Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

  • 469 Replies
  • 19800 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #450 on: December 27, 2024, 12:50:25 PM »
Yes, it’s refuted because your diagram isn’t what we see outward over the surface, it shows a horizon across the surface.
That doesn't refute it at all.

What this diagram shows is how there is nothing blocking the view, the surface will continue to rise (based upon the angle) and no reason for a horizon.

Another example would be this:

Where it use the angular height, which is what we see outwards.

Again, it is just simple geometry, not magic like you wish to claim.

We see the surface appearing to rise up in the distance, geometry, reality, measurements, don’t apply to it
PURE BS!
What we see is the angular position of the surface rise.
This is simple geometry.
You are seeing the angle to the surface.

This is not an illusion.
It is simple geometry.

if it keeps rising up forever in the distance, it would soon rise up so high it would block out the skies above us, in order for us to keep seeing over the entire surface.
No, it wouldn't. As already explained.

Again, using this BS, look straight down and then at the ground 2 m in front of you. This has already covered an angle of 45 degrees.
If this just continue at that rate after 4 m it would be at eye level, at 8 m it would cover your entire vision.

It is clear that it does not continue at the same rate.
The rate reduces with distance, as already explained.

So no, it doesn't need to block out the sky to continue rising forever, no matter how much you wish to lie.

If it would only rise slighter and slighter, it would not rise high enough to see over the whole surface.
Why?
Stop just asserting crap.

Instruments cannot make the surface entirely visible. Instruments can only see what our eyes COULD see if closer to us.
And if we were closer to the horizon, we would see further. So by your own argument, instruments should allow us to see further, all the way to the edge.

You’re out of excuses.
That would be you.
Still making the same pathetic excuses and refuting yourself, while being entirely incapable of justifying your claims and answering simple questions.

A flat surface isn’t seen over the whole surface because that’s what geometry says we would be able to see.
Geometry says that is what we would see, the entire surface. As nothing is blocking the view.
You are yet to present anything that can actually counter that.

Again, this all relates to the simple questions you keep avoiding.
Now care to stop lying to everyone and answer the questions you have continued to avoid because you know they show you are a lying POS?
Or try being honest for once in your life and admit you cannot answer them because reality does not match a flat Earth.

Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

These simple questions likewise prove Earth is round and you are just lying to everyone.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #451 on: December 29, 2024, 01:22:25 AM »
To see the surface rise upward in the distance, is not geometrically the true surface.

The real, physical, geometrical surface is entirely flat, entirely seen as flat, yet appears to be rising upward in the distance.

We don’t see the actual, geometrical surface which is not rising up, we see it rising up.

Our view of the surface is not the geometrical surface.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #452 on: December 29, 2024, 11:43:23 AM »
To see the surface rise upward in the distance, is not geometrically the true surface.
Again, it isn't the surface rising upwards, it is the angle to that point on the surface.
It is simple geometry.

Again, a point on a flat surface a distance d away from you and a height of h below you will appear at an angle of dip of atan(h/d).

Simple geometry.

The real, physical, geometrical surface is entirely flat, entirely seen as flat
No, it isn't.
That is what you keep baselessly asserting.
Again, the existence of the horizon shows it is not.
The way the horizon moves away with increasing altitude shows it is not.
The way the horizon gets lower with increasing altitude shows it is not.

Now care to stop lying to everyone and answer the questions you have continued to avoid because you know they show you are a lying POS?
Or try being honest for once in your life and admit you cannot answer them because reality does not match a flat Earth.

Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

These simple questions likewise prove Earth is round and you are just lying to everyone.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #453 on: January 05, 2025, 01:44:19 AM »
I’ve asked you over and over again to show me what we’d actually SEE over a flat surface that always appears to rise upward…

We start from the visible height of the surface three miles out.

Assume it is flat, of course.

After that point, you claim it keeps rising up, and no horizon is formed.

We’ve got to still see over the surface from that point, as we have up to the first three miles out over it.

So now you’ve got a problem.

The surface is actually flat, but appears to be rising upward in the distance. 

That’s the only reason we CAN see over the whole surface for three miles out, because it appears to rise upward, and that’s why we can SEE that surface over the first three miles out from us!

So the surface must keep rising upward enough for us to see over it for more than three miles out.

If it rises up less and less after three miles out, the angle of it becomes ever sharper and thinner to see from our position.

Instruments cannot see that surface either.

Remember that I mentioned what we can see over the rooftop of a high rise?

Imagine the rooftop of a highrise is the flat surface a thousand miles out from you.

It has appeared to rise upward to that height, a thousand miles out from you.

The rooftop is all flat, same as the surface is flat.

But you cannot see over the flat rooftop at such a height with any instruments, right?

Do you get the point now?


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #454 on: January 05, 2025, 04:34:02 AM »
The physical surface and the actual angle of the surface doesn’t rise upward over a flat surface, but it appears to us that it IS rising upward.

It isn’t about the physical surface being flat, or the true angle of the surface being lower than us, the only thing that matters is what we see, not what is true or real or physically there.

Flat surfaces will always form a horizon, the angle becomes ever sharper over more distance outward, and we’ve already removed the physical reality when we see it rising up despite the physical reality.

You want perspective to make the surface appear to rise, but a hidden curve instantly pops up, unseen below the entirely flat surface over the first three miles out! Then a curve wins out over the flat surface that’s not really flat, perspective made it look flat for three miles over it!

The curve comes in at the horizon, but still isn’t seen as a curve! It never is seen at all!

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #455 on: January 05, 2025, 05:42:10 AM »
Past a curve three miles out, it becomes a greater curve, it doesn’t stay the same size curve or lesser curved.

The fact is that any curved surface which cannot be seen beyond a specific distance, which you claim is beyond three miles away, will have a greater and greater curve over it after three miles out.

Anyone with half a brain knows what that means, even you know it.

To explain it to any moron out there, that means when Jackass the bozo said horizons look slightly lower,using a bs edited image, it was the best he could come up with, and it’s not even close to what we’d see above a ball Earth.

There is a big, impossible to solve problem with the ball Earth scumbags….

Why can’t they show what Earth looks like, from the ground up into a ball Earth in space, with actual measurements and what we’d see?

Because it doesn’t translate correctly as an actual ball Earth WOULD look like to us in reality.

Have you ever seen a simulation of what we’d see on a sphere that gets larger and larger to Earth size?

No, there’s none to see. I’ve looked for any, but nothing at all yet.

But then I thought why isn’t there anything showing a simulation of our view on a sphere…

Because of what we’d actually see on an Earth ball, would not look at all like what we DO see!

This is something we can easily simulate today with computers, so why isn’t it shown online by now?

That hit me recently after I saw someone on top of the Vegas sphere, in the center of it.

Even though it’s much smaller than Earth as a ball would be, it showed that all around him went downward as a curve.

No matter how high above it he would go, he’d never see the surface higher up than on the surface of it.

That’s the secret they don’t want us to know or see.

Any simulation of a ball Earth would not show what we actually see on or above Earth.



Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #456 on: January 05, 2025, 05:51:45 AM »
Past a curve three miles out, it becomes a greater curve, it doesn’t stay the same size curve or lesser curved.

You seem really confused about spheres.
"I'm not entirely sure who this guy is, but JimmyTheLobster is clearly a genius.  Probably one of the smartest arthropods  of his generation." - JimmyTheCrab

Quote from: bulmabriefs144
The woke left have tried to erase photosynthesis

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #457 on: January 05, 2025, 12:41:20 PM »
I’ve asked you over and over again to show me what we’d actually SEE over a flat surface that always appears to rise upward…
And I have explained, long before you asked.
I also asked you plenty of simple questions you keep ignoring.

We start from the visible height of the surface three miles out.
Again, simple geometry, do the math.
a=atan(h/d).
So lets say you have an observer height of 2 m.
And lets not use your silly archaic units and instead use sane people units, km.
And lets not jump straight to 5 km. Instead, lets do it incrementally.
First, we start with the ground directly below as, with an angle of 90 degrees.
Then 1 m out it is at 63 degrees, a change of 63 degrees.
After 2 m, it is at 45 degrees, a change of 18 degrees.
At 100 m, it is at 1.15 degrees, a change of roughly 43.85 degrees.
At 1 km, it is at 0.115 degrees, a change of roughly 1.031 degrees.
At 4 km, it is at 0.0286 degrees, a change of 0.0859 degrees.
At 5 km, it is at 0.0229 degrees, a change of 0.0057 degrees.
At 10 km, it is at 0.0115 degrees, a change of 0.0115 degrees.
At 100 km, it is at 0.0011 degrees, a change of 0.0103 degrees.

Why can we see from 4 to 5 km, when that is only 0.0057 degrees, but we can't see from 5 km to 10 km, or from 10 km to 100 km, much larger changes at 0.0115 degrees and 0.0103 degrees?

Your BS makes no sense.

Again, this directly relates to the questions you keep on avoiding, because you have no answer, because they demonstrate your claims are pure BS.
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

That’s the only reason we CAN see over the whole surface for three miles out, because it appears to rise upward
And it would continue to do so.

If it rises up less and less after three miles out, the angle of it becomes ever sharper and thinner to see from our position.
Yes, thinner, but still able to be seen.

Remember that I mentioned what we can see over the rooftop of a high rise?
Yes, because of the change in orientation.
You go from the near vertical wall, to a near horizontal roof.
You don't need to a skyrise for that.
Just pick up a dice.
Hold the dice so the top surface is level and above your head but in front of you a bit.
Notice that you can see the side facing you, but not the top.
Nothing like what you are trying to demonstrate.
What you would need is the top of the wall of the skyscraper to be magically invisible.

Imagine the rooftop of a highrise is the flat surface a thousand miles out from you.
No.
Why would I do that?
The rooftop of the highrise is PHYSICALLY above me.
Your allegedly flat surface a thousand miles out is PHYSICALLY below me.

It would NOT appear to rise upwards to that hight.
The wall of the skyscraper blocks my view to the roof.
There is NOTHING to block my view to that flat surface.

You are yet again appealing to dishonest BS.

Do you get the point now?
I have gotten the point from the start, you have no way to explain your BS so you will appeal to any dishonest BS you can to pretend your BS works.
And this is why you refuse to answer the questions, because they reveal your dishonest BS.

And importantly, your BS has no ability to explain why things appear to sink into the ground/ocean.
That is when we can easily resolve them, yet simple extrapolation of the visible portion shows the bottom to be below the horizon, and well below.

The physical surface and the actual angle of the surface doesn’t rise upward over a flat surface, but it appears to us that it IS rising upward.
Pure dishonest BS.
The physical surface doesn't rise, but the angle certainly does.
Again, simple to demonstrate with math or a diagram:

Can you honestly tell me, that the angle from directly down to those red lines is not increasing as the point on the ground gets further away?
Because that is what you need for that statement of yours to be true.
That somehow all those red lines actually overlap and there is no difference in angle.

And anyone can see that claim of yours is pure BS.

It isn’t about the physical surface being flat, or the true angle of the surface being lower than us, the only thing that matters is what we see, not what is true or real or physically there.
i.e. you don't give a damn about the truth.
You don't care that what we see clearly shows Earth is round.
You will reject it all and pretend Earth is flat and just falsely claim that what we see will magically be what is expected for a flat surface, with no explanation or basis at all.

Flat surfaces will always form a horizon
No, they wont.
They never will as there is no reason for it.

we’ve already removed the physical reality when we see it rising up despite the physical reality.
No, we haven't.
That "apparent" rising is simply the physical angle. Something you need to keep running from.

You want perspective to make the surface appear to rise, but a hidden curve instantly pops up
No, a curve which is there the entire time. Initially having a negligible effect, but with that effect getting large and larger with more distance until it beats out the effect of perspective alone resulting in the angle going back down, creating a horizon.
An actual coherent explanation which you are unable to show any fault with.
And again, also shown with a simple diagram:

Notice how now, as you go further from the red line, the purple lines get a greater angular separation, but only to the point they are tangent to the circle. After that they start going back down.

perspective made it look flat for three miles over it!
No, perspective did not make it look flat.
You keep spouting this BS, but you cannot justify it at all.

The curve comes in at the horizon, but still isn’t seen as a curve! It never is seen at all!
It is, with objects beyond the horizon appearing lower and lower, appearing to sink into the ground.

Again, you cannot explain just how you expect to see this curve in a manner you can defend.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2025, 12:46:11 PM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #458 on: January 05, 2025, 01:02:45 PM »
Past a curve three miles out, it becomes a greater curve
No, it remains basically the same curve, with the same radius of curvature, roughly 6371 km.

The fact is that any curved surface which cannot be seen beyond a specific distance
Again, try it honestly.
A specific distance BASED UPON YOUR ALTITUDE.

Because guess what?
If you keep your altitude the same, you cannot see further than the horizon.
You can move around, and see different locations with the horizon remaining the same distance.

Or you can get higher, at which point you can see further, as expected based upon simple geometry which has been explained to you and shown to you repeatedly.
But like the lying POS you are, you ignore all that and repeat the same refuted BS.

Again, here is a simple diagram that shows you are a lying POS:


The red line marks the horizontal position of the observer.
The blue line is a low altitude observer.
There line of sight goes tangent to Earth quite close. So much so they cannot see any of the black object in the distance.
The purple line of sight is for a higher altitude observer.
Their greater altitude allows them to see further, and now they can see part of the black object.
The remaining line is for a higher altitude still, where now they are high enough to see the base of the black object.


If you want to keep repeating this BS and make it seems like you aren't just a pathetic lying POS, coming up with whatever lies you can to pretend your BS works and the RE doesn't; then you need far more than just repeating the same lies.

What you would need to do is show how far you should be able to see on a round Earth, ideally showing the derivation of it, and showing how that doesn't allow you to see further with increasing altitude.

Otherwise, even a child can understand you are lying to everyone, from simple things like peeking around a corner.

means when Jackass the bozo said horizons look slightly lower,using a bs edited image
You mean after the lying POS repeatedly falsely claimed the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level (or equivalent) the honest person provided simple photos showing that is not the case.
Unable to refute these photos, or provide any evidence of their own, they lying POS yet again lied to everyone, claiming they were fake or manipulated and couldn't be trusted, although the lying POS provided nothing to justify those claims.
Then the lying POS said that method was not suitable (with no justification) and instead provided an entirely unsuitable method - having the horizon appear in the middle of a window of an aircraft.
The lying POS then lied to everyone, by falsely claiming the horizon appears in the middle of airplane windows, and provide links to images allegedly showing this, the honest person took those images and demonstrated to everyone that the horizon was BELOW the middle, showing the lying POS was lying to everyone.
Then because the lying POS is unable to be honest, they lied again by pretending these were images the honest person came up with.

Your truly are a lying POS and your dishonesty knows no bounds.

There is a big, impossible to solve problem with the ball Earth scumbags
Yet you are entirely incapable of showing any problem.

Why can’t they show what Earth looks like, from the ground up into a ball Earth in space, with actual measurements and what we’d see?
You can.

Have you ever seen a simulation
Have you ever tried making one?
What purpose would it serve?
Lying POS like you will just ignore it.

Because of what we’d actually see on an Earth ball, would not look at all like what we DO see!
How? Just what would be so different?
You keep asserting pure BS with no justification at all.

This is something we can easily simulate today with computers
So why haven't you?
Is it because you know it will demonstrate you are a lying POS and that what we see in reality matches what it expected for a round Earth?

You say it should be easy, so go do it.

And have you actually bothered looking? Of course not. You just boldly proclaim that something doesn't exist, to pretend your delusional BS is true.
You are literally appealing to your wilful ignorance to claim it doesn't exist, to then make a massive logical leap to pretend you must be right.

Have you found this:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

No matter how high above it he would go, he’d never see the surface higher up than on the surface of it.
That’s the secret they don’t want us to know or see.
No, that is the reality you keep fleeing from, because in reality, the horizon drops with altitude.
You fled from simple pictures showing that, and then lied to everyone, provided links which showed you lied to everyone, and then fled from the exposure of your lies and lied about the origin of the images.

Any simulation of a ball Earth would not show what we actually see on or above Earth.
PROVE IT!
Make sure you compare to what we actually see, not what you desperately hope we would see.


Now again, stop with all your pathetic BS, and try honestly answering the questions for once in your life, or admit to everyone you have no answer and have no explanation for how it works on a flat Earth
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #459 on: January 05, 2025, 09:33:48 PM »
Past a curve three miles out, it becomes a greater curve, it doesn’t stay the same size curve or lesser curved.

The fact is that any curved surface which cannot be seen beyond a specific distance, which you claim is beyond three miles away, will have a greater and greater curve over it after three miles out.

Anyone with half a brain knows what that means, even you know it.

To explain it to any moron out there, that means when Jackass the bozo said horizons look slightly lower,using a bs edited image, it was the best he could come up with, and it’s not even close to what we’d see above a ball Earth.

There is a big, impossible to solve problem with the ball Earth scumbags….

Why can’t they show what Earth looks like, from the ground up into a ball Earth in space, with actual measurements and what we’d see?

Because it doesn’t translate correctly as an actual ball Earth WOULD look like to us in reality.

Have you ever seen a simulation of what we’d see on a sphere that gets larger and larger to Earth size?

No, there’s none to see. I’ve looked for any, but nothing at all yet.

But then I thought why isn’t there anything showing a simulation of our view on a sphere…

Because of what we’d actually see on an Earth ball, would not look at all like what we DO see!

This is something we can easily simulate today with computers, so why isn’t it shown online by now?

That hit me recently after I saw someone on top of the Vegas sphere, in the center of it.

Even though it’s much smaller than Earth as a ball would be, it showed that all around him went downward as a curve.

No matter how high above it he would go, he’d never see the surface higher up than on the surface of it.

That’s the secret they don’t want us to know or see.

Any simulation of a ball Earth would not show what we actually see on or above Earth.

i gave you the costco shopping carts.
wheres' teh response?



i finally re-found it!
gave this to sceppy a few years back - he feigned ignorance and asked we explain it in detail (classic sceppy deflection).
will you accept how circles work?






« Last Edit: January 05, 2025, 09:36:39 PM by Themightykabool »

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #460 on: January 11, 2025, 02:23:06 AM »
They don’t show what we’d see going above a ball Earth at all.

Rising higher and higher above a large FLAT surface is what we DO see, a surface that always appears to rise up with us, seen directly across from us at all distances, and always a straight across Earth line of a horizon seen.

Even you have to understand this cannot happen, would never be seen above a ball Earth. It’s impossible above ANY sphere.

When we rise above any size sphere, what would happen?

It’s a very easy question, and a very easy answer.

So easy, they don’t want us to see what happens when rising above a sphere, any sphere at all.

Look at any ball of any size. Imagine it is the Earth.

Look at the guy who went atop the Vegas sphere, showing him along the surface of it.

That’s a good sized sphere to start with.

Now imagine the Vegas sphere grows into an ever larger sphere, until it’s the size of a ball Earth.

Now you’re a tiny speck on that massive ball, but it doesn’t change what happens when you rise above it.

The surface you’d see from the surface of that ball, will never be seen rising higher than on the surface itself. Spheres always curve downward, no matter how slightly a curve over it.

There is a truth that’s so easy to understand, so easy to simulate, and that’s why they try so hard to keep it a secret from us.

Any size of a sphere is the same, the surface always curves downward and lower from you.

You claim it is slightly lower at some altitude. Then show me how it keeps getting lower and lower as we rise higher up! 

I’ve seen some images showing a curved horizon from a plane, supposedly. The problem is that it’s seen directly across from them! It would be far lower than that, but they forgot about that part, they just wanted to show it ‘curved’ along the horizon here!

Perspective acts on flat surfaces over a distance, while it acts on other surfaces if they’re close to a flat surface over a distance.

Your floor is a flat surface, or hopefully is flat. You’ve shown how it appears to be rising up, but you don’t realize how it’s too small yet.

Horizons only form over longer distances on flat surfaces.

Periscopes view above the surface in waters, and wow, what do they see through them?

They see horizons through periscopes, but they’re less than three miles away from them.

They are used to sight enemy ships that are nearby the subs, with a periscope that allows them to view ships undetected below water.

Periscopes have gauges on them, with a cross section of lines, straight lines, horizontal and vertical in direction. Same an any scope on a rifle does.

The subs do not fire any torpedoes based on any curvature to a ship, which could be two miles away. They’d be a few inches off, but it’s not off at all.

A few inches off target can be lethal to a sub, but they know it’s very accurate.





Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #461 on: January 11, 2025, 08:24:32 AM »
So..... exactly what the vidoe shows is what we see in reality.

Hurray!



*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #462 on: January 12, 2025, 01:33:22 AM »
They don’t show what we’d see going above a ball Earth at all.
Why? Because you say so?

Rising higher and higher above a large FLAT surface is what we DO see, a surface that always appears to rise up with us, seen directly across from us at all distances
No, that is explicitly what we don't see. As shown repeatedly, including by YOUR OWN EVIDENCE!

When we rise above any size sphere, what would happen?
It’s a very easy question, and a very easy answer.
And it has been answered, repeatedly, and matches what is observed in reality on Earth.
We can see further and the horizon gets lower.

I’ve seen some images showing a curved horizon from a plane, supposedly. The problem is that it’s seen directly across from them!
BASED ON WHAT?
Where is the reference you are using in this image?
As a reminder, the images YOU PICKED shows this is a blatant lie from you.

It would be far lower than that
PROVE IT!
Do the math.

Perspective acts on flat surfaces over a distance, while it acts on other surfaces if they’re close to a flat surface over a distance.
Perspective acts on ALL surfaces.

Horizons only form over longer distances on flat surfaces.
Horizons do not form over flat surfaces, as there is no mechanism for it to do so.
That is why you keep fleeing from the question of how?

They see horizons through periscopes, but they’re less than three miles away from them.
Yes, something you cannot explain.
You cannot explain the distance to the horizon at all.

The subs do not fire any torpedoes based on any curvature to a ship
Citation needed.

They’d be a few inches off, but it’s not off at all.
A few inches on a target that is several m wide and tall.
And on what basis do you say it's not off at all?


Now again, stop with all your pathetic BS, and try honestly answering the questions for once in your life, or admit to everyone you have no answer and have no explanation for how it works on a flat Earth
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #463 on: February 01, 2025, 12:13:52 AM »
Horizons aren’t ever seen lower at any altitude of planes.

If Earth were a ball, we’d see them ever more lower when we are higher and higher above Earth.

The size of a ball doesn’t matter at all. It’s the same for any ball.

It’s hard to imagine how it would look because no large enough ball exists on Earth.

But we can certainly model what we’d see above a ball, higher and higher above the ball.

But we now have one ball built on Earth, in Vegas, which is very large, even though it’s much smaller than a ball earth would be, it’s still a good example of what we’d see if earth were a ball.

Look at the photos of a man who climbed on top of the Vegas sphere.

See the photos of him in the middle point of the curved surface.

Everywhere around him curves downward from him.

There’s no rising up surface, no rising up horizons that exist on any ball of any size.

The effects of perspective don’t continue over a ball, at any distance over any size of ball.

Perspective will only act on a large enough ball that’s almost a flat surface for a distance over it. Not as much as a flat surface, but close to it.

A rising up surface is seen on flat or close to flat surfaces.

A curving downward surface on a ball is not even seen for any perspective to act at all.

This is easily proven by having both surfaces, equal in size or length outward on them.

Look at a long floor, which should be mainly flat over it.

It seems to rise upward, more and more in the distance, of course.

But how would the curved surface look over it?

If the curve over it was very slight, then it is almost a flat surface over it, so it would rise upward in the distance, but rise lesser and lesser over more distance out on it. The biggest it would rise up is near to us, but rise less and less up with more distance.

Atop a ball, the surface never appears to keep rising up and up with more distance. It curves downward more and more with distance.

I’ve asked you that if our surface WAS curved over it, how would you make it any more flat than it already is now?

If you believe it would be more flat because it would appear to rise higher and higher forever in the distance, and we’d still see over the whole surface, like we see over it for three miles out or so…..it would rise up so high to be seen and block out the entire sky above us, within a few hundred miles out, or less than that maybe.

When you claim we’d see over the entire flat surface because it would only rise up slighter and slighter in more distance out, this is physically impossible to see over that whole surface.

When the surface has risen up as high as a skyscraper, by a thousand miles out in the distance, we’d never see over the rooftop of any skyscraper, or any surface that same height as the skyscraper.

If we saw from a camera on a flat floor over a huge warehouse, a few mm above the surface, we’d not see over the whole flat surface of the floor either.

We know the entire surface of that floor is flat.

Your argument is to deny any long surface is actually flat. There are such flat surfaces, that’s absolute fact. They’re measured as entirely flat over them too.

You only accept a surface is flat when it’s not long enough to form a horizon! So you believe only shorter surfaces can ever be flat! Only a shorter surface can possibly be flat, never a longer surface can be flat!

Anything but the truth works out well for you


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #464 on: February 01, 2025, 09:24:22 AM »
Not hard to imagine



*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #465 on: February 01, 2025, 12:50:25 PM »
Horizons aren’t ever seen lower at any altitude of planes.
Yes they are.
The evidence you provided demonstrated that.
Repeating the same lie wont help you; it just shows your desperation.

The size of a ball doesn’t matter at all. It’s the same for any ball.
The size of the ball most certainly does matter.
The angle of dip to the horizon is a=arccosine(r/(r+h)).
Notice 2 key terms:
r and h.
The only way in which the size of the ball doesn't matter is if h is always expressed as a multiple of the radius.

e.g. seeing the Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, from an altitude of 10 km, can be expressed as seeing a generic ball from a height of 0.00157 radii above it.

It’s hard to imagine how it would look
It is trivial, because we see it all the time on Earth.
What appears to be hard for some people to understand and imagine is seeing a flat surface.

But we can certainly model what we’d see above a ball, higher and higher above the ball.
And when you do, you find it matches Earth.

Look at the photos of a man who climbed on top of the Vegas sphere.
No, go get a photo from that perspective, i.e. from the top of the sphere.

We are not far away in space looking at Earth from a distance.

There’s no rising up surface, no rising up horizons that exist on any ball of any size.
You have already admitted that is a blatant lie.
You have already admitted that even on a ball, it would initially appear to rise.

Again, the fundamental distinction between a curved surface like a ball and a flat surface is that for a flat surface it will continue to rise forever; while for a round surface it eventually stops.

Again, this is simple geometry.

The effects of perspective don’t continue over a ball, at any distance over any size of ball.
If that were true, all you would ever see of any ball is a point.

Again, it is truly quite simple, imagine you are standing on that sphere.
Look directly down. You can see the sphere.
Now, look up a tiny bit.
Do you still see the sphere?
If so, that is perspective at work, making it appear higher, i.e. at a greater angle of elevation.

If your delusional BS was true, you would just see the point directly below you.

Perspective will only act on a large enough
Again, perspective acts on ALL surfaces.
It is simple geometry. It is not some magic from a flat surface like you want to pretend.

Again, perspective is simple a=atan(h/d). (if expressed as angle of dip. If you want to express it as angle of elevation it is -atan(h/d) or equivalently atan(-h/d))

Where for an observer standing on a flat surface a height of h0 above the surface, that will simply be a=atan(h0/d).
But for an observer standing on a sphere, at a height of h0 above that sphere, then as an approximation for reasonable distances it will be a=atan(h0/d + d/2r)
For longer distances, you need to decide if you want d to be along the surface or directly away from the observer, and use a more correct formula for the drop.

It will act on all surfaces.

This is easily proven
Then why are you completely incapable of doing so?


Again, if your delusional BS was true, it would be easily proven by placing your head above a ball, looking down at it, and seeing just a point.
It is easily disproven by looking at a ball and seeing more than a point.

But how would the curved surface look over it?
It would rise until it reaches a point where curvature is more significant and then it goes back down, creating the horizon.
You know that thing you cannot explain at all in your delusional fantasy?

I’ve asked you that if our surface WAS curved over it, how would you make it any more flat than it already is now?
And we have told you. By removing the horizon, and having the surface continue to rise.
The horizon would not drop down as you go higher as it has been observed to, including in your evidence.
You would not be able to see further by going higher.
You would not have objects disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.

it would rise up so high to be seen and block out the entire sky above us
No, it wouldn't.
Stop spouting this delusional BS.
You have had it refuted countless times and you can offer NOTHING to support it.

this is physically impossible to see over that whole surface.
This depends upon what distance you want to look at.
The distance from 5 to 10 km has a larger angular size than from 4 to 5 km.
We can see that 4 to 5 km, so why can't we see the 5 to 10?
And this being a limitation of angular resolution, rather than a physical horizon, would mean the distance you can see would depend on what optics you use.

More importantly, we also have objects ABOVE the surface. Including ones which are clearly resolvable, yet appear to have their bottom hidden as if they have sunk.
That would NEVER happen on a flat surface.
Instead, you would see the object as a scaled down version of it when it is closer.

What we see is fundamentally incompatible with a flat Earth, but is expected for a RE.

When the surface has risen up as high as a skyscraper
It hasn't.
Remember, this is just angles.
atan(-h/d).
You will never get it to the point of going above where a skyscraper would be.

we’d never see over the rooftop of any skyscraper, or any surface that same height as the skyscraper.
Which is irrelevant, because we are talking about a surface that is below us. Not above us.

If we saw from a camera on a flat floor over a huge warehouse, a few mm above the surface, we’d not see over the whole flat surface of the floor either.
Is this surface flat, or level?

If it is flat, we would see over the entire surface, and again, far more importantly, if you had a box on the other side of the warehouse, you would see the entire box. The bottom would not be hidden from view.

Your argument is to deny any long surface is actually flat. There are such flat surfaces, that’s absolute fact.
Prove it.

Anything but the truth works out well for you
Says the one who provided their own evidence which shows they are wrong, then proceeded to lie about it continually and still repeats the same claim that was refuted by the evidence they provided.
You run from the truth at all costs.
Your own evidence showed you are a lying POS.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #466 on: February 14, 2025, 11:55:38 PM »
Saying we’d see the whole surface is worthless bs.

Using three miles out seen over it, you cannot continue endlessly to see over the whole surface.

The actual angle being lower than us, does not reflect what happens visually or even physically.

Even though the physical surface is always lower than us, the real angle doesn’t matter at all.

Angles affect the physical and visual world, not the mathematics of it.

Perspective rules over mathematics of the same surface not rising up at all.

Math doesn’t account for the physical or visual world. It’s not used for that.

Actual mathematics and their equations of the same height of surface, don’t reflect the physical and visual realities of the surface.

Carrying the actual math and actual angles to the extreme, say it’s to one micron, doesn’t make any difference to the real world.

The roof of a highrise would be the eventual height over your endlessly seen rising up flat surface.

Why would it matter if the top of a skyscraper isn’t lower than our flat surface? You claim it would always appear higher and higher, the same as if it WAS higher and higher in reality!

Visually, the flat surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher. So it would eventually ‘appear’ as high up as the top of a highrise, wouldn’t it?

Imagine the top of the highrise out on the flat ever rising up surface to that point.

There’s no difference if it’s lower than you or higher than you as it appears to rise or actually rises higher up.

The surface is lower than us three miles out, but looks higher than us, as if it really WAS higher than us!


*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #467 on: February 15, 2025, 01:08:28 AM »
Saying we’d see the whole surface is worthless bs.
No, your pathetic attempt to dismiss it is worthless BS.

Using three miles out seen over it, you cannot continue endlessly to see over the whole surface.
And using 2 m out you magically end up not being able to see 10 m in front of you.
That is just BS.

Like I said, try actually coming up with a justification for why we can't see further, and what distance we can see to.

The actual angle being lower than us, does not reflect what happens visually or even physically.

Even though the physical surface is always lower than us, the real angle doesn’t matter at all.
Your statement makes no sense.
How can an angle be lower?

What happens visually is that real angle. Because that is how our eyes work.

You want to pretend it is magically appearing to rise.
It isn't.
It is simply the angle of elevation increasing, or alternatively phrased, the angle of dip decreasing.

Math doesn’t account for the physical or visual world. It’s not used for that.
No, that is one of the primary purposes of math.
To understand, explain and predict what happens in the real world.

Actual mathematics and their equations of the same height of surface, don’t reflect the physical and visual realities of the surface.
Yes, they do.
If you actually do the math.

Carrying the actual math and actual angles to the extreme, say it’s to one micron, doesn’t make any difference to the real world.

The roof of a highrise would be the eventual height over your endlessly seen rising up flat surface.
No, it wouldn't.
You have no basis for that at all.
Why should it be like that?

You just come up with this BS because you cannot justify your BS at all.

Why would it matter if the top of a skyscraper isn’t lower than our flat surface?
Because the top of the skyscraper being above us means the angle of elevation is positive, while the surface being below us gives us a negative angle of elevation.

You claim it would always appear higher and higher, the same as if it WAS higher and higher in reality!
Not like you want to pretend.
If you want to represent it as physically higher, then you need to make it closer, and keep the ratio intact.
i.e. for a flat surface, if something 1 km away is 2 m below you, then that is the same as being 2 mm below you at 1 km away.

You cannot magically make it 100 m above you, because that changes the ratio.

Visually, the flat surface appears to keep rising up higher and higher. So it would eventually ‘appear’ as high up as the top of a highrise, wouldn’t it?
No, because the rate at which it rises gets lower and lower.

It is like compounding interest.

Say you have $100 in a bank, and they give you 100% interest per annum.
But they only pay it once, at the end of the year.
Doing that you get $100 at the end of the year, bringing your balance to $200.

But what if they pay it more frequently?
If they do it twice a year, then you get 50% every half year.
Then the first time you get $50, bringing your balance to $150.
Then at the end of the year you get an extra $75, bringing your total to $225.
What if they do it 3 times?
Then the first time you get $33, bringing your total to $133.
Then you get $44, bringing you to $178.
Then you get $59, bringing you to $237

Notice how it keeps going up?
The more frequently it gets compounded, the more you end up with at the end.

By your complete lack of logic, this means you should end up with infinite money if they doing it in small enough increments.
But if you notice, the first time you went up by $25.
Then you went up by $12.
Then by $7.
It keeps going up by smaller amounts.
Eventually the increase is basically nothing, but it continues to go up, approaching a limit, that limit being roughly $271.83.

Likewise, we can even just look at adding numbers.
Start with 1, then add 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, then 1/16, and so on.
Each time the sum goes up, but by a smaller amount.
The sum, while always getting bigger, will never be greater than 2.

Likewise, the angle of elevation will continue to rise for a flat surface, but never go above 0 degrees.

There’s no difference if it’s lower than you or higher than you as it appears to rise or actually rises higher up.
But there is a difference between it rising from 2 m below to 1 m below you, and it rising from 2 m below you to 100 m above you.
The key difference there is one is remaining below, while the other is not.

The surface is lower than us three miles out, but looks higher than us, as if it really WAS higher than us!
No, it does NOT look higher than us.
Not even most FEers claim that.
Instead, they claim it appears level with our eyes.
But if you actually measure it precisely, you find it is still BELOW.

Even the FE high prophet Row Boat admitted that, but then made excuses and dismissed it.

Again, if you want to defend your BS and appear to be doing it honestly, tell us how far away the horizon should be, complete with a justification.

Before you go spouting the crap about 3 miles again, remember, the ground at your feet is straight down, i.e. -90 degrees.
Assuming an eye height of 2 m, by 2 m into the distance it has risen to -45 degrees.
If we continued at that rate, by 4 it would be 0 degrees, by 8 it would be +90 degrees, entirely blocking out your vision.

We know that clearly is not the case and it doesn't continue at the same rate.
So don't waste everyone's time by appealing to that crap.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #468 on: February 15, 2025, 02:51:39 AM »
Rising up less and less would not allow the entire surface to be seen anymore. We cannot see a sliver of it a bit higher than before. It is physically impossible to see over an inch higher over the entire surface from our position far away from it. Instruments wouldn’t see it either, they work from the visible surface as we do by eye, only magnified by instruments.

When it’s half an inch higher up a thousand miles out, tell me how we’d ever see the entire surface an inch higher up….

Show your work please, I really want to see what you come up with

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #469 on: February 15, 2025, 01:58:29 PM »
Rising up less and less would not allow the entire surface to be seen anymore.
Yes it would.

As the math already shows.

The important point to remember is that we have quite decent optics which can zoom in and magnify distant objects.
This includes being able to easily resolve an object, and see that part is obstructed by Earth with the object appearing to have sank into Earth.

Remember, it is not just the surface, it is also objects on/above the surface.

If you wish to claim the angular size magically limits our vision, please provide the math giving the distance to the horizon, and explaining why the choice of optics don't effect it at all.