and apply knowledge to situations.  To produce a predictable outcome.

Example.
How do I compensate for your delusional parabola in long range shooting when all I have to do is use line of sight and understand bullet drop for the cartridge I am using.

Using a chain of if-then logic,

This isn’t logic..

You've seen movies where a wizard walks around with a protective bubble, right? Think of it like that, only much much larger. There is never a point where it would present a problem with laser pointing to that crane, unless you were deliberately standing way too far to see either laser pointer or crane. You carry your little wizard's bubble around with you, and it protects you from troublesome things like people talking about a domed flat earth. But it defines everything you see and hear.

Finding your shoes fixed and assuming it must have been elves because you want to believe in elves is broken logic.  Which is what your doing with the flat earth delusion.

I observed the sky at day and at night.

I also observed slopeand how it affected field of vision.

Like the lenses of your eyes are effecting the line of sight transmission of electromagnetic radiation we call light?  And how refraction effects that transmission is well understood and documented.

This experiment accounts for illusion and refraction, and is proof the earth is spherical based on observations collected as data.  Makes predictions that are verified, and can be applied to real word situations.

Proof of Earth Curvature: The Rainy Lake Experiment

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!

Pictures 1 through 3 examine the rules of perspective

By all means please list the rules of perspective, and the context they apply to.  And a 3D example of each listed rule.

If you get to decide what is/isn't proof, we will never get anywhere.

There are fairly objective standards, and what you have provided doesn't cut it.
The vast majority of what you say is invalid, and the conclusions don't follow from the premise, or unsound, as you have no basis for the premise, with plenty being outright lies.

If you get to just arbitrarily decide what is/isn't proof, then you will just assert you have given proof while all you have given is garbage.

If you actually had proof you would be able to stay and justify it and defend it, rather than needing to continually flee and ignore the issues that have been raised.

Pictures 1 through 3

If you are referring to your signature again, I have already pointed how it relies upon you blatantly lying about the RE.
Why don't you run back to that thread and try defending it there?

Once those lies are dealt with, you have nothing to support your parabola over the RE.
So no, that garbage of yours is not proof.
No matter how much you want it to be.
As it relies upon you lying about the RE to pretend the RE doesn't work, it is not proof.


Now again, how about you start addressing some of the issues with your garbage?
Again, with your delusional parabola we should expect objects to disappear from the top down as they exit the parabola.
Like the boat in this example:

The lower right portion is inside the parabola, and should be visible.
The upper left portion is outside, and should not be visible.

But back in reality, including from the videos provided here, we clearly see the boat disappearing from the bottom up and appearing to sink.
So if you want proof, this is proof that your parabola is garbage.

If you don't agree, feel free to explain how your parabola magically causes this.

Quote from: Stash on October 15, 2022, 07:23:03 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 07:04:47 PM

See my signature? This is my proof, which I constructed about a week and a half ago.

It's not proof.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 07:04:47 PM

It already refutes this entire notion, based on my own observations riding in a car between two times and two distinct times of day.

No it doesn't.

If you get to decide what is/isn't proof, we will never get anywhere.

Proof is a series of observations using logic that confirm a conclusion.

Using a chain of if-then logic, I observed the sky at day and at night. I also observed slopeand how it affected field of vision. Pictures 1 through 3 examine the rules of perspective given the  debated shape of the Earth. 4 onward, we start to rule out perspectives. Proof doesn't get to be decided, it's objectively defined. I observed the sky for roughly 3 hours total, in addition to the ground. Making an observation and then testing it and having it work, yes this is proof.

 "I don't like the answers so it's not proven"  is not valid.

So only your observation matters? A 3 hour one? And millions of other people's observations that show you are wrong don't matter?