Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

So you are saying perspective magically stops and switches?
That for something BELOW you, it will first appear to rise, until it magically stops and switches and appears to go down?

No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward, just like a plane above us appears to be going downward towards the surface when going into the distance do.

Perspective makes objects above us, appear to be going downward in the distance, and is also due to perspective.

It’s not magic, it is an illusion of how we see things in the distance, both rising up, and sinking down.

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.

Planes don’t really sink downward in the distance, and nor do ships sink downward past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve, but it helps your fairy tale to believe it curves down but never seen at all. It’s there somewhere, we just never see it anywhere we look!!

No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward

Wrong again.
It is relative to YOU, not the horizon.
If something is BELOW YOU it appears to rise.

plane

I know you are desperate to try to move the conversation to planes because you can pretend you aren't wrong with them, but no.
Stick to things BELOW you.
Things like ships observed at sea when you are standing on a hill by the shore, where you can clearly tell the ship is below you, and watch it as it appears to rise only to stop and appear to sink.

That is the key part you can't explain. Why it magically stops going up and starts going down instead.

Perspective makes objects above us

Again, stick to talking to things BELOW us, things which appear to rise until the reach the horizon and appear to sink.
What magic causes that in your flat fantasy?

Again, the RE explains it trivially.
But the FE needs pure magic.

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

No, only 1 does.
That is because the ship is below you.
So you cannot appeal to what happens to things above you.

You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.

I'm not.
I'm picking the one that applies.
Things PHYSICALLY below you appear to go up.
Things PHYSICALLY above you appear to go down.

And that applies to the ground as well.

The one trying to pick the one you like and ignore the one you don't is YOU!
Where you want to pick the curvature to pretend the RE should magically make things go down instantly, while ignoring perspective which makes it appear to rise.

past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve

Again, the horizon is clearly seeing the curve.
If Earth was flat, the horizon wouldn't exist.

Objects going over this curve and have Earth obstruct the view to the bottom as it appears to get lower and lower is also clearly seeing the curve.

Just what more of this clearly visible curve do you expect to see?

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars.  Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 27, 2024, 01:16:49 AM

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars.

Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.

  Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall.

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.

Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.

Meaningless word salad that has nothing to do with why the light of the sun is physically blocked by the horizon, or why the light reflecting off a ship blocked by the horizon can’t be gathered by a pair of binoculars because it’s physically blocked.

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.

  The light from the sun or the ship physically gets blocked by the horizon.  That is why a pair of binoculars can’t bring them in view once they are over the horizon.  Because, a pair of binoculars can gather more light and magnify an object to aid the human eye, it can’t gather light physically blocked by the curvature of the earth.

Pretty simple, pretty much kills flat earth. 

Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.

i.e. pure magic with nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round?

If it was simply light not making it back to the eye, we would have a band of darkness.
Instead, objects are observed to appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

There is no reason at all for just the bottom to vanish, nor for the entire object to appear lower.

If your delusional BS was true, what we would observe would be more like this:

With a region of darkness where the light is blocked, where we don't see anything.

Why don't you try drawing a diagram?

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.

Then why do so many observations indicate it does?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 27, 2024, 02:29:10 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 27, 2024, 01:16:49 AM

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

Perspective doesn’t explain how the horizon physically blocks a boat from view where it can’t be brought back into view by a pair of binoculars.

Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  Perspective doesn’t explain why the sun a single point light source has its light blocked by the curvature of the earth to create the shadow of earth that is night fall.

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.

Yep, like I said.

Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!

Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?

Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.

Quote

So you are saying perspective magically stops and switches?
That for something BELOW you, it will first appear to rise, until it magically stops and switches and appears to go down?

No, the objects which are on the surface which are higher than the horizon will appear to be going downward, just like a plane above us appears to be going downward towards the surface when going into the distance do.

Perspective makes objects above us, appear to be going downward in the distance, and is also due to perspective.

It’s not magic, it is an illusion of how we see things in the distance, both rising up, and sinking down.

Both of these illusions happen when a ship first appears to rise up, and after the horizon, the top appears to be sinking down.

You can’t pick the one you like, and ignore the one you don’t like.

Planes don’t really sink downward in the distance, and nor do ships sink downward past the horizon over a non-existent, unseen curve, but it helps your fairy tale to believe it curves down but never seen at all. It’s there somewhere, we just never see it anywhere we look!!

What is this, Trubalonium? Flat earth storytelling day?

Absolute pure balonium!

The only time a plane looks like it is going down to the surface is when it is either doing aerial stunt work, or is is literally heading towards the ground to crash.

You're big into videos, so where are any of your videos, proving your point, trubalonium2?

Planes cruising at high altitude remain cruising at high altitude and never appear to sink towards the ground. Boats on the horizon however, to appear to sink into the Earth because they are going behind the Earth - behind the sea water.

[quote{The only time a plane looks like it is going down to the surface is when it is either doing aerial stunt work, or is is literally heading towards the ground to crash. [/quote]

No, planes that are flying near ground or over water fly past the horizon and soon are no longer seen past horizons, haven’t you ever seen that before?  Watch a seaplane fly out over water at low altitude, or water bomber planes over a fire, or old prop planes fly over a field or whatever near the ground.

They appear to be flying downward towards the surface in the distance, and often are blocked out of sight past horizons too.

I’ve lived near an airport most of my life, seen seaplanes fly out of sight past the horizon over seas, and so on.

Where the hell do you think they are seen while flying away only a few hundred feet above ground?

Get serious

planes

Again, forget the planes. And forget your secret FE buddy smoke.
Focus on the boats.
Boats which are BELOW you. Boats which are observed to go down. Something perspective can't make them do.

They appear to be flying downward towards the surface in the distance, and often are blocked out of sight past horizons too.

 How can they be blocked from view by a flat earth when you the viewer and the aircraft are both above the earth.

Please draw out how that works.

What makes the surface appear to rise up higher and higher in the distance, when it is the same height throughout?

You would believe a flat surface would not appear to ever rise at all, by your same argument it would show all things to us, seeing outward above the surface.

But you already know it doesn’t work like that. It does appear to keep rising up higher in the distance.

The physical surface is flat, it cannot account for what we actually see of it, which is very real to us, when seeing it rise up in the distance.

If the surface was curving downward, it would curve down more and more in the distance, and rise less and less in the distance. 

A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.

But over a second mile out, there is more of a curve downward, and less effect of perspective as well.

Perspective is how our eyes view things over distances. They do not see the real heights or sizes of things in the distance, the non-physical world is the reality to us.

Our instruments that you believe would show us objects hundreds of miles away if the surface was flat, cannot, because they are based ON our eyesight.

The surface won’t appear to stop rising up through binoculars or telescopes, either.

How would they see beyond a horizon on a flat surface then?

They magnify what we’d see with our eyes, not what isn’t there TO be seen by our eyes.

The constantly rising higher surface we see, is a feature only found on a flat surface. A slanted up flat surface would rise much more than our flat surface does, a curved surface would rise less and less, not more and more like ours does.

Curved surfaces may appear at first to be rising up, being more flat over a shorter distance, the ideal surface for perspective is flat.

When you said the surface appears to rise at first because the curve is so slight over a small area, that is saying it rises up because it is almost a flat surface.

The closer it is to a flat surface, is why it would appear to rise up like on a truly flat surface!!

Yes indeed

What makes the surface appear to rise up higher and higher in the distance, when it is the same height throughout?

Again, it isn't really that it appears to rise up. It is simply the line from your eye to the ground is at a greater angle of elevation.

This applies to both a round and flat surface.
The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.

You would believe a flat surface would not appear to ever rise at all, by your same argument it would show all things to us, seeing outward above the surface.

The surface would "appear to rise", as above. But it would continue to do so forever and never block the view. So yes, it would show all things.
That is one way we know Earth isn't flat.

The physical surface is flat, it cannot account for what we actually see of it

No, a flat surface does not account for what we see.
A round surface does.
That is how we know the physical surface is round.

A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.

Yes, as I have explained before.
A round surface will rise initially. But eventually it reaches a point where the drop due to curvature is more significant than perspective, and it stops rising.

That is the important distinction you keep on ignoring.
A round surface eventually stops appearing to rise. A flat surface does not.

Perspective is how our eyes view things over distances. They do not see the real heights or sizes of things in the distance

No, they work based upon angles.
Just like I provided before.
Remember, a=atan(h/d)?

The surface won’t appear to stop rising up through binoculars or telescopes, either.
How would they see beyond a horizon on a flat surface then?

A flat surface wouldn't produce a horizon.
A flat surface continues to rise forever.
Never stopping, never going back down.
So never producing a horizon.

The constantly rising higher surface we see, is a feature only found on a flat surface.

No, that is not what we see at all.
Stop lying.

What we see is a surface which appears to rise until it stops appearing to rise.
That is what you keep on ignoring, and keeping on lying about, and jumping around with.

The real Earth does NOT rise constantly.

a curved surface would rise less and less, not more and more like ours does.

No, a curved surface matches what is observed.

When you said the surface appears to rise at first because the curve is so slight over a small area, that is saying it rises up because it is almost a flat surface.

No, it is simply a statement about how perspective works based upon angles.


Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflection and address the massive issue:
A flat surface will constantly rise, with each extra bit of distance making it appear higher, without end, never stopping, never producing a horizon.
A curved surface will initially appear to rise until the drop becomes to great and it stops (and goes back down, but out of view).

The surface we observe in reality appears to initially rise before it stops (and goes back down, but out of view).

What we observe in reality matches a round surface, not a flat one.

No. The surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher with more distance away, until the horizon itself forms at the end.

The higher it is, the more it would curve downward, total nonsense, once again!

You can’t rise ever higher on an ever lower surface, perspective isn’t a bizarro flipper illusion, see if it works backwards on a ball, it’d be even more amazing to see!!

You believe Earth is a ball, so you’ve never seen if horizons are on flat surfaces, you cannot say you know, you don’t know squat if never seeing it.

More bs, as usual

No. The surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher with more distance away, until the horizon itself forms at the end.

Yes, exactly as we expect a round surface to do, and nothing like what we expect a flat surface to do.

A flat surface should continue to rise FOREVER!
It will never stop.
It will never form a horizon.

The higher it is, the more it would curve downward, total nonsense, once again!

No, it isn't. For the very reason you pointed out before.
It is NOT PHYSICALLY RISING!
It merely APPEARS higher.
And there is no contradiction with that.

You even admit:

A curved surface that is so very slightly curved over a small area, with only 8 inches curve in the first mile out, is somewhat close to a flat surface, and would appear to rise up in the distance, but less than a flat surface does.

That is you admitting that even while it is physically getting lower, it is appearing higher.

Again, at the simplest level, you have 2 effects.
Perspective making it appear higher, and curvature making it physically lower.
You need math to show which one wins when.

You can’t rise ever higher on an ever lower surface

Sure you can, at least if you mean have the surface appear to rise higher.

All it takes to see that is look down a ramp.
If your delusional BS was true, you could never look down a ramp, as the point at the top would be the highest, and anything beyond that was lower.

perspective isn’t a bizarro flipper illusion

Which is why we know your claim is BS.
We know how perspective works.
It makes a flat surface appear to rise continually. Never stopping. Never forming a horizon.
YOU are the one making it a bizarro flipper illusion where it just magically stops for no reason at all.

You believe Earth is a ball

I accept the mountains of evidence which show Earth is round. Including the fact the we have a horizon which is a short distance away over level terrain, and Earth blocks the view to more distant objects, starting from the bottom; which is impossible on a flat Earth.

so you’ve never seen if horizons are on flat surfaces, you cannot say you know, you don’t know squat if never seeing it.

Quite the opposite.
I have seen plenty of flat surfaces, and NONE produce a horizon until you get to the edge, where the flat surface stops, e.g. the edge of a table.
Likewise I have seen plenty of round surface, which all have a horizon, a point where the curve is tangent to a line from the curve to my eye; beyond which you cannot see the curved surface.

I also understand how perspective works. It is merely a statement that our eyesight works based upon angles.
When something "appears higher", what that actually means is that the angular position is higher.
I also know the basic math required to understand that the angle for a flat surface would be given by a=atan(h/d). This means it would rise forever, never stopping.
And I also know the basic math for a round surface would instead be given by (approximately) a=atan(h/d + d/2R); meaning it will initially rise, until it stops and goes back down.

Conversely, you are desperate for Earth to be flat.
To you, Earth MUST be flat AT ALL COSTS!
There is no way for you to ever accept that Earth is round.

So because the horizon exists in reality, you only options are wilful rejection of such a common everyday occurrence everyone would correctly label you as insane; or to desperately cling to the idea that a flat surface can magically make a horizon, even though you cannot provide a mechanism, nor rationally respond to anyone showing why your claim is pure BS.

Or to sum it up like you lie:
Because you believe Earth is flat, you falsely claim that a flat surface can magically produce a horizon, even though no other flat surface observed does this, nor can you explain how it should magically do this.

More bs, as usual

Thanks for summing up your post.

Care to stop with all the BS and instead try to make a rational argument addressing the fact that perspective and the existence of the horizon shows Earth isn't flat?

The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.

It does not go upward forever, it will rise more and more until it stops rising up at its highest point - the horizon is that highest point of the surface, and that’s where it ends.

Why would the surface keep on rising more and more with more distance, then start rising up less and less somewhere further out? There’s no indication it is rising less and less at all, only the very opposite is happening to it.

Even worse, you say it’s curving down more and more while going upward in the opposite direction on your ball Earth, that’s a remarkable feat indeed! 

Quote

The distinction is that for a flat surface this continues forever but a round surface doesn't.

It does not go upward forever

For Earth it does not, which is your problem.
For a flat surface it does.
That is what the math demands.

Continually ignoring that fact, while being entirely incapable of providing any reason for why perspective should magically stop shows just how desperate you are.

Why would the surface keep on rising more and more with more distance, then start rising up less and less somewhere further out?

That is the question FOR YOU!
Why would a flat surface appear to rise up, only to magically stop?
What magic is causing it to stop?

Again, a curved surface explains it fine.
Initially the incremental change due to perspective is quite substantial while the incremental change due to curvature is not. This makes it go up.
At a greater distance, the incremental change due to curvature is more substantial than perspective, so it goes down.

Again, this is what the math shows.

Even worse, you say it’s curving down more and more while going upward in the opposite direction on your ball Earth, that’s a remarkable feat indeed!

Again, that is not worse.
That actually addresses the issue and clearly explains why it stops.
It stops going up because curvature wins.

Your BS argument relies upon entirely ignoring perspective. Pretending it wont do anything on a RE. Otherwise, you have 2 competing effects.

So again, curvature explains it perfectly.
So how do you explain it for a flat Earth?
What magic causes perspective to stop?
What magic causes perspective to reverse?
Why don't we see this magic on any small flat surface?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2024, 06:33:15 AM

Demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye and magnification of light back to the eye, respectively.

i.e. pure magic with nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round?

If it was simply light not making it back to the eye, we would have a band of darkness.
Instead, objects are observed to appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

There is no reason at all for just the bottom to vanish, nor for the entire object to appear lower.

If your delusional BS was true, what we would observe would be more like this:

With a region of darkness where the light is blocked, where we don't see anything.

Why don't you try drawing a diagram?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2024, 06:33:15 AM

It doesn't get blocked by any curvature, it's as explained above.

Then why do so many observations indicate it does?

Blacking out a portion of a picture offers you nothing against what I'm saying.
Demagnification does not mean painting black over a picture as if you have some kind of argument.


How about using an actual telescope or a pair of binoculars and see what you have to alter the focus?
This is what the atmosphere is doing and is the reason why you can see farther or nearer depending on the atmospheric magnification or demagnification.

atmospheric magnification or demagnification.

A meaningless word salad in no why explains how a flat earth would block objects physically from view.

Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

Why are things increasingly blocked from physically from view bottom first as they go more and more over the horizon.

Yep, like I said.

Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.

It depends on who is reading the bull.
You're trying to argue against me based on nothing more than picking up a relevant article to argue your case for you.
Blind acceptance of things that are said to be factual does not mean you know the facts.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!

Use as many name-callings as you feel comfortable using. If it helps you to feel a bit stronger from your weak self then who am I to knock that from you?

Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?

I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.

Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.

Comics eh? It makes sense.

atmospheric magnification or demagnification.

Used these jets in another thread. 

But, why don’t they become physically blocked from view at distances greater than the horizon. 

But if I was on the coast, ships much closer would start to become physically blocked from view bottom up as they went beyond the horizon.

Where these jets much father away don’t exhibit any properties of disappearing bottom up?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 15, 2023, 09:25:29 PM

1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video.

Hmm.

Besides the things pointed out by jack that your wrong? 

I was watching a jet.  It was about 10 or 20 miles away?  Way outside your supposed parabola of perception.  I’m guessing it’s was flying around 360 miles per hour.  (6 x 60 mph to make the math easy) I watched with my naked eyes and recorded the jet just over two minutes.  I can post the video if you like.  So.  In 2 minutes the jet would have traveled around 12 miles. The edge to your parabola from the center in 1.5 miles?  12 miles being 8 times the distance to the edge of what you call our perception.  Plus the jet already being 10 or 20 miles away. 

The jet contrail from the engines was entirely visible the entire time.  The contrail disappeared from evaporation close to me, away from me, towards the jet.

Remember this is 3x zoom.









Close up of the last picture.




Another jet recorded for 1:28 minute.  About 10 miles away. Could see with the naked eye.  Using 3x zoom.





. There is no indication of a “perception wall” and “light breaking down” such as your delusional parabola.  There is a limit of resolution based on the object’s size with distance, how well it is illuminated, clarity of the atmosphere, and the ability to gather light.  Again.  Objects over the horizon can’t be brought back with zoom because they are physical blocked by the curvature of the earth.

Use as many name-callings

Den pressure has been proven to be a delusion and a lie, inadequate at accurately modelling and accurately predicting the simplest of physics

Anyone by extension posting it as an accurate working model is a liar. 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 27, 2024, 12:54:27 PM

Yep, like I said.

Flat Earth is the world around you with an absence of science and the inclusion of comic book style pseudoscience, or as I like to put it, bullshit.

It depends on who is reading the bull.
You're trying to argue against me based on nothing more than picking up a relevant article to argue your case for you.
Blind acceptance of things that are said to be factual does not mean you know the facts.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right, Septicmaniac? Lay that septic bullshit on thick, maniac, you're a flat earther through and through! The flat earth community applauds your efforts!

Use as many name-callings as you feel comfortable using. If it helps you to feel a bit stronger from your weak self then who am I to knock that from you?

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Care to do a diagram of this demagnification and loss of light to the naked eye followed up with magnification of light back to the eye to make ships on the horizon become obscured from the bottom up?

I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Present your diagram in a fitting comic book panel, ok? Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum.

Comics eh? It makes sense.

Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.

As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.

But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.

Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.

Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.

Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.

Blacking out a portion of a picture offers you nothing against what I'm saying.

This is not simply blacking out a portion of an image.
It is cutting the image in 2, separating it out and putting a black region in.

It is a demonstration of the kind of delusional BS you are spouting.
If what you are saying is true, that the air is just blocking the view, that is what you would expect to see, approximately.

If you want to try claiming something different, why don't you try drawing it and explaining it?
What magic is causing objects to appear to sink?

I would but it would be lost on people like you because you have absolutely no clue about my setup even after so many explanations.

You mean it would be lost on people that actually think, rather than just accepting whatever delusional BS is spouted to save your flat Earth fantasy?

You are yet to offer any meaningful explanation for anything. And what you say contradicts yourself.

You wont draw a diagram because you know it will show your claim is pure garbage.

And instead of dealing with that fact, you just insult us because we don't accept your BS.

… it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level.

No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.

I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.

They cut halfway up my window seen straight across from it, as many others have seen over and over again, there’s no doubt it’s seen directly across from us in planes at all altitudes.

No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.

Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.

I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.

You mean you have seen it across from you, with no measurement of the angle.

Remember, all measurements have uncertainty. What was the uncertainty of the angle for your "measurement"?

Or a better question for you: how does perspective magically stop?

Quote

… it won't work because the Earth is round and, at the 9'000 meters height (where some airplanes fly), the horizon is visibly below your eye level, 3.14 degrees below your eye level.

No, ‘eye level’ doesn’t exist, because our eyes are at different heights with different eye levels to them, it is a useless, false term, purely nonsense.

I’ve seen horizons many times from planes, and they are seen directly across from me, seen from my window.

They cut halfway up my window seen straight across from it, as many others have seen over and over again, there’s no doubt it’s seen directly across from us in planes at all altitudes.

Hurray
Getting closer.

So on a circle seen on the XY place
When a perpendicular stick off the surface rises, the circlesurface-tangent to top-operepndicular-stick-which-can-be-thought-of-as-eye-level allows the viewer to see a farther horizon line.

That viewed horizon line being the tabgent intersdction and the 360degree slice around the Zaxis.

Yes no?
Do.circlss and triangles not exist in your reality?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2024, 04:32:34 AM

atmospheric magnification or demagnification.

Used these jets in another thread. 

But, why don’t they become physically blocked from view at distances greater than the horizon. 

But if I was on the coast, ships much closer would start to become physically blocked from view bottom up as they went beyond the horizon.

Where these jets much father away don’t exhibit any properties of disappearing bottom up?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 16, 2023, 10:31:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 15, 2023, 09:25:29 PM

1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video.

Hmm.

Besides the things pointed out by jack that your wrong? 

I was watching a jet.  It was about 10 or 20 miles away?  Way outside your supposed parabola of perception.  I’m guessing it’s was flying around 360 miles per hour.  (6 x 60 mph to make the math easy) I watched with my naked eyes and recorded the jet just over two minutes.  I can post the video if you like.  So.  In 2 minutes the jet would have traveled around 12 miles. The edge to your parabola from the center in 1.5 miles?  12 miles being 8 times the distance to the edge of what you call our perception.  Plus the jet already being 10 or 20 miles away. 

The jet contrail from the engines was entirely visible the entire time.  The contrail disappeared from evaporation close to me, away from me, towards the jet.

Remember this is 3x zoom.









Close up of the last picture.




Another jet recorded for 1:28 minute.  About 10 miles away. Could see with the naked eye.  Using 3x zoom.





. There is no indication of a “perception wall” and “light breaking down” such as your delusional parabola.  There is a limit of resolution based on the object’s size with distance, how well it is illuminated, clarity of the atmosphere, and the ability to gather light.  Again.  Objects over the horizon can’t be brought back with zoom because they are physical blocked by the curvature of the earth.

First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.
They are high up in the sky and create no theoretical horizon line to the eye because they're always saturated with light against light, not a dark dense sea or land.
Also, the jets do get smaller to the eye which is simply demagnification from your eye which you can bring back with magnification using a scope but also be made to appear more magnified depending on the local (to you) climate.

Yes, sceptimatic, comic books. Comic books are the perfect medium for your flat earthery to be expressed in. Not Marvel comics or DC comics, though. Neither war comics or cowboy comics. Not Manga comics either. Something more along the line of Archie comics.

As for me calling you names, I'm calling you the pseudonym you came up for yourself. I'm calling you your name, stretched out in it's full meaning. Scepti is short for sceptical, isn't it? Matic is short for automatic or could be a twist on manic which is a derivative of maniac. I applaud you. You chose a name for yourself which fits you perfectly. You are automatically sceptical of everything because you trust nobody and nothing, which also makes you a sceptical maniac.

But, because you deal in nothing but shit, it is also fitting that at first glance at your name, scepti looks and sounds like septic, which is even more fitting to your personality. You are a shit dealer, a dealer in shit.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if in real life you are a plumber.

Just because you imagine denpressure is crushing everything down to the ground, doesn't mean it is. Just because you like to reverse engineer magnification in your head and sprinkle it with pixie dust to make it work in Neverland, doesn't make it work in the real world.

Your setup is in Fantasia or Neverland, or a comic book. Show us your diagram like I said, framed in a comic book panel. But of course you won't because your excuse is your explanation will be lost on someone of my ilk.

Your theories are perfect for an Archie comic and you could get Jugghead to present them.

You seem very frustrated.
One day it might help you to put some thought into something.
Surely going beserk and name-calling and digging like hell can't satisfy you after all this time.


Hanging onto the coattails of some of the globalists on here and trying to have as much global paraphernalia at hand ready to argue for your mates and their globe, doesn't offer you any facts.
It just offers you the chance to feel smug enough to have any answer at the drop of your hat. That's not using your intelligence, it's merely regurgitating reactionary stories at a click, on a whim.

Just an extension of the rest.

Tell that to all the FEers claiming that the horizon always rises to eye level.

It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is theoretical and only the pinpoint centre of your eye at any height will create a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
This happens because of the change in light back to the eye with the below portion of the viewing being less reflective back to the eye against the higher portion of sky viewing being much lighter back to the eye.
This is where the line is theoretically drawn and why we see it as our horizon.