Is there any disadvantage if science was served as it is?

Light and heat particles diminish and break down over distance?

As pointed out, they spread out.

But your left with the questions of why the North Star stays the same size and magnitude of brightness as one travels south towards the equator.

Way the sun appears the same size throughout the day.  And travels the sky in an arc.  If the earth was flat.  The sun would not appear to travel very fast after sunrise.  Would appear to gather speed and increase size. Seemly coming at the viewer straight on. Then appear larger, zoom overhead.  The would seem to slow down and shirk in size with distance. 

I could fight you about this distance thing, but I don't really care.

With more dishonest nonsense? Of course.
But with anything resembling honesty? Not a chance.
You need to repeatedly lie, making up pure BS to pretend there is a problem.

Look at how much you flee from it.

Globalists themselves are not someone I hate, but rather someone I in vain try to reach.

And you try to "reach" them by repeatedly lying to them, ignoring what they say, lying about them, and so on?

as would be the case at that distance from any sane assessment of how heat scatters and dissipates

No, from your massively dishonest mischaracterisation.

A sane assessment reveals the sun is that far away.
And as shown above, a sane assessment of how temperature works shows that that temperature is entirely reasonable.

Is there any disadvantage if science is served as is?

Well it has clearly failed you.
So yes, a vastly better education system is needed, to stop producing people like you.
But that isn't a problem with science itself.
Instead, it is a problem with the education system.

This is further compounded by the media and their repeated mischaracterisation of science, especially with clickbait BS.

So while you shill for God knows what else, keep in mind that the agenda of such people is very well within the idea to keep population low, get us to eat vegan/actual bugs, and create an enslaved second-class that doesn't eat real food.

No. That is not the scientists. That is rich people that want power and control. People like the politicians you seem to love so much.
That is entirely separate to science.

When you can't admit maybe something could be a mistake before doing it, yeah that's what's sad to me.

Yet you happily spout all sorts of BS as if you can't make any mistakes.
Conversely, science accepts that mistakes happen.

But your left with the questions of why the North Star stays the same size and magnitude of brightness as one travels south towards the equator.

Because these objects aren't in space.

Suppose you're a fish. You're constantly inside your bowl, cuz you need to breathe water. I've got real plankton in your bowl, and a self-filtration system that pumps from the side rather than from the top.
Now, the most brilliant scientists have discovered fish get bored of seeing the same surroundings all the time, just like they get different surroundings in the ocean. So when water pushes behind the fish, a set of wheels move the bowl, allow the fish to gradually pass by trees, lakes, mountains, etc. The top and sides of the bowl have an interactive screen that shows sky and clouds during daylight hours, and night  sky and stars during night hours. There is a sun and moon that move on track on this screen. The latest tech in updating  scheduled events, all for the entertainment of a fish.

The only way an object can stay the same size and magnitude is if we are dealing with something outside our spatial system. A moveable screen, if you will.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irworobongdo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Am I the only fish that realizes there's a bowl around me?  Or are you trying hard not to see it?

Quote

But your left with the questions of why the North Star stays the same size and magnitude of brightness as one travels south towards the equator.

Because these objects aren't in space.

Then why does all the evidence show they are?
They are incredibly far away.

Suppose you're a fish. You're constantly inside your bowl, cuz you need to breathe water. I've got real plankton in your bowl, and a self-filtration system that pumps from the side rather than from the top.
Now, the most brilliant scientists have discovered fish get bored of seeing the same surroundings all the time, just like they get different surroundings in the ocean. So when water pushes behind the fish, a set of wheels move the bowl, allow the fish to gradually pass by trees, lakes, mountains, etc. The top and sides of the bowl have an interactive screen that shows sky and clouds during daylight hours, and night  sky and stars during night hours. There is a sun and moon that move on track on this screen. The latest tech in updating  scheduled events, all for the entertainment of a fish.

And as you move around the bowl, these objects change apparent size.
But this doesn't happen with the stars.

The only way an object can stay the same size and magnitude is if we are dealing with something outside our spatial system. A moveable screen, if you will.

No, the only way it can stay the same size and magnitude for all observers is if it is so far away that the difference in distance between the object and observer is negligible.
e.g. if a few people, all within 10 m are looking at a light 100 km away, it will look basically the same for all of them.

But if the object was only 1 m away from one of them, the distance would vary dramatically and it would appear different for them.

Am I the only fish that realizes there's a bowl around me?  Or are you trying hard not to see it?

No, you are the fool claiming the shadows are real and entirely ignoring the real world outside.
That is even what you have basically said with your fish bowl analogy.
That instead of these objects being real, they are just a projection/screen on the bowl.
And even then you still fail to make a system which would work to explain reality.

M
Am I the only fish that realizes there's a bowl around me? 

Then your bowl and projections should do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 23, 2023, 08:55:31 AM

The reflection of it simply moves over and around the dome

The closer it gets to the upper dome the less magnified it is due to the acute angle of the layered atmosphere.
As the reflection moves away from you it gets more magnified, meaning it generally holds a size due to that. The same as the other reflection of it. The moon. This is why they're nearly identical in size.
It's not due to millions of miles of space and mammoth sun and small moon garbage.

How far is the dome from the viewer.

If you lived close to the North Pole, the objects in your delusion should be near equal distance from the viewer throughout the night. So they would appear to change size. So the BS effects you invoke would change the size of objects to greater degrees as you get closer to the North Pole.  And somehow your BS would have to know what size to make everything to what degree for a variety of temperatures for everyone viewing the sun at any given time from all locations. 

But you can’t show any proof of a projection, and where it projects from in your delusion.

Then the projection should light up dust in the atmosphere.  Moisture, fog, ice crystals, etc..





https://i.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/92076596/blue-search-lights-light-up-the-sky-above-lower-hutt



And cause multiple reflections..





FE with no explanations why the sun becomes physically blocked from view, and its radiation becomes blocked to create night.

With the moon giving every indication it’s a physical object.  From its shadowing, how it blocks the radiation of the sun during a solar eclipse, to radar surveys of the moon.

No bulmabriefs144.  Your just stupid and have a big enough ego to trick yourself into believing things that have absolutely on proof.

Saturn is an actual 3D object of mass in outer space orbiting the sun. 

Not a projection on some imaginary dome. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2023, 05:55:47 AM

M
Am I the only fish that realizes there's a bowl around me? 

Then your bowl and projections should do this.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 23, 2023, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 23, 2023, 08:55:31 AM

The reflection of it simply moves over and around the dome

The closer it gets to the upper dome the less magnified it is due to the acute angle of the layered atmosphere.
As the reflection moves away from you it gets more magnified, meaning it generally holds a size due to that. The same as the other reflection of it. The moon. This is why they're nearly identical in size.
It's not due to millions of miles of space and mammoth sun and small moon garbage.

This is an assumption based on the idea that real object A (we'll call it "sun") and real object B (we'll call it "moon") are moving real distances across a domed surface. Sceptimatic and I may disagree on this, as is our right.

How far is the dome from the viewer.

Dunno, don't care. But for purposes of argument, let us say this dome is roughly 3 miles wide at sea level, expanding in width at high altitudes while remaining fixed in terms of height at the troposphere level, roughly 3 miles or so up.  This isn't perfectly accurate, but as I say, I don't care.

That is, it is not a solid glass dome like you depict below, but a porous hemisphere of perspective. You cannot see this dome, precisely because it is vision.

Imagining a glass dome like you just did is absurd for two reasons:

• As I sit here on this computer, I can see outside the glass windows. Yet the sense of vision here is opaque.
• As I said, in addition to being opaque it must be so porous as to not be seen even when flying the fastest jet through the sky.

So this can best be compared to an invisible planetarium that moves along parallel to our own motion. Not a glass plant cover.

If you lived close to the North Pole, the objects in your delusion should be near equal distance from the viewer throughout the night. So they would appear to change size. So the BS effects you invoke would change the size of objects to greater degrees as you get closer to the North Pole.  And somehow your BS would have to know what size to make everything to what degree for a variety of temperatures for everyone viewing the sun at any given time from all locations. 

But you can’t show any proof of a projection, and where it projects from in your delusion.

Then the projection should light up dust in the atmosphere.  Moisture, fog, ice crystals, etc..

Again, you are comparing my theory to sceptimatic's. You remember I compared his model to real objects? Well, in this planetarium, the sun and moon are projected on a screen. Rather than having a conventional source projection, we have a Truman Show style dome sourced from outside. The fish, as it were can indeed get a limited perspective due to dust or clouds. For example:

FE with no explanations why the sun becomes physically blocked from view, and its radiation becomes blocked to create night.

Yeah, actually, as I've told you several times, it's rather simple.  Light radiation disperses over distance.



Visible light is between a wavelength of 10¹⁴ and 10¹⁶ frequency. This means that there is a pretty limited range of what we humans can actually see, even without conditions of the eye like nearsightedness, wet MD, or neuropathy. But more importantly, take a look to the right of red spectrum. Far red and infrared can be seen after the sun sets. What does this tell us? It tells us that the sun has turned around any curves.  If I built a dome 3 miles high, and three miles wide, any objects projected on it should at all times be 3 miles away, correct? So never at any point are they more distant or close.  However, the real object, not the one inside the dome, at all times remains at a fixed height and distance.



At sunset, the sun has less UV light, so you can actually see it with your naked eye.  Watching the sunrise directly, on the other hand, is something that I tried to do, and failed. Light, therefore, is not brightest at noon but at sunrise. Probably? Over the course of the day, this light breaks down until at sunset, it is significantly less hard on the eyes.

Lastly, your dishonest display with lights projected sideways is just that.  Did I ever once say the sun was anything but overhead? I tried three experiments with light. The first was a flashlight over a mason jar (too bright, as glass is surprisingly reflective), then a big cake container (too opaque to see the light), and finally a plastic pitcher of water (I liked this because the water could show the light).

I wrapped one flashlight with wax string then lifted it while trying to hold the Kindle in the other hand and take pictures.

I then lifted the string and moved it across the surface of the cylinder. Had it been more of a dome (I'm really sad the cake lid didn't work), you would be able to see light at the edge, appearing to climb the object, getting to the top of the object, and leaving it through the other side.  Here's what you can see though.



Oh look. Despite the light not being yet to the pitcher, you can see light near the lower part of the glass.









Despite this being a cylinder, not a dome, , you can see the light as it moves overhead, and how it lights the water inside. 



When the light moves outside, you can see how the light creeps toward the bottom. I as much as possible didn't change the height, though the flashlight did have a tendency to swing.

No bulmabriefs144.  Your just stupid and have a big enough ego to trick yourself into believing things that have absolutely on proof.

Your? (You're) On (No) proof?  Not helping your case. Also, says the person how repeatedly hasn't been able to understand an explanation, and resorts to telling people it doesn't exist. This is the shining beacon of brilliance here.

It also isn't about ego. I give zero shits whether you believe me or not.  I'm just showing you that it works, and how it works. If you wanna be ignorant, that's on you.

Saturn is an actual 3D object of mass in outer space orbiting the sun. 

Not a projection on some imaginary dome.

I arrived at the dome theory by making repeated observations on the relationships in distance, light, and sound. You accepted someone else's theory, and then defend it like a trained mutt.

The reflection of it simply moves over and around the dome

The point being the projection of a single sun or moon would cause many reflections on the “dome”.



The rest of your post in mindless dribble with you having no proof whatsoever the moon for example is a projection in anyway than it represents normal sight in that we see it because it reflects sunlight.

No proof it generates from thousands of “towers” across the world.

The moon is in our recorded history from time out of mined. 


Short wave radio operators can bounce radio signals off the moon.  There is no dome providing the same effect.

The moon blocks light and radiation from the sun during a solar eclipse.  The moon is a physical shield.

The moon is surveyed from earth by radar.

There should be a build up of dust on the dome. 

Sound should bounce off the dome. In your delusion.

The van Allen belts and charged particles from the sun should bounce off the dome.

Radar should bounce off your dome. 


bulmabriefs144, it’s just a lie to say the moon is something other than a physical body in space.  It really is that simple. 

author=bulmabriefs144 link=topic=92084.msg2412869#ms

You never responded to this post?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 06:07:48 AM

As for the parabola,

Like this?



For a navy ship headed towards the light house on a moon lit night with the moon behind it.

Why is the light of the lighthouse often seen before the lighthouse?

Why does the lighthouse come into view top down?

Why would the radar give an accurate distance to the lighthouse and to the jet farther away than the lighthouse?

What happens to the light of the moon as it travels across the parabola, bounces off the top of the lighthouse back across the parabola as the line of sight to people on the ship? 

Same for the radar as it crosses the parabola bounces off the jet and crosses back across the parabola? 

So, what’s different about the light shining from the light house crossing the parabola only once? 

Or I guess you could also go with running lights, and / or radar, and / or laser sight, and / or radio communications from the jet crossing the parabola only once as witnessed from the ship?

Vs the moonlight and radar crossing the parabola twice?

Because your parabola is a meaningless delusion that doesn’t represent reality notate physical works in any way.  Your parabola is a meaningless fails model. 

This is an assumption based on the idea that real object A (we'll call it "sun") and real object B (we'll call it "moon") are moving real distances across a domed surface.

Are you saying what you are providing is an assumption or what Data provided is?
Because no, it is based upon the idea that it is a projection/reflection.

Dunno, don't care. But for purposes of argument, let us say this dome is roughly 3 miles wide at sea level, expanding in width at high altitudes while remaining fixed in terms of height at the troposphere level, roughly 3 miles or so up.  This isn't perfectly accurate, but as I say, I don't care.

It isn't accurate at all.
It doesn't even match your prior fantasy.
You are now saying it gets wider as you go higher.
That means it isn't a parabola with a peak at the top like you have previously claimed.

That is, it is not a solid glass dome like you depict below, but a porous hemisphere of perspective. You cannot see this dome, precisely because it is vision.

Which would mean it is just a concept, and have no width.

So this can best be compared to an invisible planetarium that moves along parallel to our own motion. Not a glass plant cover.

i.e. a complete fantasy to pretend your nonsense can work.

Well, in this planetarium, the sun and moon are projected on a screen. Rather than having a conventional source projection, we have a Truman Show style dome sourced from outside.

So you now entirely contradict yourself yet again.
That would be the conventional FE dome. Where it is a physical dome which you can move around in and have the distance to the image vary resulting in a different apparent size.
Your nonsense is like nothing in reality, because it is not reality.

Yeah, actually, as I've told you several times, it's rather simple.  Light radiation disperses over distance.

You mean you have repeatedly asserted pure BS; including repeatedly contradicting yourself, without being able to explain anything.

But more importantly, take a look to the right of red spectrum. Far red and infrared can be seen after the sun sets.

So can blue objects.
As long as they have light illuminating them, we can see them.
The sun still has plenty of blue light reaching us at sunset.
We also see a less direct path, where it has to scatter off the atmosphere, is still blue.
And when the sun disappears, it doesn't slowly fade changing colour getting redder and redder until it disappears. Instead, it appears to get off by Earth.
And it isn't just the sun. There are plenty of objects which vanish as they go over the horizon; with them disappearing from the bottom up, not magically getting redder and redder.

So this tells us it is that Earth is blocking the view.

If I built a dome 3 miles high, and three miles wide, any objects projected on it should at all times be 3 miles away, correct?

If you built it as a perfect hemisphere, and you were at the exact centre, then yes.
But that would require it to magically move around with you, and have the projector with you.
If you want to switch it so the projector is outside, it raises the question of how it projects.
If it goes straight down, then you can only see the sun for a few minutes each day, and only if you are in the right area. Most of the world would have darkness for months on end, with the region between the tropics getting a few minutes of light, for a few days of the year.

remains at a fixed height and distance.

The only way for it to remain a fixed height and distance is if it remains in the same position.
If it instead moves, then the distance will change.
The only way for it to move with the distance remaining the same, is if it is circling you.

You can also get an approximation of that, where the distance is so large, that the slight motion is negligible, e.g. if it is 150 000 000 km away, and the motion only moves less than 13 000 km.

At sunset, the sun has less UV light, so you can actually see it with your naked eye.  Watching the sunrise directly, on the other hand, is something that I tried to do, and failed.

You can watch a sunrise just like you can watch a sunset.

Lastly, your dishonest display with lights projected sideways is just that.  Did I ever once say the sun was anything but overhead?

And you appealing to that is nothing more than dishonest BS.
Again, if your magic dome is just 5 km wide, and the sun is overhead, you will be in darkness the vast majority of the time.
It simply doesn't work.

Here's what you can see though.

Try a view from the hypothetical person.

I'm just showing you that it works, and how it works.

No, you aren't.
You are asserting delusional BS, which doesn't work, and ignoring all the problems with it.

I arrived at the dome theory by making repeated observations on the relationships in distance, light, and sound.

No. You don't a theory. You have delusional BS which doesn't match reality at all, with so many problems it isn't funny.
Observations of distance, light and sound do not result in the BS you are promoting.

If you honestly carried out observations on the relationship between distance and light, you would come to the conclusion that the sun and moon and stars and so on are incredibly far away; and the change in apparent position of them between observers on Earth is due to the orientation of Earth's surface being different for those different viewers; i.e. Earth is round.
But that doesn't match your fantasy, so you try to invent all sorts of delusional BS which entirely fails to explain what is observed in reality.

So.  What happens when I look at a a con trail and a cloud formation with a pretty straight leading edge as I travel south?

Note.   checked pictures by time stamps updated to make more accurate.

Point zero.



Three miles south about three minutes latter.



About five miles more east and 5 miles more south than last picture. About 10 minutes travel time. 




This picture was actually about three miles down the road from the on above.




Funny.  About 11 miles more south, and five miles to the east from the first picture to the fourth picture.  The cloud line stays the same apparent size and keeps it leading straight line. 

If your delusion parabola really existed, what should have changed in the cloud shapes as I got closer by at least eight miles? With the sun as reference in each picture. 


In your delusion how could I record seeing the same cloud formation low on the horizon 11 miles away.  The actual total distance driven from start to finish was about 20 miles.  In your delusion how could I see the same cloud formation with the same shape over 20 miles.  It just got a little higher off the horizon. 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a-colossal-failure-on-pace-to-lose-10-billion-this-year/

There is a ticking clock for big tech. This is why they rush to push the next vaccine or next tech fad.

In the absence of a willing customer base, they have taken to try to force technology.  Like with making people switch to electric cars by a certain year, or to wifi phones, or to smart meters.
The other tactic is what is called planned obsolescence.  But if the market were allowed to decide what tech thrives and what does not (it often does anyway despite all attempts to control the market, which is why some people are still on Windows 7 or 8 despite attempts to forcibly update), eventually products reach saturation. Profits plateau, then collapse.

Many of these products are scams anyway, and this is why they try to rush the public to buy. As more people find out this or that vaccine has side effects, or this or that cellphone is no different from the previous model, then the jig is up and people stop buying.

So.  What happens when I look at a a con trail and a cloud formation with a pretty straight leading edge as I travel south?

Contrail is one word. Please learn to spell already. It makes you look ignorant.

Also, contrail is specifically referring to manmade clouds from planes. What you showed was just regular clouds from the looks of it.



This? Same distance = straight line.

You see, this is what a dome looks like overhead.



As a line extends across a dome, this is what it looks like so long as it is the same distance across.

If you were to get in a car, as I did at an earlier time, and drive towards the cloud, it would gradually appear to climb up the sky. 

You gotta go more than 11 miles though.

My trip was from my home to Richmond, nearly 1 hr 30 minutes away.

But since you mention it...


The clouds actually have gone up the the sky in picture two.  This is just 11 miles.
(The only editing I did besides drawing a red line was making both pictures the same height)

You can measure this just with two fingers. You will have to widen them for the second shot.

Quote

author=bulmabriefs144 link=topic=92084.msg2412869#ms

You never responded to this post?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 20, 2023, 08:26:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 06:07:48 AM

As for the parabola,

Like this?



For a navy ship headed towards the light house on a moon lit night with the moon behind it.

Why is the light of the lighthouse often seen before the lighthouse?

Why does the lighthouse come into view top down?

Why would the radar give an accurate distance to the lighthouse and to the jet farther away than the lighthouse?

What happens to the light of the moon as it travels across the parabola, bounces off the top of the lighthouse back across the parabola as the line of sight to people on the ship? 

Same for the radar as it crosses the parabola bounces off the jet and crosses back across the parabola? 

So, what’s different about the light shining from the light house crossing the parabola only once? 

Or I guess you could also go with running lights, and / or radar, and / or laser sight, and / or radio communications from the jet crossing the parabola only once as witnessed from the ship?

Vs the moonlight and radar crossing the parabola twice?

Because your parabola is a meaningless delusion that doesn’t represent reality notate physical works in any way.  Your parabola is a meaningless fails model. 

I thought I had bad ADD.

If you actually bothered listening, I would not have to explain the same concepts over and over.

Someone accused me of having an ego. But you know, someone with an "ego" would be into feeling superior to others. They would not feel depressed at the fact that nobody seems to understand them.

I never responded to this post, perhaps because it critically fails to understand what the parabola even is, despite me explaining it several times.  You still use words like "distortion" as though they matter. Perception, not distortion.

1. Front first, not top down. Again. I have showed this with a railroad video. You ignored it, and continue to say "top down" like a mantra. Then it disappears from behind (at 8:24). You can see at 8:24 that it disappears from the back and not necessarily top or bottom. Likewise, it appears front first.

2. Let's answer a question with a question. If the Earth is round, not flat, how can we trust radar to give accurate distance at all? There would be a hilled slope that would fuck up all radar. But since Earth is flat, radar can travel even beyond what we can see.
3. Because the parabola is about human perception, not distortion, it has nothing to do with what a radar projects. Nothing at all. Think of it this way. I may or may not be able to see all the way to the radar (I am within the parabola), but the radar can project to me.
4. You can look around yourself and see the parabola.  Simply draw a straight line to the horizon, then draw a line to the right and left. Continue going to the left and right all the way around (spin like Wonder Woman!) and you will notice that this forms a disc all about you. You can then measure 180 degrees from directly in front of you to in back of you.  This is a dome. This is the parabola. It can be objectively observed.   
5. Distortion? No, as I have REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED, the parabola is a dome of personal perception. It has nothing to do with radars outside itself, lasers, or anything else. The only distortion to speak of is that you can see heavenly bodies like the sun, moon, and stars as though there is a hill in the sky. You can see the moon from several timezones, but it always appears centered around your area, and never shrinks or grows in size. Yet there is no apparent or real hill in the ground. The Earth is flat. The sky is not.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Uv5I1aJNU1xB/

These operation names are great. Operation Highjump. Operation Fishbowl.
Wizards passing notes, that the lot of humans are too dumb to notice.
They also talk about how before being to the moon, they were making expeditions to Venus (somehow) and exploring Antarctica, and the two seem related. As though they are flying out through Antarctica rather than upward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

If you were to get in a car,

You’re ignoring the whole point.


One.  You dome is three miles wide.  That means 1.5 miles to the edge of your parabola.  And gets smaller with hight. 


How did I document seeing clouds 11 miles away.  And can attest to seeing the clouds about 18 miles away.  You claim perception of only 1.5 miles to your delusional parabola edge tgat decreases in diameter with height. 

Two.  How does the cloud formation maintain its straight line at all distances.  When your parabola should be distorting it. 

Because your F’n parabola is a lie. With zero proof of existing!

4. You can look around yourself and see the parabola. 

One.  No evidence your parabola exists.

Two.  “Light” doesn’t break down like you say.  Objects can be seen beyond the edge of your parabola. 

Three.  Things disappear bottom up.  Your parabola would make things disappear top down. 

Four.  Your parabola doesn’t explain why things blocked by the horizon can’t be brought back into view with a large light gather devise with magnification like binoculars.  The curvature of the earth physical blocking the object from view bottom up does. 

https://i.imgur.com/EFqOg8k.jpg[/img]

Ok?



If your “parabola of perception” was reality.  I wouldn’t be able to see the cloud bank at all at 11 miles.  Then when I was there miles away I would only see the sliver of the cloud bank that is in my parabola.  It wouldn’t even look like a cloud bank.  Just a cloud column.  As I got closer, the cloud bank should become more revealed left to right as the cloud bank came more and more into my parabola.  Becoming more apparent it wasn’t a cloud column but a cloud bank.  This isn’t the case.


The cloud bank takes up the whole horizon from at 11 miles from my start point.

Again..

Point zero.



Three miles south about three minutes latter.



About five miles more east and 5 miles more south than last picture. About 10 minutes travel time. 




This picture was actually about three miles down the road from the on above.




Funny.  About 11 miles more south, and five miles to the east from the first picture to the fourth picture.  The cloud line stays the same apparent size and keeps it leading straight line. 

If your delusion parabola really existed, what should have changed in the cloud shapes as I got closer by at least eight miles? With the sun as reference in each picture. 


In your delusion how could I record seeing the same cloud formation low on the horizon 11 miles away.  The actual total distance driven from start to finish was about 20 miles.  In your delusion how could I see the same cloud formation with the same shape over 20 miles.  It just got a little higher off the horizon. 


To answer the question.  At 11 miles away I shouldn’t see the cloud bank at all.  In your delusion of a parabola of perception, when close enough, the clouds would only look like a sliver or column as the leading edge of the perception first reaches the cloud line.  Then as I got closer it would appear the cloud was expanding left and right as more of my perception reaches the cloud bank.  This didn’t happen.  Your parabola crap is debunked

There is a ticking clock for big tech. This is why they rush to push the next vaccine or next tech fad.

That entirely depends on the tech.
In the case of Alexa, they were hoping to be able to monetise the queries, and they weren't.

In the case of dishonest capitalism, they make the price low to try to secure the customer base, to try to charge them later.

The other tactic is what is called planned obsolescence.  But if the market were allowed to decide what tech thrives and what does not (it often does anyway despite all attempts to control the market, which is why some people are still on Windows 7 or 8 despite attempts to forcibly update), eventually products reach saturation. Profits plateau, then collapse.

You mean as they do now?
Again, you seem to be acting like a key part of the market shouldn't get a say; those that sell.

Many of these products are scams anyway, and this is why they try to rush the public to buy. As more people find out this or that vaccine has side effects, or this or that cellphone is no different from the previous model, then the jig is up and people stop buying.

Wrong again.
Plenty of people are hardcore fanboys that want the latest crap even if it is identical to the previous crap, and even if they know that.
Some just want the latest thing to show off.

You gotta go more than 11 miles though.

Not if your fantasy dome magically limits vision to 3 archaic units.
Then, if you can see it, once you drive 3 archaic units, it needs to be either directly overhead, or behind you.
After another 3 archaic units, you shouldn't be able to see it.

This clearly shows your delusional BS is false; but you entirely ignore that point and deflect with more BS.

If you actually bothered listening, I would not have to explain the same concepts over and over.

If you actually explained, and addressed issues that were raised, instead of just spamming the same BS and non-explanation again and again you wouldn't need to "explain" concepts over and over.

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

No, you didn't
You claimed to, and failed.

All the videos and images available shows one of 2 things, objects shrinking to an unresolvable point, or them disappearing from the bottom up or disappearing as something other than Earth obstructs the view; or conversely appearing from behind an obstruction, top down for Earth, or an unresolvable point being resolved.

For your crappy video, the part where you claim to see it coming into view, you can already see it.
The footage does not show it coming into view from the front back.
It then goes around a curve and gets hidden by a tree.

2. Let's answer a question with a question. If the Earth is round, not flat, how can we trust radar to give accurate distance at all? There would be a hilled slope that would fuck up all radar. But since Earth is flat, radar can travel even beyond what we can see.

How about instead of trying to respond with a dumb question, you try explaining why it shouldn't be able to?
Just what part of that "hilled slope" would fuck up radar?

Radar is primarily line of sight. i.e. in order for radar to pick it up, you need to see it.
That is why radar units on ships are mounted up high, to let them see over the horizon for someone on the deck.
That is also why the range of a radar varies with altitude.

Because the parabola is about human perception, not distortion

No, its about your desperation to reject reality.

4. You can look around yourself and see the parabola.

No, we can't.
What we observe is how we see based upon 2 angles. That is NOT your delusional parabola.
Especially given it isn't just up we can see. We can also look down.
We also don't need to be outside where we can see the horizon.

The only distortion to speak of is that you can see heavenly bodies like the sun, moon, and stars as though there is a hill in the sky. You can see the moon from several timezones, but it always appears centered around your area, and never shrinks or grows in size. Yet there is no apparent or real hill in the ground. The Earth is flat. The sky is not.

And none of that requires your delusional parabola.
You just repeatedly assert that to pretend Earth is flat.
It makes vastly more sense if you just accept Earth is round.

It isn't distortion that we can see the sun, moon, etc, as though Earth is round and rotating.
It isn't distortion that they don't appear to grow or shrink; that is simply the result of them remaining basically the same distance.
There is a very apparent hill on the ground, beyond which objects are obstructed from view.
You need to appeal to your parabola BS to try to hide that fact.

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.

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

Besides Jack posting the debunking of your comments concerning the video…


Ships disappearing bottom up at sea.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 02, 2023, 03:36:18 AM

When we see a ship sail out from us, and goes out 2 miles away, it is in full view, and appears to be rising with the waters, at that distance away. No curve exists at all.

Then the ship should bob in and out of view as it rides the waves.

Anyway..

From: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

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.”

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 15, 2023, 08:55:42 PM

If you were to get in a car,

You’re ignoring the whole point.

  No you.

One.  You dome is three miles wide.  That means 1.5 miles to the edge of your parabola.  And gets smaller with hight.

I said "Let's say 3 miles." In other words, this isn't real distance. This is arbitrarily chosen distance. Secondly, I arbitrarily chose 3 miles as radius not diameter, that is, if I look 3 miles at sea level, I see the horizon. Very imporant what I just said. At sea level. At an altitude of 1000 ft, this radius becomes 32 miles outward.

http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_the_horizon.htm

This is by the site's admission "proof of the curvature". Sorry dude, not only is it not, but it's proof there is an expanding dome that travels with us.

How did I document seeing clouds 11 miles away.  And can attest to seeing the clouds about 18 miles away.  You claim perception of only 1.5 miles to your delusional parabola edge that decreases in diameter with height.

As I've said AGAIN this is perception, not distortion, no real distance. Radius with height.  And it actually increases with height. Watch.



Person A is in a well (go get Lassie), while person B is on a hill Person B can see top of person A's head, as well as the hill behind the well.  Person A can sorta see trees around the well.



Is this a 3 mile parabola? No, it's even less. Likewise, view from 1000 ft up.


Why is this so difficult for you to understand?!?

Two.  How does the cloud formation maintain its straight line at all distances.  When your parabola should be distorting it. 

Because your F’n parabola is a lie. With zero proof of existing!

Straight line in red.

You can see the parabola when taking a picture in panorama mode. If you crab walk to the left or right, you get a straight line across. However, if you turn from a point on the left to a point on the right, space curves. Now, I did this too fast (causing visual lag), but I was able to loop back to my original location.



Started NW of me, curved north all the way to NE around where it suddenly turns brown, the lamp is actually E, the bookcase (part) and the picture is behind me, the open paneled door is to the west, then I'm back northwest again, and end directly in front of me. I turned in a perfect disc, perhaps too fast.

I said "Let's say 3 miles." In other words, this isn't real distance. This is arbitrarily chosen distance.

Yes, you just make shit up, so as soon as something doesn't match you can just boldly proclaim that it isn't actually that number.
It is the typical dishonest FE BS of continually moving the goalposts.

But it fails at the most basic aspect. Your dome should make things that are higher disappear sooner.
That is if you are standing on the ground, the most distant object you can see should also be on the ground.
But in reality, the most distant objects you can see are well above the ground.
You can see something in the sky, like a cloud, and then go to the furthest point on the ground that you can see, and see the cloud is still more distant.

This means your garbage simply doesn't work.
You need to flip your parabola upside down.

You also have absolutely no reason for it to increase with height.
And it shows all your BS about your eyes having a magic limit are pure BS.
If your eyes actually did have that limit, you wouldn't be getting a greater distance with greater altitude.

This is by the site's admission "proof of the curvature". Sorry dude, not only is it not, but it's proof there is an expanding dome that travels with us.

No, quite the opposite.
The fact that things are obstructed from view is evidence of curvature.
The fact that higher objects can be seen for further, is also evidence of curvature.

Person A is in a well (go get Lassie), while person B is on a hill Person B can see top of person A's head, as well as the hill behind the well.  Person A can sorta see trees around the well.

And this is where your delusional BS fails yet again.
Vision works both ways.
If Person B can see person A, then person A can see person B.

Just what is magically limiting their vision?

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?!?

Because your delusional BS makes no sense.

You can see the parabola when taking a picture in panorama mode.

Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
What we see is that our vision works in 2 angular directions.
You aren't showing any parabola with that.
And again, you can also go below.

You can see the parabola when taking a picture

Evidently not because things disappear bottom up. 

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.

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.”


And again…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 06:07:48 AM

My very first comment,

For a parabola that doesn’t exist?

Again..

And there is no proof of your delusional parabola.  From radar and laser range finders being accurate.  To how the mist lays.

To how these towers show no distortion from your parabola that has to hide the sunset at three miles…






And not you literally lying about the tower heights and placement.

Your parabola should be acting like a lens and causing these distortions.

Quote

LENS DISTORTION: WHAT EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD KNOW

https://clickitupanotch.com/lens-distortion/

Look at this picture. 



Why does the tree line fill the field of vision from side to side.

With this..



Why is the much farther away cloud  line just as visible, and fills the photo side to side like the much closer tree line




If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

Light and sight work nothing like what the parabola needs it to do.

Like this set of photos with the horizon.

Sight ahead of my car.


Same area and light pole looking left from my car.



The much farther away cloud line is just as visible and takes up the whole picture side to side like the horizon.  And the cloud didn’t “disappear top down”. Or in this case didn’t reveal itself top down? 

Parabola delusion totally dead on arrival and debunk!

Person A is in a well

As pointed out…


As drawn thy can see each other because there is nothing physically blocking the line of sight and reflected light that is vision.  We see objects because they reflect light when illuminated.  Unless they project light like a flash light.  Which explains night and the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun’s light.  Or a solar eclipse where the moon being a physical object blocks the suns light and shields the earth from the suns radiation, anyway. 



Now if the person on the hill walked away and over the hill, they will disappear bottom up with the last thing visible is their top.  Like a ship going over the horizon with the last thing visible is the tallest part of the ship.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?!?

because nothing the way clouds act and are visible at great distances, and they usually travel across the sky from horizon to horizon not being revealed top down out of nowhere shows your parabola is crap.  Debunked.  Is stupid.  Doesn’t explain reality.  Not observed. 

Since all of you switched away from the topic, I may or may not continue to talk about the parabola, but I've got an anecdote.

So yesterday, I just got done "discussing" with Citra why their decision to deprecate Windows 8 support was really about lazy programming and nothing else.
They were even more stubborn and prone to excuses than you guys. I told them that no Windows 8 support effectively means that even though the last version before they switched works just fine, their arrogant commitment to lack of compatibility in the name of "compatibility" with games means everything thereafter is stuck at that point.

I then compared what they had done to a restaurant deciding to discontinue regular fries in favor of poutine due to being close to Canada. (1) There's no reason you couldn't ALSO have regular fries (quick dropdown to legacy  audio/video drivers), and (2) you alienate customers (users) by  being unwilling to serve fries on demand.

When Netflix went out of DVDs, they left a bunch of "recycled" DVDs. Great, except I actually know what becomes of recycled things. It's worse off than if they chucked it in a landfill. They showed zero consideration for their customers, who were more than willing to take (or even BUY) their excess DVDs. Instead they RANDOMLY gave a few customers 10 extra DVDs. What the actual fuck? If science is served asis, you have short-sighted assholes deciding they know best. People who believe maybe you ought to archive old things are knocked aside. Worse, it enables oppression. Libraries? Nah, books are obsolete, I can fit all this on a kindle. That's great and all, but what happens when Kindle decides that communist China is displeased with the Bible? At best, your kindle copy has a disclaimer like I saw on Disney+ for Davey Crockett. "This film contains depiction of mistreatment of minorities. It wasn't okay then and it isn't okay now." At worst, the Bible is either booted from your list, even though you paid money for it, or China actually has a "revised" Bible according to communist thought.

When science, or more precisely technology, is unchecked by any sensible standards, then you have a recipe for bad or destructive things to pave over decent things.

because nothing the way clouds act and are visible at great distances, and they usually travel across the sky from horizon to horizon not being revealed top down out of nowhere shows your parabola is crap.  Debunked.  Is stupid.  Doesn’t explain reality.  Not observed.

You don't listen too good, boy. sceptimatic might have said this is top down, but as I've said, clouds appear to the front  and travel up the sky as the travel past. Assuming they're going that direction.

Aside from the stupid fisheye lens, your own video shows clouds coming in from the back. If you were to film this show with three cameras (back, up, front), you would see these clouds passing the back camera, coming in and out of sight of the camera facing upward, and the the last camera showing the clouds come into view from the positions of the first two cameras.

Not debunked. Observed. Smarter than you, I guess.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 18, 2023, 02:53:29 PM

Person A is in a well

As pointed out…


As drawn thy can see each other because there is nothing physically blocking the line of sight and reflected light that is vision.  We see objects because they reflect light when illuminated.  Unless they project light like a flash light.  Which explains night and the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun’s light.  Or a solar eclipse where the moon being a physical object blocks the suns light and shields the earth from the suns radiation, anyway. 

This guy in picture A is in a well. I just showed the view from a well. Meanwhile that hill is tall enough that he ist the perfect angle to see down into the well. As you can see from the picture of the well sight is not necessarily equivalent.

Blah blah blah, bullshit about how we see objects because of light reflected in our eyes. We see objects because our eyes have optic nerves. These nerves process information from wavelengths. The blind can see thanks to technology that well proves my point about technology.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
It's the organs, not light, that controls vision. Light could continue to shine near someone's eyes but they couldn't necessarily see it due to factor like damage to the back of the head. Or nerve damage from diabetes. The light is unchanged, but our ability to see it is not.

This guy in picture A is in a well.

Which highlights the only reason light can’t travel from one to the other if it’s physically blocked by the edge of the well. 

Since all of you switched away from the topic,

The “topic” isn’t “switched”

There is no science behind your parabola delusion. 

You don't listen too good, boy.

A little switch and bait in your ramblings? 

No. 

This is your parabola as it should be if viewed top down.



The edge of your perception in your delusion would be the curved edge of the cone of your delusional parabola at the farthest point of perception.  Clouds would first appear as a sliver or column at the farthest curve of your parabola.  Then expand to a certain width never taking up the whole sky.  Which begs the question what would it look like looking up at the sky where you claim perception is only a few miles in your delusion.  The clouds would appear to expand to a maxim width as they passed directly overhead, then appear to collapse to a sliver or column as they passed into the distance. 

. Then the clouds would appear out of existence in your parabola delusion before ever reaching the horizon after passing overhead.

Since all of you switched away from the topic

Not really.
That was more a natural development from your delusional claims that all of science is wrong.
Conversely, your claim about Windows 8 and Netflix is irrelevant crap.

If science is served asis, you have short-sighted assholes deciding they know best.

That really has nothing at all to do with how science is served.
Regardless, with the current economic system you will have rich assholes decided what is best for themselves and acting on it.

When science, or more precisely technology, is unchecked by any sensible standards

Good thing there are standards. The kind of thing you previously opposed as you wanted to have to be all about profit.

Not debunked. Observed. Smarter than you, I guess.

No, you might think you are smarted, but you continually dodge the actual issue, spouting irrelevant crap which doesn't save your fantasy.
Your parabola simply doesn't work.

Again, what you actually need is something more like this:

Where the parabola goes up, to allow you to see further the higher something is, with magic bring the bottom of the parabola to be horizontal.
And if instead of relying upon magic, we just make the limits of your vision straight lines, we end up with a RE blocking the view; which makes vastly more sense than your delusional BS, and which you are unable to show a single fault with.

Again, with your delusional BS, when you are standing on level ground, your vision should be magically limited to whatever the distance is to the horizon.
You should be able to see the ground at that distance (the horizon), and go to it and see that everything you could see above that is now behind you (or not even visible).
But in reality, we can see things above the horizon, like clouds, travel to the horizon, and still see those clouds in front of us, not behind.

Your parabola simply doesn't work.

This image really demonstrates the problem:


You have a person at the centre of the left "dome of perception", and they are looking right towards some clouds, in the direction shown in grey.
They them move right, to where the horizon was, to the centre of the right "dome of perception". Yet they still see the clouds off to the right.
For your delusional BS to work, they need to see the clouds off to the left.

This shows your BS is wrong.
We don't have a magical parabola or the like magically limiting our vision.

As you can see from the picture of the well sight is not necessarily equivalent.

No, we can't.
Instead you just arbitrarily assert it with no justification at all.
What magic prevents person A from seeing person B?
What magic causes this parabola?
Your delusional BS makes no sense.

It's the organs, not light, that controls vision.

It's both.
No light, no see.
No organs, no see.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 20, 2023, 06:42:58 AM

If science is served asis, you have short-sighted assholes deciding they know best.

That really has nothing at all to do with how science is served.
Regardless, with the current economic system you will have rich assholes decided what is best for themselves and acting on it.

Right. But have you noticed lately that all the rich assholes lately are not conservative robber barons from our grandfather's generation but highly woke assholes who throw around buzzwords? Consider Bill Gates (aforementioned Windows, making some of this not so irrelevant). More dollars than cents, signs off not only on climate change action but the idea of genetically modifying mosquitoes (reports vary on whether these are simply friendly mosquitoes versus the malaria-carrying ones, or whether he is using them to inject vaccines, but I seem to remember a movie called Mimic where GMO bugs started killing everyone). Until recently, he protected COVID vaccine patenrs
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/gates-foundation-reverses-position-covid-vaccine-patent-protections-mounting-pressure/
and has been involved in a number of inventions of dubious moral value, either directly of by funding other people's harebrained ideas. From Wikipedia:

• SCoPEx, Keith's academic venture in "sun-dimming" geoengineering, which Gates provided most of the $12 million for.
• EarthNow, a Seattle-based startup company aiming to blanket the Earth with live satellite video coverage.
• Impossible Foods, a company that develops plant-based substitutes for meat products.
• TerraPower, a nuclear reactor design company co-founded and chaired by Gates, which is developing next generation traveling-wave reactor nuclear power plants in an effort to tackle climate change.
• Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a closed fund for wealthy individuals who seek ROI on a 20-year horizon (see next section), which "is funding green start-ups and a host of other low-carbon entrepreneurial projects, including everything from advanced nuclear technology to synthetic breast milk." It was founded by Gates in 2015.
• Luminous Computing, a company that develops neuromorphic photonic integrated circuits for AI acceleration.
• Mologic, a British diagnostic technology company that Gates purchased, along with the Soros Economic Development Fund, "which has developed 10-minute Covid lateral flow tests that it aims to make for as little as $1.

Not only do we see a very anti-natural bend to much of this technology (why need synthetic breast milk? Why use nuclear power to "combat climate change"?) but also alliances with Soros, who has had his hands in a number of radical movements.

The fat cats now are not wealthy conservatives.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 20, 2023, 06:42:58 AM

When science, or more precisely technology, is unchecked by any sensible standards

Good thing there are standards. The kind of thing you previously opposed as you wanted to have to be all about profit.

I don't oppose standards. I oppose regulation.

Every regulation that businesses spend $1 to make cleaner factories involves $10 (i.e. ten times as much, not actual $10) to hire bureaucrats to check it.

No, standards are moral guidelines. The church can list these for free (as can any temple or synagogue or shrine), as can a sufficiently developed scientific community with a decent sense of principles. Stuff like "No using electricity to bring back the dead Frankenstein style" and "no splicing humans together with lab rats to get them to run giant mazes." If a regulation gets a hold of them, guidelines that were free and punished simply by being stripped of credentials or having the church throw salt at you (wait that's Shinto or Buddhist) suddenly are taxed. No, I am not in favor of regulation. Standards are internal rules and guidelines.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 20, 2023, 06:42:58 AM

Not debunked. Observed. Smarter than you, I guess.

Your parabola simply doesn't work.

Ah I see. So you tell me it doesn't work. This is all the proof I need to believe it doesn't work. (That was sarcasm.)

Again, what you actually need is something more like this:

Where the parabola goes up, to allow you to see further the higher something is, with magic bring the bottom of the parabola to be horizontal.

You need to imagine it like an umbrella on the ground with a stubby handle and an oversized canopy that expands if there is room to do so. The umbrella when sitting on the ground touches the ground at let's say 3 ft. When lifted high enough by a person on a ladder, it spreads out to 30 ft. When a person on at jetpack uses it, 300 feet. And so on. The higher you go, the further the "umbrella" spreads.

Also, if the back of the boat is this far back, you ought to notice it. It's inattention to detail, not the way objects disappear, that you experience here. I have not ever seen a ship hang in midair with just its mast. What I have seen is the shrinking of objects from view. Since most of the base of the ship is underwater, as the size goes down (I can replicate this in an art program) the number of squares or pixels the base takes up is diminished. It's not being cut off, it's just shorter and thus difficult to distinguish from the water. It's not getting cut off. It's getting shorter.

What magic prevents person A from seeing person B?
What magic causes this parabola?
Your delusional BS makes no sense.

The eye works in angles. When the angles it sees are too sharp, it narrows the field of vision. That is, contrary to the theory that light sort of extends forever (if this were true, looking at distant stars would sear our eyes), there is a distance not only of light breakdown but angular breakdown of sight. This is not the same as curvature, as you can be standing a completely flat terrain and rather saying it is not "really" flat, it is simply a matter of diminishing angle. A tree close up is 80 degrees. From a short distance, it's 45 degrees. From a long distance, it might be 10 or even 2 degrees. For the person in the well however, angle and obstruction are the same thing. Maybe he indeed can see the person on the hill staring at him. But he can't seemuch of the terrain leading up to him, whereas that person can see all down the him except where there are corners to see around. You like to invoke the idea that this is magic. But it's really just the science of how our brains work and how angles work. What we see is simply not infinite, and this doesn't require adding curves to the land that cannot be observed. Meanwhile, the sky does form a dome, and despite that you should be able to notice this, you aren't.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 20, 2023, 06:58:04 AM

It's the organs, not light, that controls vision.

It's both.
No light, no see.
No organs, no see.

Nice English. But well if I am in a cave, I will see nothing but darkness with no light. With me so far? Well, then I feel around the floor, walls, ceiling and so on. You know what? On occasion, my brain has been able to make my eyes construct a visual picture, light or no light, simply through the act of mapping out landscape.

In other words, light isn't doing the seeing. Your mind is. This further borne out by things like hysterical (psychosomatic) blindness. With nothing more than emotional trauma or anxiety, one can become blind despite the presence of light and no medical reason for blindness.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/peaceful-parenting/201907/what-is-hysterical-blindness
In the link above, a man facing the stress of retirement changing his life suddenly goes blind when heading to a zoo.

Just as your brain invents curvature that does not exist    people can invent darkness that does not exist and blind themselves with no injury, no obstructions, and no physical darkness.