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

  • 390 Replies
  • 38175 Views

First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.


They demonstrate there is no magic disappearing from “atmosphere”.

The reason a ship gets blocked bottom up as it travels over the horizon where the bottom can’t be brought back into view by binoculars or telescope is because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.


It really is that simple.  No matter what word salad lies you post changes that fact.

Sorry.


« Last Edit: February 05, 2024, 10:39:21 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »



You seem very frustrated.


One.  The individual doesn’t.

Two.  You’re the one with nothing but lies.




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.

why is it theoretical?
i can literally see a distinct sky and a distinct land/sea.


if i literally draw two concentric circles and then a stick coming off the inside circle, but not touching the out circle, i can draw a line from the top of the stick-tangent inside circle-hits point on outside circle

the outside circle is the sky
the inside circle is the earth
the stick is my eye level.
the tangent line intersection is the horizon


do triangles and circles not exist in sceppy's world?

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.

I name call everybody. No need to feel special or targetted. Unless sceptimatic is your name in the outside world as well?

I'm not frustrated and expect nothing less from what I get from you. Maybe one day you'll take my advice and put your crazy ideas into a comic book where they belong. I'm sure you can read, right? So, I'm sure you've read the arguments I have with Jackoff and DribbleOverFlow, aka the Dribbler? 

No coattails to swing from there, just like there is nothing theoretical about a photo showing the horizon out at sea or anywhere else. How can you say a photo of something is just theoretical when it can be photographed?

The horizon line is a physical line. It's a line of the shape of the Earth. If i want to do a seascape painting, I'll be painting the horizon line. The rest of your flat earth tribe use the horizon line which at first glance is straight, as evidence the Earth is flat. Here you are, going against your tribe, saying the horizon isn't evidence of anything, it's just an illusion created by an eyeball, which you forget is duplicated by any camera.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2024, 06:55:05 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is ... a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
If you are going to say it doesn't rise to eye level, don't then go and effectively claim that it rises to eye level.

The horizon is theoretical
No, it is very much physical.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest it is theoretical.
Observations of it show it is located a certain physical distance away from you (which varies depending on factors such as your altitude), and remains that regardless of what optics are used.
Observations of it show how the Earth below blocks the view to distant objects.

It is just as physical as the horizon on a basketball.

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.
Again, if that pure BS was true, you would have a region of darkness.

That BS of yours cannot explain why objects appear to sink and appear to be blocked by Earth.

Stop just asserting crap and try drawing a picture explaining how it works.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink and be blocked by Earth from the bottom up.



The horizon is theoretical

No.  It’s an actual physical thing that can be calculated and measured.




and only the pinpoint centre of your eye

Something you made up that is not seen in mirrors, convex mirrors, concave mirrors, and the various sizes of lenses and camera sensor sizes. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068

First of all the jets answer the question perfectly well.


They demonstrate there is no magic disappearing from “atmosphere”.
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same  and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.


Quote from: DataOverFlow2022
The reason a ship gets blocked bottom up as it travels over the horizon where the bottom can’t be brought back into view by binoculars or telescope is because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.
It really is that simple.  No matter what word salad lies you post changes that fact.

Sorry.
No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.

All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068

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.

why is it theoretical?
i can literally see a distinct sky and a distinct land/sea.

Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.


Quote from: Themightykabool
if i literally draw two concentric circles and then a stick coming off the inside circle, but not touching the out circle, i can draw a line from the top of the stick-tangent inside circle-hits point on outside circle

the outside circle is the sky
the inside circle is the earth
the stick is my eye level.
the tangent line intersection is the horizon


do triangles and circles not exist in sceppy's world?
That's you drawing a line. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Unless I'm missing your point and if so then clarify what you're saying.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
I name call everybody. No need to feel special or targetted. Unless sceptimatic is your name in the outside world as well?
It matters not about the name and whether it's an alias or real. The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are. That's all I'm saying and you're well within your rights (as far as I'm concerned) to use whatever wording you wish against me as it does actually make me smile and I'm simply pointing out your weaknesses.
I think you're fairly interesting in some ways but you do suffer from the above.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
I'm not frustrated and expect nothing less from what I get from you. Maybe one day you'll take my advice and put your crazy ideas into a comic book where they belong. I'm sure you can read, right? So, I'm sure you've read the arguments I have with Jackoff and DribbleOverFlow, aka the Dribbler?
I read most things and your little games with various posters are quite funny in a way where you try to divide opinion and play your games.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
No coattails to swing from there, just like there is nothing theoretical about a photo showing the horizon out at sea or anywhere else. How can you say a photo of something is just theoretical when it can be photographed?
I never said a photo was theoretical. It's a picture but what it depicts is only what the eye perceives which is simply a theoretical horizon line if taken over an area of contrast.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The horizon line is a physical line.
Nope, it's not.
Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water?  ;)


Quote from: Smoke Machine
It's a line of the shape of the Earth.
How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
If i want to do a seascape painting, I'll be painting the horizon line.
You'll be painting a contrast of colouring that's all. You will not be drawing any line.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The rest of your flat earth tribe use the horizon line which at first glance is straight, as evidence the Earth is flat.
I don't have any tribe so what others say is their thoughts.
I use a theoretical horizon line so this is what you're dealing with, with me.
Using others as an argument offers nothing against what I'm saying.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Here you are, going against your tribe, saying the horizon isn't evidence of anything, it's just an illusion created by an eyeball, which you forget is duplicated by any camera.
The only thing duplicated is what you see which is placed onto a background of paper/material. It's light contrasts.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
It doesn't rise to any eye level.
The horizon is ... a level horizontal to that pinpoint of your eye.
If you are going to say it doesn't rise to eye level, don't then go and effectively claim that it rises to eye level.
I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times, not rising nor falling, and is dependent entirely on the actual person rising or falling whilst keeping eye level.
Two entirely different scenarios.


Quote from: JackBlack
The horizon is theoretical
No, it is very much physical.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest it is theoretical.
There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.


Quote from: JackBlack
Observations of it show it is located a certain physical distance away from you (which varies depending on factors such as your altitude), and remains that regardless of what optics are used.
The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time. Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why? VBecause your eye level dictates the distance of contrasting light back to your eyes.

Quote from: JackBlack
Observations of it show how the Earth below blocks the view to distant objects.
No it doesn't.


Quote from: JackBlack
It is just as physical as the horizon on a basketball.
You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it and simply looking from a distance from it to create your so-called line.
If you want to argue your horizon line then do it from the point of you being on that basketball looking with a level sight.

Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
Place a camera on that basketball and level it and understand that to level it over a continuous downward curve will never offer you a view of any so-called line of that ball.

Go on and try it.

Quote from: JackBlack
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.
Again, if that pure BS was true, you would have a region of darkness.
You do have a region of contrast at all times and some of it will always be darker to your eye due to light filtering below than above due to the terrain or water not being able to return the light to the entirety of the eye.


Quote from: JackBlack
That BS of yours cannot explain why objects appear to sink and appear to be blocked by Earth.
Stop just asserting crap and try drawing a picture explaining how it works.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink and be blocked by Earth from the bottom up.
I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068


The horizon is theoretical

No.  It’s an actual physical thing that can be calculated and measured.

Explain how you can measure it?
Tell me how you hit this supposed line of yours.


Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

and only the pinpoint centre of your eye

Something you made up that is not seen in mirrors, convex mirrors, concave mirrors, and the various sizes of lenses and camera sensor sizes.
Not sure what you're getting at with this.


A jet in the sky will simply demagnify

See.  You start off with a lie.  It gains a distance where the relative angular size becomes to small in resolution for the human eye to discern.  With good weather, the jet many many miles away can still be brought into resolution with a good telescope or pair of binoculars.  What 20 or 30 miles away?  The whole jet can be brought back into view.  The airplane doesn’t disappear bottom up in anyway.


A ship starts to disappear bottom up because of the physical horizon around 4 or 5 miles. The distance to the horizon can be calculated.  The amount it disappears bottom up increases as it goes farther over the horizon.  A pair of binoculars or a telescope can’t bring back the blocked portion because it is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.


Like this. 


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








So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”

  sceptimatic, you are derailing this thread with totally debunked and meaningless word salad.  It’s pretty sad.  You have what?  Dedicated your posts for 10 years to lies that are easily proven to be lies?.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068

 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.




 It seems your 29.7 miles is very very close to the 8 inches per mile squared for what the globe would be said to offer.
So are you going with this?

Are you now accepting your globe to be 8 inches per mile squared?
Seeing as you're offering this then I'd assume you are.
Yes or no and explain if no.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  sceptimatic, you are derailing this thread with totally debunked and meaningless word salad.  It’s pretty sad.  You have what?  Dedicated your posts for 10 years to lies that are easily proven to be lies?.
You tend to use this excuse when you're struggling.
The thread was derailed way before I entered.
In fact all threads with lengthy posts get derailed because that's the nature of arguments within them.

Does the formula for parabola make a circle?


Or are you purposefully ignoring the 8in rule is only practiaclly rsasonable to a certain distance?

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same  and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.
No, it will not offer any physical horizon line, until its angle of elevation puts it close to Earth.
Your BS doesn't work.

No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
This can be observed quite easily.
Go to a large port city where the ships go out to the ocean.
Watch them leave and watch them as they go over the horizon.

The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.
Repeating the same lie will not help you.
Everything demonstrates that the horizon is physical.
That it it due to the curve of Earth, and as a ship goes over that curve, it disappears from view, from the bottom up, with Earth blocking the view.

You have nothing to suggest otherwise, nor do you have a mechanism explain how such delusional BS would work.

All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.
Again, you have no reason at all for it to sink.
If we merely lose light, it goes black.
If we lose contrast, it fades to a blur.
There is no way for it to magically appear lower.

What magic is causing the boat to appear lower?
What magic is causing the boat to appear to sink into Earth?

Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.
It is as much a line as any other edge of any other object.

Why should we believe your claim that it is theoretical?

The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are.
So you admit you are weak based upon your repeated attempts to call people brainwashed and deluded and stupid?

Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water?
Congratulations on demonstrating Earth is round.
Take a basketball and look at it. You see the edge. Feel free to mark it with something. Then rotate it around (equivalent to you moving around).
Does your inability to see a clearly drawn line there mean the edge magically isn't physical? No.

How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?
By the real globe offering a downwards curve, which when combined with perspective, causing the ground to go to a higher angle of elevation until it reaches a peak and goes to a lower angle of elevation, creating that edge (as well as countless others).

I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times
i.e. the ground rises to eye level.
You are just trying to play semantics here.
And you claim this, even after clearly being shown to be wrong.

There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.
I did. Read my above refutation.

The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time.
No, there is no theoretical line.
The REAL PHYSICAL horizon is located at a certain distance away from you.
If you remain in place, there is NOTHING you can do to change it.

Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why?
Because Earth is round.

Take a flat surface, then the edge is the edge of the surface, so as you walk to the edge, that edge remains there.
Now take a hill (that goes above you), as you walk over this hill the area you can see changes, simply due to the curve of the hill blocking your view.

No it doesn't.
Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
The fact that you can take a photo of the object, and then scale it to match the object in another photo where the bottom is missing, and clearly demonstrate that Earth is in the way of the bottom, shows that Earth is blocking the view.

You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it
Your vision doesn't give a damn if you are standing on it or not.
The horizon of Earth is just as "theoretical" as the edge of the basketball.

Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
You mean here is a dishonest pile of BS you will use to try to reject reality.

The problem with your "challenge" is scale.

Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km.
That means an observer with a height of 2 m is roughly 0.0000003 radii above.
Forget a basketball for now. If you take a ball with a radius of 1 m, that would mean the location you need to place the camera to get the same view is 0.0000003 m above it. That is 300 nm above it.
We do not have a camera that small.

If you want to go to an observation from the peak of Mt Everest, that is roughly 8 km high. That is 0.001 times the radius. So again going to a ball with a radius of 1 m, that works out to be 1 mm.

Earth is not a tiny ball, stop pretending it is.

I have already explained what FOV you would need to avoid seeing the horizon on a round Earth.

Here is a more honest challenge for you.
Go find a nice curving hallway, with a radius as large as possible.
Then go place a camera on the wall, as close as possible to the wall, looking parallel to a tangent to that curve.
Then see if you can see the wall in the camera.

Or even better and simpler:
Explain what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface, including explaining why objects beyond the horizon appear to sink.

I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.
No, you haven't.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2024, 12:21:41 PM by JackBlack »


You tend to use this excuse when you're struggling.




I’m not struggling at all.  You have no credible argument why Turning Torso becomes increasingly physically blocked from view bottom up with distance.  Curvature of the earth explains this, and why the potion physically blocked from view can’t be brought back into view with binoculars or a telescope. 

Quote

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






*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Explain how you can measure it?
Tell me how you hit this supposed line of yours.
There are a few different ways.

As a simple one, go place markers in a line, with a certain distance between them.
Then looking just to the side, see where the markers are on the horizon. That gives you the distance.
Use a theodolite, precisely level it, and then observe the angle of dip to the horizon.

It seems your 29.7 miles is very very close to the 8 inches per mile squared for what the globe would be said to offer.
So are you going with this?

Are you now accepting your globe to be 8 inches per mile squared?
Seeing as you're offering this then I'd assume you are.
Yes or no and explain if no.
The DROP due to the curve of Earth, over a short enough distance, can be approximated as h=d^2/2R.
This works out to be roughly 8 inches per mile squared.

This is NOT the amount that is hidden, as that is affected by refraction, and more importantly, requires you to separate it into 2 parts, the part from the observer to the horizon, where none is hidden, and then the distance from the horizon to the object, which causes it to be hidden.
Refraction under "standard conditions" can be approximated by letting R=R*7/6.

As an example, with an observer 2 m high, the drop over 5 km is roughly 2 m.
That means the horizon will be roughly 5 km away.
It also means that they will be able to see an object that is 2 m above the ground roughly 10 km away.


The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.

That is what shows us it is absolutely a flat surface. So does the outward view, but less distinct due to perspective.

With your curved surface you claim appears to rise more and more upward, over a more and more downward surface, that would appear on the cross-sectional viewpoint of this surface, over the same 3 mile distance, but it is perfectly straight across it, when adjusting it as a straight line of same distance out from the first line of sight outward over the surface.

After we have two separate viewpoints over the same area of surface, one going outward, the other following the first path of view, these are perpendicular viewpoints on one path, outward and across it.

When that is seen, from two viewpoints, it is exactly how engineering drawings are done, showing the cross-sectional views, among others sometimes.

You obviously want to ignore this cross-sectional viewpoint of the surface, it proves you wrong.

When we see the surface from this viewpoint, we would see it is entirely flat over the surface.

And we would also see that there is nothing of a curve over the surface. When you claim that ‘curvature’ finally shows up as a curved surface, but is entirely out of all sight, because it is blocked out behind a surface that doesn’t ever rise upward as it appears to, what would ever be blocking out things on a flat or curved downward surface, does not exist higher to block out anything past it, so how can it physically block out things when it is NOT physically that height upward on the surface.

Why do you think the surface is physically blocking out things when it’s not physically that high up as it looks?

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.

That is what shows us it is absolutely a flat surface. So does the outward view, but less distinct due to perspective.
Once more, if it was straight it would be seen in one direction.
You would not see it circle us.
The fact you can trace all the way around you, demonstrates beyond any doubt that it is a circle.
The fact that it is roughly the same distance away from you in every direction (assuming you are on a level surface) demonstrates it is a circle.

Again, going to an observer height of 2 m, the horizon is ~5 km away. The distinction between FE and RE is the FE has it ~2 m below the observer while RE has it ~4 m below.
The other important distinction is the RE can explain it, while the FE cannot.

With your curved surface you claim appears to rise more and more upward, over a more and more downward surface, that would appear on the cross-sectional viewpoint of this surface
Yes, a CROSS SECTION view.
The horizon is NOT such a view.
The horizon is a cross section in that runs parallel to a plane passing level at your position.
So to see that as a cross section, you need to look down. That requires you to be quite high above the ball to get it all in your FOV.

Again, for both of those issues:
imagine you are standing in the middle of a bowl, with the rim of the bowl at eye level.
Do you see the curve there? No. What you see is the "horizon" appearing to be a "straight line" cutting across your view.

This shows your claim is BS.

You obviously want to ignore this cross-sectional viewpoint of the surface, it proves you wrong.
Not in the slightest. But I do notice you are doing whatever you can to avoid the issue that is raised, so you shouldn't be suggesting people want to ignore things.

And we would also see that there is nothing of a curve over the surface. When you claim that ‘curvature’ finally shows up as a curved surface, but is entirely out of all sight, because it is blocked out behind a surface that doesn’t ever rise upward as it appears to, what would ever be blocking out things on a flat or curved downward surface, does not exist higher to block out anything past it, so how can it physically block out things when it is NOT physically that height upward on the surface.

Why do you think the surface is physically blocking out things when it’s not physically that high up as it looks?
As shown before:

Not difficult to understand.

Now care to explain what magic causes a FE to block the view?
What magic causes a FE to stop rising?

We always see horizons going straight across us, at each end of them we see.

There is no curve or arc anywhere at all, it is all straight lines and flat surfaces we see.

What we see from all points outward, is about three miles away, so if we follow along the center of a horizon, then it IS seen as a straight line throughout it.

When we stay in one position, and view it while WE circle around that one point, that is a circle of 3 miles out from us.

But when we move along a straight line, along a horizon, it is seen as a straight line, 3 miles out over it.

Nice try.

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
We always see horizons going straight across us, at each end of them we see.
All this means is that it is at the same angle of dip.

Again, if you are standing in a bowl, with the rim of the bowl level with you, that would also appear like that.

You are not showing there is no curve.

Again, the fact that demonstrates it is a curve is that there is a horizon in the first place.
Something you cannot explain on a flat Earth.

You cannot explain why perspective should magically stop after some finite distance.
You cannot explain why a flat surface should magically block the view to a more distant object.

There is no curve or arc anywhere at all
Yes there is, which is easily demonstrated by following it around you.
You cannot follow a straight line around you.
If you don't believe, go draw a straight line on the ground. Then stand some distance away from it.
Then try following it.

If it was straight, the maximum you can follow it for is 180 degrees.

But if it is a circle, you can follow it all around.

The horizon is not straight.
It is a circle.
It is not a straight line.

All we see is a straight across line, in a circle around us, or in a straight path, with a straight line across the horizon.

They are always straight and flat across the surface, from any viewpoint or paths taken by us over the surface.

If there was a curved surface, that curves ships out of view after three miles away, which is simply an illusion of perpesctive, but it was curving down out of view at three miles, how would we know which one is right?

Viewing the ships path atop the horizon, from 3 miles out, perpendicular to its path.

So the ship is seen at one end, sailing atop the horizon. Then you follow along the horizon at the same distance away, 3 miles out. Then when it seen outward at their horizon, and goes past it out of their view, you are still seeing it 3 miles away, and beyond that, past their horizon, where they can’t see it anymore.

This proves it is entirely a flat surface, and proves there is no curve that ‘wins out’ over perspective at the horizon, and proves it is not blocked by a curved ball surface they made up ages ago.

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
All we see is a straight across line, in a circle around us, or in a straight path, with a straight line across the horizon.
It is a circle, not a straight line.

The sole reason you have to repeatedly claim it is a straight line, is to pretend it shows no curve.
But it IS a curve, a circle.

how would we know which one is right?
Again, we know this because of the horizon.
If Earth was flat, the horizon would not exist.
Instead, the ground would continue to rise forever and not block more distant objects from view.
But if Earth was round, then you would eventually reach a distance where the curvature has a greater effect than perspective, so the ground stops appearing to rise, and it blocks more distant ground and starts blocking objects.

i.e. we know Earth is because of these observations.

You have nothing to suggest Earth is flat, nor any way to explain these observations for a FE.

Viewing the ships path atop the horizon, from 3 miles out, perpendicular to its path.
So the ship is seen at one end, sailing atop the horizon
I'm pretty sure you brought up this BS before, and had refuted before.
The horizon is NOT a perpendicular path.



A boat sailing away into the distance along the grey line for a viewer with a horizon of the purple circle.
Someone standing away, looking towards it from a perpendicular direction has the blue circle as the horizon.
Notice that the horizon is not the grey line?

So you are lying yet again.

And I was right:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=89659.msg2367944#msg2367944
You already had that BS refuted.

Now stop with all the pathetic deflection.
Explain what magic causes perspective to magically stop to produce a horizon on a flat surface.
Explain what magic causes a flat surface to magically block the view to an object above it.
Explain what magic causes objects to appear to sink.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2024, 01:32:16 AM by JackBlack »

The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.




Then why is there a measurable dip of the horizon. 

This is amazing


Railroad tracks converge at a distance.

The left-right come to apoint in the distance.
But do they really?

So why then do oyu think the ground rises up?
Why do you think it not possible that the updown dont also converge due tobpersepctive?

Quote
It is a circle, not a straight line.

It is always SEEN as a straight line, not a circle you doofus!

If you look at a hula hoop or a crepe along its edge, what you see is a straight line. They are flat surfaces in a circular shape, not spheres like your made up ball Earth is.

We see across the surface the same way. Along a plane, like a pancake viewed from its edge. We have no idea of it’s outer shape, it could be a square or res tangle or circle, it doesn’t matter, along their edge they are flat and straight, not squares of circles.

You aren’t a moron, so why play one here?

‘Duh , it looks flat and straight over the surface, but it’s really a circle, even though a circle is flat on one viewpoint’

Where do you SEE the horizon as a circle? You don’t. How is a circle seen along a side view seen? It is seen flat and level and lstraight across. 

I can’t believe I have to explain to you that when we look at any horizon, we see it as a straight line across the surface.

The entire perimeter of the surface could be a massive square, circle, or wedge, or any OTHER shape, but it is always a FLAT square, circle or wedge. That is what the surface of Earth is, and is seen as - flat and with straight across horizons.


The actual surface of Earth is seen going across our view, along perfectly straight and horizontal lines of horizons.




Then why is there a measurable dip of the horizon.

There IS no ‘measurable dip’ in a horizon. Where do you see a dip past the horizon on the surface? You don’t. How could you see the surface past a horizon dipping down? It would not be seen, right?

An imaginary curve you believe that is never seen and proven not to exist, never seen to sexist, never measured to exist, is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.  But that’s the ball Earth story in a nutshell, built on things that don’t exist, aren’t seen, aren’t measured.and making bs claims to the world that they have seen 5 distinct belts on it which slowly are seen rotating around very skowky.

If you want to see what Saturn actually looks like in person, without degradation sfter putting it online, you can rent out this telescope yourself, and look at Saturn directly as they would have seen it.This is even BETTER than looking at raw footage, it is a live view of it, same as they would have had back then, except through a vastly superior telescope than they had. I cannot take a video of Saturn with this telescope and post it online as if it were what U saw, or is raw footage.

Why do you not use your own intelligence, and an unbiased viewpoint of the evidence presented in front of you, on snd looki through this 60 “ telescope yourself?

If you want to directly see Saturn as it really IS seen through a far superior telescope than they had, to prove what Saturn looks like much better, much closer up, much sharper and defined than THEY would have seen it 400 years ago through a scrapped piece of junk,, then you should see through this telescope yourself.



*

JackBlack

  • 22468
It is always SEEN as a straight line, not a circle you doofus!
I wouldn't suggest calling people a doofus, when you are boldly proclaiming a circle is seen as a straight line.

If you look at a straight line, and follow it along, you see that it extends no more than 180 degrees around you.
But you can look at the horizon, and see it go a full 360 degrees.

The horizon is NOT seen as a straight line.

What you really mean, is that you see a line with the same angle of dip.
That is NOT a straight line.

Yet like in other cases, you lie, intentionally using the wrong words to pretend other claims are true.

You specifically choose to use the word straight so you can pretend it means Earth is flat.

If you look at a hula hoop or a crepe along its edge, what you see is a straight line. They are flat surfaces in a circular shape
Just like the horizon for a round Earth.

You aren’t a moron, so why play one here?
I would say ask yourself that, but you are yet to show you aren't.

I'm not the one playing the moron.
I'm not the one claiming the horizon, which is a circle, is a straight line.
I'm not the one stupidly proclaiming that because the horizon is a "straight line" it means Earth must be flat, while continuing to ignore a trivial example of a hypothetical human sized bowl you are standing in, which has the horizon at the same angle of dip all around.

I'm not the one suggesting the horizon is a cross section, and then acting like it is the cross section of a plane.

I'm not the one boldly proclaiming that perspective would result in more distant objects appearing higher, only to directly contradict that and claim it magically stops.
I'm not the one boldly proclaiming the vanishing point of perspective (the point where parallel lines meet, a point infinitely far away) is just a short distance away.

But your actions show more dishonesty than stupidity.

Especially with how you flee from the points you cannot refute.

That is what the surface of Earth is, and is seen as - flat and with straight across horizons.
Again, if Earth was flat, the only horizon you would see is the edge.
The fact that the horizon exists shows Earth is not flat.



There IS no ‘measurable dip’ in a horizon. Where do you see a dip past the horizon on the surface?
There is a measurable dip. But because you can't refute this, you dishonestly pretend people are saying something else.

It is the angle of dip of the horizon.
i.e. you get a nice highly accurate device like a theodolite. You accurately level it, and then you look through the glass and see what the angle of the horizon is.
And you see it is not 0 degrees. It is below level.

But as for your current dishonest BS, that has already been explained.
You compare it to something which you can see.
e.g. a tall building where you can see the lower portion missing.
Either this lower portion has gone into Earth, or Earth's surface at that distance needs to be lower.

Even a child can understand this.
e.g. if you watch someone go over a hill, and see them go down on the other side, you recognise the ground goes down there.

An imaginary curve you believe that is never seen and proven not to exist, never seen to sexist, never measured to exist
You mean repeatedly seen, proven and measured to exist countless times.
Including proven to exist by the existence of the horizon which you keep fleeing from because you cannot explain it in your flat fantasy.
You are literally in a thread where you have repeatedly failed to disprove a proof of the curve, and repeatedly fled from it, yet here you are yet again lying that it has never been proven.

Look at how you yet again flee from this proof by trying to bring up pure BS about entirely unrelated subjects?

If you want to claim Earth is magically flat, and the curve is never seen or proven to exist, then you need to explain the horizon.

You need to explain what magic magically causes perspective to magically stop such that more distant land doesn't appear higher, but instead you magically get a horizon.
You need to explain what magic magically causes objects beyond the horizon magically appear to magically sink into Earth so it magically appears that Earth is magically blocking the view, even though there is no possible way for it to do so.

The RE can explain it, you can't.
Until you can explain it, the horizon remains proof of curvature.

Why do you not use your own intelligence
I have. I see you ignoring basic geometry, fleeing from questions which expose your BS, spouting a bunch of lies again and again, and bringing up irrelevant crap.
That shows beyond any doubt that you have no idea how to honestly and rationally defend a FE, or you have no interest in doing so.

Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons, you don’t believe that the surface is flat, so how could you know what they look like or don’t look like, if never seeing one? You just ‘know’ they’d not have horizons, right?

Why would the surface rise up more and more, if the surface curved down more and more at the same time?  Does that make sense to you?

You think that perspective creates opposite illusions of some sort?

You think the surface seems to rise up more and more on a curving down more and more surface?  What would you think would happen on a flat surface then?

It would rise up even more and more than this?  It’s blocking out everything we see, so how can we see for thousands of miles out on the surface, when it’s blocking out half the sky at only three miles away? It slows the rising up later on, you just know that it would slow way down, right?