Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Liar.

Thanks for summing up yourself.

In the first picture, one is "taller" then the other. Then the other, you can clearly see how they "swap" heights.

Just like if you take pictures of groups of people, their height order doesn't magically stay the same.
Just what makes you assume they are the same height, and more importantly the same towers?

They are the same height, and they appear parallel in distance (making both "explanations" wrong). But the distortion of distance is such that even when apparently equidistant one of these just slightly curves closer and winds up looking 50% taller. This is an observable phenomenon

No, it isn't.
No one has ever observed such a thing.

When something is clearly a lie, and the other person can see it, doubling down on a lie is of the worst form.

So you admit you are here committing the worst form of lying?

Jesus said, "Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe."

Allegedly.
And why?
To con people into believing religion when there is evidence to support it.
To try to silence questioning.

so we're basing all this arguing on some feeling you have that they should be parallel and same height?
seriously?

what kind of poorass nonsense argument is this?
fadedmike's blue photo with no reference points or land marks?
BRILLIANT!

I pointed directly to a photo that had distortion.

And you pretend like it's not there.



Just act like you don't see things, huh? Yeah that's what denizens of Hell do. They never rise from their respective realities because they are in full blinder mode. As for me, obvious thing is obvious no matter how much you yell and scream BLAH BLAH BLAH NOT LISTENING.

Oh so now you tell us that they are four different towers.

Mmmm. I see, that's convenient.

The point is, I have actually seen this exact effect. Were I to walk horizontally away from one tower and towards another, they would appear to grow and shrink even at equal length distance.

It's possible some of these are slightly taller in order to compensate for certain obstacles. It's also possible you are grasping at fucking straws trying to find any excuse possible to avoid admitting that even at apparently equal distance in terms of length, width distance is a thing.
Yes, I'm aware that most math only deals in straight on distance. But if you're gonna spout RE nonsense and then deny we have three dimensions in measurement, you kinda deserve to be mocked.

Suppose I am in a hardware business and someone wants screws to build a deck with. But instead of having standardized 5/16 inch screws, I produce a grab bag that can't even be lined up properly. The "5/16" are shorter and longer than 5 /16, some nearly reaching 5/8. This isn't a matter of them falling into wrong shelves either, as they pick all the ones that approach 5/16 and they still don't line up. The customer will look at this, decide they can't build a deck, and leave me without business.
Likewise, towers that are vastly different heights might have problems sending and receiving signals to each other. 50% higher? Yeah I don't think it was built that dramatically different. I'm trusting their experience.
https://www.celltowerleaseexperts.com/cell-tower-lease-news/how-tall-does-a-cell-tower-have-to-be-to-be-effective/
...Scratch that, it says towers can be anywhere from 50-400 ft high. They have no standards or pride in their work. And you trust these guys to set up a satellite system? Absurd.



Okay, they do have at least an average height for certain models. My faith in humanity is restored.

Whats your point?

I pointed directly to a photo that had distortion.

And you pretend like it's not there.

No, you pointed to a photo, lied about, and then used that lie to pretend there is distortion.
When called out on your lie, you just pull this shit.

What basis do you have to claim the towers are actually the same height?

Just act like you don't see things, huh?

That does seem to be your MO.
Spout all sorts of delusional BS to pretend that the RE has a problem, and then when it is refuted, just ignore it like you can't see it.
Likewise, when all sorts of problems are pointed out for your fantasy, you just ignore them, as if they don't exist.

Quite pathetic, and quite dishonest.

As for me, obvious thing is obvious

So you fully realise your claims are pure BS, and are here wilfully lying to everyone?

The point is, I have actually seen this exact effect. Were I to walk horizontally away from one tower and towards another, they would appear to grow and shrink even at equal length distance.

No. The apparent height is based upon simple trig. Commonly known as perspective.
The further away it is, the shorter it appears.

Do you mean that if you were to draw a line directly between the towers, and then your distance from that line, perpendicular to that line was equal, the towers could appear a different height, as the actual distance to the towers can vary?

If so, that is just the distance to the towers varying.

It's possible some of these are slightly taller in order to compensate for certain obstacles. It's also possible you are grasping at fucking straws trying to find any excuse possible to avoid admitting that even at apparently equal distance in terms of length, width distance is a thing.
Yes, I'm aware that most math only deals in straight on distance. But if you're gonna spout RE nonsense and then deny we have three dimensions in measurement, you kinda deserve to be mocked.

It seems to be you doing that, wanting to ignore the fact we live in 3 dimensions, to pretend you can measure the towers with only one dimension, ignoring the distance in the other dimensions, to pretend 2 towers which are not the same distance away, magically are.

Likewise, towers that are vastly different heights might have problems sending and receiving signals to each other. 50% higher?

No.

Remember, a lot of these towers are also going to send and receive signals to people, including using devices like mobile phones.
Are you saying that cell companies need to build giant ridiculous towers with transmitters on every floor, so as you go between different floors in a building they can send to these different floors?

Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to say, but that is what you are implying.

Pure stupidity. Almost like you are grasping at fucking straws trying to find any excuse possible to pretend that your delusional BS is true.

Scratch that, it says towers can be anywhere from 50-400 ft high. They have no standards or pride in their work.

Or, they just aren't morons and see that there is no reason to build a tower 400 ft high if a 50 ft tall tower will work.
Smart people realise that different conditions and different coverage areas will have different requirements including height. They wont be dumb and claim that every tower needs to be the exact same height.

Now again, care to address all your failings?
Care to explain how a FE sun can cast light upwards on something below it?
Or even care to admit that all your BS against the RE fails entirely?
Care to show any sense of integrity?

Seriously.

Get your eyes checked.

Three dimensional space has X, Y, and Z dimensions. Or length, width, and height.



There is frontal distortion (what we call vanishing point).

There is also the tendency of width to wrap around us, given sufficient distance. You literally see that no matter how big or small a space, physical space extends ahead, then diagonal, then to either side, then finally peripheral, and behind that it's behind you and you can't see it.  Distortion there too. There's a diagonal taper, and a vanishing point here too.

We can measure height from a flat point as it curves upward to above our head. This also has a sort of taper. Then past above our head we have to turn around.

Line forward, line straight up (but warping upward from the horizon), flat line of width for horizon (but curving ever around us). You can also look in any direction, but it tapers.

All perspective is domed, not curving beyond a dome. Earth is not a sphere.

Back on post topic. How do you think the sun behaves on such a dome? Oh wait, it also tapers, appearing to rise and fall when actually it is the same height all day long. If you sit still the whole day, you can observe it "rising" as it arcs toward us until it gets directly overhead, then "falling" after it starts to arc past the other side. Using no tools but your hand, you can quickly see that short of popping your arm our of joint (please try that, I'll enjoy it), simply holding your right hand diagonally to the left and swinging it diagonally to the right (this works best if you line up similar height, such as the ceiling of a house) shows that your own body has an insurmountable arc that closely mirrors what we can observe of the sun.



Now, let's show what a curved space looks like. So you get why this is stupid. Holdon...



If I am standing on a perfectly flat plane for miles (black), but RE tells us that I cam just seeing things and space is actually curving around me in all directions (red)... So could you answer a simple question please? Why is it that I can see a line all the way up to the horizon? Shouldn't I be looking downhill, and then above me see up-downhill?  And I couldn't even really replicate the diagonal taper. It was like this all over the place.



Straight up is up, diagonally up is straight across, straight across is down, and down is how do you even see down a hill in this model? You see, I can look down a hill just fine, but it doesn't track here.

Cool prism

Now show us a 2d and 3d sphere.

What shpae does the 2d image make?

And shape does a SLICE of the 3D image make when viewed fr9m the side

For reference.

This is how you look downhill on FE. Just as there are no perspective problems looking straight across, there are no issues looking down when the ground is below (green represents sloped surface).



Problems looking across a flat plain that is supposedly a hill? Plenty!

I love how none of you seem to have taken geometry in high school.

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.
And besides perspective, the other problem of standing on a three-dimensional ball is this.



If you are able to balance on a ball, I invite you clowns to the circus. As for me, I am not a circus freak.

For reference.

This is how you look downhill on FE. Just as there are no perspective problems looking straight across, there are no issues looking down when the ground is below (green represents sloped surface).



Problems looking across a flat plain that is supposedly a hill? Plenty!

I love how none of you seem to have taken geometry in high school.

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.
And besides perspective, the other problem of standing on a three-dimensional ball is this.



If you are able to balance on a ball, I invite you clowns to the circus. As for me, I am not a circus freak.

There is no evidence of your parabola.

Not from the way the myst lies.  To the way dust moves and covers everything.  Not in the flight of birds to airplanes.  Not in the movement of wind and the jet stream. 

Not in the fact radar and laser range finders are accurate.

Your parabola is a lie highlighted in the fact you have to lie and claim towers of different designs and purposes at different sites have to magically have their tops reach the same altitude.  And are all magically the same distance from a random spot I chose to photograph them.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 19, 2023, 05:07:34 AM

Jesus said, "Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe."

Allegedly.
And why?
To con people into believing religion when there is evidence to support it.
To try to silence questioning.

That is in discord with both historical record as well as what we know about Palenstine at the time, but you aren't really interested in dealing facts about Christianity. Why don't you spend your time barging into churches and fisking their services rather than harassing us? Living in the Bible belt, I am always surprised when I re-realize how evangelical many Atheists really are. You guys really do hold yourself to the worst parts of Christianity.

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.


Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.



Looks flat with a small frame of reference?

But the tank is clearly curved.






What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

Seriously.
Get your eyes checked.

Try getting your brain checked.

Three dimensional space has X, Y, and Z dimensions. Or length, width, and height.

Yes, and when talking about the distance to an object, you don't just pick one of these, and claim that while keeping your distance constant you can magically change how tall the object appears to be, by changing your distance in another direction.

That is just lying.
An honest approach recognises that the world is 3D, and uses all the dimensions to calculate the total distance.
And it is that total distance that dictates the size.

There is frontal distortion (what we call vanishing point).

No, it is NOT distortion.
There is the fact that we see the world through an angular FOV, where we see in 2 angular dimensions.
As objects get further away, the angle the subtend gets smaller, so they appear smaller.
This is NOT distortion.

Then past above our head we have to turn around.

Because you can't just keep tilting your head back.
Still no distortion.

All perspective is domed, not curving beyond a dome.

No, it isn't.
It is based upon 2 angles.

Earth is not a sphere.

You are yet to provide anything that demonstrates that.
Conversely, there is still plenty that demonstrates Earth is roughly spherical.

Back on post topic. How do you think the sun behaves on such a dome? Oh wait, it also tapers, appearing to rise and fall when actually it is the same height all day long.

No, it doesn't.
A key fact is that the angular size remains roughly the same. This demonstrates the distance is roughly the same.
This means it can't be moving away while remaining the same height.
You are just repeating the same refuted BS.

Do you know what entirely fails to model the sun? An object remaining the same height about a plane and moving away.
Do you know what does?
An object moving around in a vertical circle (or inclined with a vertical component). Quite like the RE, just changing the reference frame.

But do you know what is even more on topic?
How the sun manages to illuminate the bottom of the clouds, casting light upwards.
For a RE, this is directly expected.
For a FE, this should never happen.

Now, let's show what a curved space looks like. So you get why this is stupid.

You mean a curved planet?
If so, try it without throwing your delusional BS in.

If I am standing on a perfectly flat plane for miles

You're not.

but RE tells us that I cam just seeing things and space is actually curving around me

No, it doesn't.
That is just another lie from you.

Why is it that I can see a line all the way up to the horizon? Shouldn't I be looking downhill, and then above me see up-downhill?

Perhaps try explaining what magic should prevent you seeing this.
Then you can explain why the horizon is observed to be below eye level.
And note that the horizon appearing to be below eye level, along with how you can't see past it, matches quite well to seeing down hill.
Just what do you think is missing?

All FEers seem to be able to offer about what is allegedly missing is vague crap.
You cannot articulate any actual issue.

I love how none of you seem to have taken geometry in high school.

You mean you haven't, so you entirely fail to understand how even basic geometry works, and spout all sorts of BS.

And besides perspective, the other problem

You are yet to demonstrate a single problem for the RE. So stop acting like you have,

problem of standing on a three-dimensional ball is this.

You mean standing on a tiny ball, that is on a much larger ball?
Again, you are setting up a pathetic strawman, not demonstrating any problem.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 21, 2023, 08:49:25 PM

For reference.

This is how you look downhill on FE. Just as there are no perspective problems looking straight across, there are no issues looking down when the ground is below (green represents sloped surface).



Problems looking across a flat plain that is supposedly a hill? Plenty!

I love how none of you seem to have taken geometry in high school.

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.
And besides perspective, the other problem of standing on a three-dimensional ball is this.



If you are able to balance on a ball, I invite you clowns to the circus. As for me, I am not a circus freak.

There is no evidence of your parabola.

Not from the way the myst lies.  To the way dust moves and covers everything.  Not in the flight of birds to airplanes.  Not in the movement of wind and the jet stream. 

Not in the fact radar and laser range finders are accurate.

Your parabola is a lie highlighted in the fact you have to lie and claim towers of different designs and purposes at different sites have to magically have their tops reach the same altitude.  And are all magically the same distance from a random spot I chose to photograph them.

That's what you say about God, too.

"We don't see any evidence of God," because we've been trying hard not to look for him. Because you want to hide from the notion of your sin. But you become more and more estranged, the more in denial you get.

The parabola is something you can gauge with you own eyes simply by tracing line of sight.

Look straight, then to the left, then to the right. Horizontal parabola. You can even see a taper, where objects off diagonally to the side seem closer than those head on.
Look straight, then tilt you head up until you see directly above, then turn around and do the opposite back to the ground. Yes there is a vertical parabola, and it ends at the ground. We've just constructed a moving dome around ourselves with nothing besides perspective. This parabola isn't some distortion you imagine, it is the sum total of angular perception looking out at the world. This is what you are able to see.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.

No, you don't understand.

Even if Earth's roundedness were as gradual as a two-sided vinyl record, and it were round to such a way that no sane person would call it anything  besides a coin, the behavior of water alone would be such that at points along this "globe" you would have long stretches of warped water, either falls or whirlpools. You would have people acclimated to certain tilt as areas like France would be upright but on the side (too subtle for them to notice, you say) but in they suddenly moved from east to west and north to south hemisphere, their blood polarity should shift (since blood is a liquid and mostly iron). It should also shift because they have gradually moved upside down. Nothing of the sort ever happens. We only get jet lag from long trips into different timezones.
Nor do we feel the Earth rotate or orbit. We certainly should by all accounts, but fuzzy math is done to reduce a huge number into "nothing really noticeable."

The Earth cannot be other than an upright basin.

"We should feel the earth rotate and orbit"?


Ok
So you dont under stand 24hrs.

And now youre going to tell us that 8760hrs (365x24) we should feel that?

Holycrapballs
Thats AMAZING!

Fo an experiment take a ball on a string.
Spin it around your head at a rate of 1rev per 24hrs.

There is a great amount you don't understand, but let's keep it relevant to discussion.

"Simple! One revolution per 24 hours."

Yes, one entire revolution. Every day, you say.

So, I live in a small town. We have a house, a pool, a garden shed and a horse barn, and some forests around me.  No, I'm not remotely rich. My parents are middle-class. I would be listed among people who make less than $10k a year (and often less than $5k a year), and that was while still working. It became so impractical to keep working during the height of COVID "regulations" (stupid rules) that I finally just said fuck it. Now, I mainly mow our lawn and help them with gardening, but even that is winding to an end thanks to you goddamn globalist fuckers and your ethanol gasoline (my lawnmower isn't designed with it in mind so we have to go miles out of the way in order to keep the thing running, all because supposedly it's more environmentally friendly even though big diesel trucks have to haul ethanol) and your transitioning to all electric like that will no doubt make it impossible for me to mow our own yard in a few years. I'm fucking pissed off about living in the world you bastards built instead of the world my parents built, a world that made some fucking sense.



But I can do simple math and observation, and while there is supposedly one revolution per day, that doesn't translate the way you think it should. Earth rotates 1000 mph, they say. That's roughly 16.666 miles per minute.

I want you to visualize this, so I'm pausing the paragraph for a second.

That pool, those trees, the barn, the house, the shed, and everything else gets moved 16 miles a minute. For reference, 60 mph is a mile a minute. The fastest most destructive windstorm moves 219 mph or 3.65 miles a minute. It is literally strong enough to rip a house off its hinges, trees out of their roots, and suck up all the water in my pool to toss elsewhere. This is spinning motion so the forward motion isn't even that fast. But a single direction motion of roughly FOUR TIMES that, carried out roughly 1440 times (the number of minutes in a day) over the course of one day leaves not a single dent in my barn, nor my shed, nor my pool, nor the trees, nor my house, nor even me or the horse next door. The horse should have explosive nausea from being shifted around at a near constant rate. It doesn't.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't make any sense. Your globalism that punishes us for owning our own home and burning old wood on our own land doesn't make any sense. And I've had enough of it, frankly. Why don't you go back to your pampered little ivory towers with your pet theories and leave the rest of us alone?!?  I don't demand you abandon RE thinking, but some days, I've had as many as four people write comments helpfully reminding me that I should get with the RE agenda. If someone wanting to retire met with that kind of pressure they'd likely call the cops for harassment. 
Samuel L Jackson wrote that all Republicans remind him of the jerks he grew up in small towns, but you know, the most decent people I ever met were in small towns. City people are the jerks. Neurotic, filled with ideas on how to improve other peoples' lives, can't stay put from minute to minute as they try to attend children's soccer games or plays instead of fucking chilling. The biggest busybodies in my life have always been the asshole politicians who couldn't understand why people would want to move to the country. They never have enough time for their kids, their kids are distracted messes who spend the entirety of their time either trying to prepare for college with 16 extracurriculars (seriously, if you have all that, what do you need college for?) or glued to a iSmart phone screen like a dumbass, and no matter how much money they squeeze from other people it's never enough.

The world isn't moving. Stop trying to make it move. Stop with your "revolutions" every day. The Earth is staying put, dammit.



Tell you what. I'll stay put in this small farm, and you guys can spin all around like dervishes, working through your busy lives.
I'll let you deal with dizziness.

Accelleration vs velocity.

You feel accellerations.
Not velocity.



Since we re spinnging
ANGULAR accelleration.
JackB already did the math for you.





Then fewl free to explain to us globalists why locally produced electricity via local nautral renewable  = bad, meanwhile price fluxuations on a global market for oil and NG = good

That's what you say about God, too.

Quite the opposite.
Plenty of people have looked for your imaginary fiend and found nothing.

We get it, you need to construct an elaborate fantasy, all to pretend your fantasy is true to escape reality.

Look straight, then to the left, then to the right. Horizontal parabola.

No, it isn't.
All you are demonstrating here is that you are seeing in angles.
There isn't some magical point beyond which I can't see.

You aren't showing any parabola at all.

Even if Earth's roundedness were as gradual as a two-sided vinyl record, and it were round to such a way that no sane person would call it anything  besides a coin, the behavior of water alone would be such that at points along this "globe" you would have long stretches of warped water, either falls or whirlpools.

And yet again you just spout delusional BS with no justification at all.

WHY?
Why should any of that BS of yours be observed?

You would have people acclimated to certain tilt as areas like France would be upright but on the side (too subtle for them to notice, you say) but in they suddenly moved from east to west and north to south hemisphere, their blood polarity should shift (since blood is a liquid and mostly iron). It should also shift because they have gradually moved upside down.

Again, WHY?
Just what affect are you claiming should be observed and why?
Stop just spouting delusional vague BS.

Nor do we feel the Earth rotate or orbit. We certainly should by all accounts, but fuzzy math is done to reduce a huge number into "nothing really noticeable."

No, not by all accounts.
By dishonest conmen like you that are knowingly spouting pure BS.

This isn't "fuzzy math".
This is quite simple math showing the insanity of your claims.
You just hate it because it means your pathetic lies against the RE don't work.

A human should NOT feel the effects of rotation given how small they are and the direction they are in.
But sensitive instruments routinely measure it.

If you wish to claim such dishonest, delusional BS, then provide clear descriptions of exactly what you think we should feel (and not just "the rotation" explain what perception it should cause) and why, and do the math to back it up.

The Earth cannot be other than an upright basin.

You have provided nothing to demonstrate it cannot be roughly a sphere. And all the evidence points to it being roughly a sphere.
So I will stick to accepting that Earth is roughly a sphere.

But I can do simple math and observation

Can you? Because you repeatedly fail to do so.
And instead repeatedly spout delusional BS, BS which is trivial to demonstrate is BS.

while there is supposedly one revolution per day, that doesn't translate the way you think it should. Earth rotates 1000 mph, they say.

It translates exactly the way we think it should, and matches observations.
No, not "they". Dishonest people like you.
Honest people describe rotation in terms of angular velocity. When you want to discuss linear velocity, you need to refer to a location.
You appeal to the 1000 mph because it sounds like a massive speed so you can pretend there should be something obvious because of it.
Yet planes fly at roughly 1000 km/hr, and it is quite comparable to just sitting still.
I can have a cup of water in a plane, and it doesn't go flying all over the place.

The fastest most destructive windstorm moves 219 mph or 3.65 miles a minute.

And the important aspect you are overlooking is that that wind is moving RELATIVE to the surface of Earth.
That is the kind of motion you need to appeal to.

That is why being inside a plane is fine, because the air inside the plane is moving with the plane.

Likewise, other than things like wind, the atmosphere of Earth rotates with it.
So that means you are again appealing to dishonest BS to pretend there is an issue when there is none.
Truly pathetic, truly dishonest and truly desperate.

If you wish to disagree, and want to pretend that velocity is all that matters, then explain why objects are not completely destroyed every time they go in a plane at roughly 1000 km/hr.
Noting that some flights last over 12 hours.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't make any sense.

No, YOU don't make any sense.
Your delusional BS doesn't make sense.
As explained above.
You are trying to compare air moving relative to the surface at some velocity; to the air and the surface moving together at some velocity.
They are vastly different and produce vastly different effects.

I don't demand you abandon RE thinking, but some days, I've had as many as four people write comments helpfully reminding me that I should get with the RE agenda. If someone wanting to retire met with that kind of pressure they'd likely call the cops for harassment.

Do you mean on this forum? If so, that isn't people telling you to get with the RE agenda. That is people calling you out for your dishonest BS.
If you want it to stop, it is truly quite simple, stop spouting so much dishonest BS.

The world isn't moving.

All the evidence shows it is.
You not liking that doesn't change that.
Stop trying to pretend it isn't moving with such dishonest BS.

Or how about you get back to the topic, and explain how the sun can illuminate a cloud from below when it is above?

That's what you say about God, too.

Quote what I posted about my God and my truth.


Still.  You are trying to explain the mechanics of god’s universe or creation. What physical force creates your imaginary parabola.

How can it physically interact with the real world if there is no physical evidence.

Again..

There is no evidence of your parabola.

Not from the way the myst lies.  To the way dust moves and covers everything.  Not in the flight of birds to airplanes.  Not in the movement of wind and the jet stream. 

Not in the fact radar and laser range finders are accurate.

Your parabola is a lie highlighted in the fact you have to lie and claim towers of different designs and purposes at different sites have to magically have their tops reach the same altitude.  And are all magically the same distance from a random spot I chose to photograph them.

So what if

You keep trying to make this parabola about distortion. There is distortion, as we saw from parallel towers of apparent equal height (trust me, I've see similar towers, and even walked closer to one or the other and had them "change height") but the distortion is due to distance.

But if we're gonna talk about the accuracy of radar and laser rangefinders, I ought to point out.
Under a FE parabola, you can fire a laser in a straight line until the light scatters, or it hits a thick object.

Ditto with radar. Though radio stuff apparently penetrates more things.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225830/why-is-visible-light-easily-blocked-by-pretty-much-anything-but-radio-waves-are
But under a RE, light and radio has to conform to a curve. That's ridiculous. Try shining a flashlight at a tall hill and ask a friend to get on the other side at night. If you're lucky, maybe the light bounces off the top. Or it's thin enough that light penetrates, as in here.

It doesn't curve around the hill though.

You keep trying to make this parabola about distortion. There is distortion, as we saw from parallel towers of apparent equal height (trust me, I've see similar towers, and even walked closer to one or the other and had them "change height") but the distortion is due to distance.

Considering your blatant dishonesty, why would we ever trust you?
There is nothing indicating the towers are the same height.

But under a RE, light and radio has to conform to a curve.

No, it doesn't.
Why do you keep repeating this pathetic lie?

You tell us to trust you, only to turn around and blatantly lie to us.

Again, how does the sun illuminate the clouds from below when it is above?

So what if

You keep trying to make this parabola about distortion. There is distortion, as we saw from parallel towers of apparent equal height (trust me, I've see similar towers, and even walked closer to one or the other and had them "change height") but the distortion is due to distance.

This is you using classic blatant lies and false authority about false assertions.

There is no way I picked a spot where magically each tower was exactly the same distance from my random spot for the photo.  Even if there was any credibility to your claimed each tower of different design topped out exactly at the same altitude.

The towers farther from me are going to appear smaller just because of field of view that has been explained to your repeatedly.







You have to lie about the simplest of things.

And your parabola should produce distortions like the “parabola” from this exhaust plume.  The closest thing I could find to your delusion. 

With you having no explanation why radar and laser range finders would be accurate in your delusion.

Liar calling me a liar.





I spend roughly a page or two explaining something, but because now you say it, suddenly you get to control the narrative.

Uhhh, no, they are both behind the tree line. And both are actually parallel. What is true is that the person viewing these is in front of the tree line, to the right. It appears the treeline opens only because you are closer.

We periodically drive from my town to the city to visit my sister's family. The latest time was Sunday. I had the opportunity to perform two tests:
(1) On foot examination of telephone poles of equal height around a church.
(2) In car examination of telephone poles both from frontal view and from sidelong view.

Yes, two objects can be equally tall but appear different heights based solely on horizontal distance and not range distance. And yes, perspective height even at walking distance can be dramatic.



A side perspective of poles (not my picture). Do you have any claim that these poles are different heights? Or that the road actually is curved and they are farther back? Or that the nearest pole is in front of the posts? No, they are further left. That's it.

And no, I dunno why the poles look tilted. I think they were trying to get the mountain in the shot.

An even better shot. I think.



You wanna tell me that as those poles diminish, they are actually planted at lower height? Or are you gonna accept that the ones that are parallel are parallel and the same height?

Vanishing point doesn't only happen straight ahead, it happens across.

An even better shot. I think.



You wanna tell me that as those poles diminish, l

Thanks for proving that poles of the same high look smaller with distance because they take up less field of view.

Which in no way proves your parabola delusion where everyone needs a person stack exhaust plume above them.

And you still lied in trying to state my example the towers of different designs all topped out at the exact same altitude and where exactly the same distance from me.

With you lying in there is zero proof of your parabola delusion where it would make radar and laser range finders useless in accuracy.

With you having no explanation why radar and laser range finders would be accurate in your delusion.

Yes, two objects can be equally tall but appear different heights based solely on horizontal distance and not range distance.

Stop lying, and try responding honestly.

If 2 objects are the same distance away in the y direction, but are a different distance away in the x direction, then their total distance (or range distance) WILL BE DIFFERENT!

Stop pretending there are magically different distances.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 27, 2023, 02:50:36 AM

An even better shot. I think.



You wanna tell me that as those poles diminish, l

Thanks for proving that poles of the same high look smaller with distance because they take up less field of view.

Which in no way proves your parabola delusion where everyone needs a person stack exhaust plume above them.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 13, 2023, 04:41:12 AM

And you still lied in trying to state my example the towers of different designs all topped out at the exact same altitude and where exactly the same distance from me.

With you lying in there is zero proof of your parabola delusion where it would make radar and laser range finders useless in accuracy.

With you having no explanation why radar and laser range finders would be accurate in your delusion.

Your delusion is that there is some sort of problem with rangefinders.

You know, they are able to use them to build all of these telephone poles. How can there be a problem?

 

1. Either you admit that the only "distortion" is the same vanishing point in multiple directions, in which case laser pointers are perfectly fine to use.
2. Or you insist there's some light distortion that I've repeatedly told you there isn't, in which case you admit that these poles are shoddily built because rangefinder tech is unreliable.



Meanwhile, your own theory says light curves around a globe. If that literally is how light behaved, you would have bigger problems with using rangefinders, namely building poles that have to match a round Earth logically pull each other down.

You see, no matter what perspective tells us, building on a flat plane works differently than building on a curved sphere. Forces of tension win out and lines pull each other apart. Yet...

Abstract:Within the next month, the world's longest telephone cable, connecting New York and Chicago, will go into service. It is 861 miles long and for 717 miles of its length it is carried above ground on some 36,000 poles. For the remaining 144 miles this cable runs underground. Construction of the cable began seven years ago and when put into service it will provide 250 channels for telephonic communication and 500 for telegraph messages. This new cable is the first step in a system which will connect many important centers in the more densely populated parts of the United States.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6537900

In a Round Earth, this plan is not possible! Both the curvature, and the inherent forces of tension force it apart.



Here is what I mean. In a globe, basic laws of geometry dictate that degrees of latitude and longitude are degrees of curve.

NYC is 40 N 73 W
Chicago is 41 N 87 W

This is 15 degrees of curvature. For reference...

After the removal of more than 70 metric tons of soil in 2008, engineers announced that the Tower had been stabilized enough that it had stopped moving for the first time since construction began. Its lean is now only about four degrees (prior to the all the restoration attempts, the lean was 5.5 degrees), or about 13 feet past perfectly vertical. The Leaning Tower of Pisa should be stable for at least the next 200 years.

At nearly four times that, these poles ahould be unstable indeed!

Your delusion is that there is some sort of problem with rangefinders.

Are you capable of being honest?

Their claim is that they work in reality, but your delusion would cause problems.

Either you admit that the only "distortion" is the same vanishing point in multiple directions, in which case laser pointers are perfectly fine to use.

i.e. the standard laws of perspective, which allow with the RE causes what is observed; and nothing like your BS where there is a magic parabola which distorts things?

You know, the standard stuff which means that the sun can't cast light on clouds from below when it is above them?

Meanwhile, your own theory says light curves around a globe.

Stop repeating this same pathetic lie. How many times do you need to be called out on it before you stop?

How far appart are chicago and new yorkcity?


And why does it matter?
Do you not know what circles are?
Are they along the supposed perimeter of the ball earth?
If you had the two cities sidebtside it would seem quite extreme the angle.
But theyre not.
Theyre how far appart?

This distance (around 700+ miles)
https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York-NY/Chicago
doesn't matter like its latitudinal curvature.

Science experiment time. Grab a pack of Crayola crayons and a rubber globe (any size is fine). And a circular wooden table.

On the circular table, these crayons can be placed upright, and lined up, exactly as you can do to a Flat Earth power grid, extending this system for miles and miles.
On the rubber globe, you either have to slope them all facing up, (as though built upright on a hill)

 or face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

And if you walk away, one of these has the crayons stay in place while the other one immediately has all crayons fall.

Exactly as globe Earth doesn't work in real life.

 or face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

What is your incoherent rant about today?

This distance (around 700+ miles)
https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York-NY/Chicago
doesn't matter like its latitudinal curvature.

Science experiment time. Grab a pack of Crayola crayons and a rubber globe (any size is fine). And a circular wooden table.


 face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

Youre absolutely correct

The posts on one of the longest spanning bridges had to have their angles calcualted to account for the curvature of the earth.

Congratulations.