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

How constant?


If thw ball model were real.
If
iF!
The "rate" would be something of angle change of an 8,000sided polygon.
What is the angle?

Say it.

The distance out to all horizons is a constant rate based on our height above the surface

No it isn't.
As an approximation, the distance is roughly equal to the square root of your height.

Just look at what you have said already.
3 miles for an observer height of 6 ft.
But also this:

It’s about 250 miles out from 30000 feet, not a thousand, we’d need to be much higher up for that

Compare those 2 ratios.
In one case, half a mile for every foot (so 6*0.5=3)
Using that for the second case, we should have roughly 30000*0.5 = 15000 miles.
Yet we have nothing like that.
Instead, the ratio for the second case is 0.0083, i.e 30 000 * 0.0083 = 250.
Drastically different ratios showing once more you are spouting pure BS.

If you had a constant ratio you should be able to see roughly 15 000 miles. Yet no one can.

Now lets compare that to an alternative idea, where the ratio is between the height to the square of the distance?
Then instead of it being 6 ft to 3 miles, it will be 6 to 9.
That gives us a ratio of 1.5.
And instead of it being 30 000 ft to 250 miles, it is 30 000 to 62 500, a ratio of roughly 2.
Still not quite constant, but a hell of a lot closer than your BS claim, and when we note that these are rough numbers rather than accurate numbers, it certainly works out well.
e.g. if we did want a constant ratio for the square, of 1.5, then 30 000 ft would have a horizon distance of 212 miles.


But what is abundantly clear is that IT IS NOT A CONSTANT RATE!
So care to stop lying to everyone?

You said you had a magical formula. Why don't you provide it?

As I’ve already told you, this cannot happen over a curved surface

So what doesn't happen in reality can't happen over a round surface? No problem there.
All you are doing is showing Earth can be round.

And if you say a flat surface must do that then you are showing Earth can't be flat.

You keep on saying that horizons are lower at higher altitudes above Earth, which is complete bs.

No, it is a fact which you cannot refute.
A fact which has been verified by countless people.
All you can do to refute the evidence is dismiss it as fake.
You then tried to turn to other BS which wouldn't help you at all and even got that wrong.

That’s why we can easily prove it’s always the same apparent height at all altitudes when we see them from plane windows on each side of the plane.

Unless you have a level reference YOU CAN"T, because any idiot can twist or tweak an image to make a lower horizon in it.

Again, just showing the horizon through a window is entirely useless.
You have no indication of what level should be.
If you are above the centre of the window, then looking through the centre is looking down.
If you are below the centre of the window, then looking through the centre is looking up.
Without a level reference such a picture is useless.

Nor compare that to what was provided to you:
A pipe half filled with water so the water at the 2 ends of the pipe self level.
This provides a clear level reference.
And it is clear that the horizon is BELOW that.

You have literally NOTHING to indicate the horizon is level, and have been provided evidence showing it is BELOW level.
Yet all you can do is dismiss that evidence as fake and continue to claim the same refuted BS.

Why don't you go to the top of a tall mountain, and try the setup yourself.
If you want something simpler, go get a fish tank and fill it with water at the top of the mountain.

When we see both sides of both horizons at the same height in both windows at the same time,

Assuming you are at the centre of the plane, and the plane is flying level, it shows the horizon is at the same angle.
It does NOT show it is level.

A child can understand this. Why do you keep playing dumb?
This does NOTHING to show it is level.
You have no level reference in the view.

We could draw a straight line across plane windows at the exact middle of them, and it would be seen at that line in all planes at any altitude when flying level.

Yet for those you provided I clearly demonstrated it wasn't.
Again, you are lying to everyone.

If Earth were a ball, the horizon you believe is a bit lower, would be much lower than that

Why?
You keep asserting this BS yet provide nothing to justify it.
Again, if you wish to assert this crap DO THE MATH!
If you can't, stop lying to everyone.

Every instrument on planes also measure and confirm they are flying level as well, of course.

Which does nothing to demonstrate the horizon is at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.

And all your tricks won’t save this bs story.

You mean your tricks wont save your BS story.

Horizons are purely illusions that form on a rising up surface that is ALSO an illusion, and both are illusions of perspective.

An "illusion" you cannot explain at all, but which is trivial to explain as a real physical phenomenon based upon simple geometry when you use a round Earth to get a horizon.

There is NOTHING to suggest it is an illusion. You are just desperate to pretend it is so you can pretend it is pure magic and can do whatever you need it to to make your BS fantasy work.

Stop with the BS and try to explain it.
What magic is causing this horizon?

The entire surface up to a horizon IS flat, and is SEEN as flat.

You keep asserting this BS yet cannot justify it in any way.
How is it seen as flat?
What visual observation are you making?
Do you know the ways to see a surface as flat?
Place it so you look directly along the surface, from just a tiny bit above, and you can see the entire surface.
If the surface curves, you see that curve as either part of the surface sticking up quite high, or part not being able to be seen.
You can further confirm by changing the angle to see if you can then see around that curve.

And guess what? That shows us Earth is round.

There is NOTHING to indicate the surface is flat.
You just keep asserting it because you are desperate to pretend it is.

It is a constant single rate to all horizons from any height above the surface. It does not account for any curvature at all, which it must if there was curvature on Earths surface.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
It is NOT a constant ratio, as shown above.

The higher above a curved surface would show ever lower horizons on the distance.

And it does. If you honestly measure it instead of just looking at it and asserting it is level with NOTHING to support that claim.

So do you really believe that we don’t see horizons halfway up our plane windows when at 30000 feet?

I think you can get it to appear at almost any height on the window just by changing your position.
But the "evidence" you provided before clearly shows it BELOW level.

You are lying to everyone.

Don’t try giving me this bs lie that I’ve seen myself, that many have seen many times themselves, that they show images and videos of online, you lie as if it’s second nature to you, but your bs just shows what you really are, and it’s only going to bite you in the ass on judgement day, no avoiding your sins on earth.

There you go projecting again.
As a reminder, you tried to provide photos and videos as evidence of this claim of yours. I then took that and clealry demonstrated that you were lying to everyone, that the horizon was NOT half way up the window.
And what was your response? Just ignore it all only to spout the same lies again later.

You have shown everyone here that YOU are a compulsive liar, that lying is second nature TO YOU; and that you will happily repeat the same refuted lie again and again to pretend your dishonest delusional BS is true.
As a reminder:

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2024, 08:12:50 PM

Here’s a few examples of this..

Which you clearly haven't even bothered checking.

For your first one:

The line going straight down is 704 px long.
The purple line was then drawn on top to be half that. Notice that it stops ABOVE the horizon?

The second one, clearly not taken as a level view given how you can see the inside of the bottom but not the top.

But again, the line from top to bottom is 380 px, with the purple line again half.
The horizon is quite clearly BELOW level.
Yet that doesn't stop lying scum from lying to everyone and claiming it is magically level.

The last example, the video, is even better, because it shows the horizon moving around relative to the window as the camera moves.

So all these examples demonstrate is that you're a lying POS that doesn't care about the truth at all;
and that if you want a reference, it really needs to allow a line to be constructed and followed to the horizon.
Like the references provided in the images provided by those supporting reality, clearly showing the horizon drops as you get higher.

See how the horizon is clearly BELOW the mid point?

It is the evidence YOU provided clearly showing you are a lying POS.

And the second one is really great.
Because we can see the inside of the inner frame of the window at the bottom but not at the top it is clear that this view is from ABOVE the midpoint of the window looking down, meaning the horizon, being below the midpoint, MUST be below level.

Now care to stop lying to everyone and try to answer the questions that also clearly demonstrate you are a lying POS?

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?

They’re not even the same angle of view!!!

We usually sit in the same seat for flights, our normal viewing angle doesn’t change during a flight.

This shows two different angles of the window during the flight, even you aren’t that stupid to not see that, right?

I’ve seen exactly where horizons are from plane windows, and they never change, never seen lower at all, and I’m not the only one that’s seen it as I’ve seen it.

The next time you or anyone here is on a plane during the day, hopefully in clear skies, notice where you see the horizon in your window. It’s most likely halfway up the window.

If you can, see where the horizon is out the other sides window, from another seat there if it’s empty.

Look again at any other altitudes too. If the plane is flying level, it’ll always be halfway up each sides windows.

I’ve seen exactly where horizons are from planes for over 45 years, the last thing I need is a bs artist showing me this garbage as if it’s true!

Look out the windows and see where the horizon is, from your seat.

And if it did appear lower, they’d state each altitude of it, and we’d see it lower at those altitudes, it wouldn’t be an issue of debate.

The debate is over, the truth is seen by us every day from planes, and it’s always the same height, halfway up our windows when it’s flying level.

I’ve had enough of your bs to last a lifetime. Stop already, it’s really irritating.

They’re not even the same angle of view!!!

THEY ARE WHAT YOU PROVIDED!
So before you object to it, remember that, and object to yourself.
Go call a dishonest, lying POS for providing it.

But appealing to the angle just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

The simple fact is those pictures, and the BS you are suggesting in general, has no ability to determine where level is.
So the horizon appearing in the middle of the window would not show it is level.

And again, have you honestly examined what the view is?
We can easily see that this is looking down. And yet the horizon is still below the middle of the window.

As I explained before, if you are looking down through the window, then the middle of the window is BELOW level, and so the horizon being below that shows the horizon is below level.

So again, your own evidence shows you are a lying POS!
Your own evidence shows that the horizon is BELOW level, just like we expect for a round Earth, and nothing like what is expected for a FE.

So stop with all the pathetic BS and start trying to defend your BS fantasy without just continually rejecting reality because you don't like.

The debate is over, the truth is seen

Yes, the debate is over, your own evidence shows you are a lying POS.
Grow up, and stop spouting BS.

Answer the questions or admit you can't explain any of it with 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?

Look at any of the calculators that give the distance to any horizon from any height above the surface,,it’s that simple.

Only a flat surface makes this possible. No formula here for a curved surface, it would vary greatly with more height above a ball and not be a constant rate at all.

Another point - they never mention the apparent height we see those horizons. It is the same height obviously or it would be noted.

Not only that, it would mean they can’t have a single constant rate of distance to horizons either. Thankfully no ball Earth exists for such problems would be impossible to excuse. They know it’s flat, but they want you to use your brain and figure that out yourself. Good to use one’s own brain like God meant for us to use.

Forlmua for angle between an 8,000sided polygon?

Is geometry part of the conspiracy?

Look at any of the calculators that give the distance to any horizon from any height above the surface,,it’s that simple.

You mean all the ones using round Earth math?
e.g. this one here:
https://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

2 m gives me 5.1 km.
20 m gives me 16.
This is quite obviously a different ratio.
Why didn't 20 m give me 51 km, or alternatively 2 m give me 1.6 km?
Going up to 200 m gives me 50.5 km.
So increasing the height by a factor of 100 only increases the distance by roughly a factor of 10.
This matches what is expected for a round surface.

No formula here for a curved surface, it would vary greatly with more height above a ball and not be a constant rate at all.

And what we see is the exact opposite.
IT IS NOT A CONSTANT RATE!
Instead, the rate varies with altitude, just like we would expect for a round Earth.

You yet again appeal to a formula. Why don't you provide it?
Provide the formula you think describes the distance to the horizon.
And then I'll show you where the curvature of Earth is.

Another point - they never mention the apparent height we see those horizons. It is the same height obviously or it would be noted.

And once more appealing to your wilful ignorance.
You are specifically looking for a calculator to see the DISTANCE. Why then would it tell you the angle?

If you want the angle, why don't you look for a calculator for that?
But some do give it.
e.g. this one here:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

And again, THE EVIDENCE YOU PROVIDED shows clearly that the horizon goes below level.
You have no excuse now.

Not only that, it would mean they can’t have a single constant rate of distance to horizons either.

And they don't, as shown repeatedly.

Care to stop ignoring that fact?

Thankfully no ball Earth exists for such problems would be impossible to excuse.

You mean it does exist and your repeatedly are impossible to excuse.

want you to use your brain and figure that out yourself.

Perhaps you should try that some time.


Now again, answer the questions or admit you can't explain any of it with 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?

We know if our plane is flying level by each side having equally high horizons seen out each sides windows, seen from each sides seats out their windows.

Each window must be viewed out as level. Out from the center of it. They show horizons halfway up level views out of plane windows, at all altitudes you are at.

You deliberately picked out two different viewing angles out the window, it’s easy to see by its outer frame not being level in them both. I told you it must be seen from your seat at all altitudes and out both sides of the plane. You did the very opposite instead, well done being a fool again!

We know if our plane is flying level by each side having equally high horizons seen out each sides windows, seen from each sides seats out their windows.

Which in no way demonstrates the horizon is level.

Each window must be viewed out as level.

At which point you are just moving the problem.
How are you verifying that you are viewing them level?

They show horizons halfway up level views out of plane windows, at all altitudes you are at.

Repeating the same pathetic lies wont help you.

Again, a view looking down, means the middle of the window is below level, and anything below that is further below level.
So the picture YOU PROVIDED shows the horizon is BELOW level.
Lying will not save you. It just shows everyone that you are a dishonest, lying POS willing to spout whatever dishonest BS you think will save you.

You deliberately picked out two different viewing angles out the window

No, YOU picked those.

As a reminder, you provided them here:

Plane window frames show exactly what we see of horizons at all altitudes above Earth is always halfway up the windows.

Here’s a few examples of this..

https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/airplane-window-view-on-the-clouds-and-blue-sky-horizon-plane-wing-vertical-view-in-porthole/269019636

https://flux-image.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fai.flux-image.com%2Fflux%2F3e5830dc-7607-4d0c-aba2-7b5bb4c76927.jpg&w=3840&q=75

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1111637939-passenger-pov-looking-out-plane-window

You were so desperate to pretend the horizon is level, and so deluded or arrogant that you just picked photos and provided without even checking to see if the evidence you provided matched your claims.
That is because you don't care what the evidence shows.
You have decided what you want reality to be, and will just pretend the evidence matches.

So the fool here is YOU! All the crap you are saying now about the photos not being write just demonstrates that you can't even get evidence to match what you claim.

YOU chose the photos and they demonstrated you are a lying POS.

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?

Okay, please draw the surface appearing to rise up as a curved surface with curved lines everywhere and see if it looks realistic or ridiculous.

Perspective cannot and does not flatten out curved surfaces and make them look like a flat surface which appears to rise up in the distance to horizons.

All you have to do is draw the slightest possible curve on the surface, but it must be a curve, no matter how slight it is.

Curves are not acted on by perspective, they only act when the curve is so slight it appears to be almost a flat surface

Okay, please draw

No. Stop with the pathetic deflections and repeating the same refuted BS.

It has been explained to you countless times how perspective will work on a round surface with you entirely incapable of showing any fault.

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?

We see depth and distances out in two dimensions, over a two dimensional flat plane or surface with straight lines and boundaries.

A curved surface is a three dimensional surface, not two dimensional.

Spheres as large as Earth don’t exist or are ever seen, so it’s hard to imagine what it would look like, but it would look very different than what we do see on Earth now.

Depth and distance out on a spherical curved surface doesn’t exist for longer views. The surface curves down below our view. Perspective is hard to depict on a drawing because it doesn’t exist or is ever seen by us on Earth.

That is why when it is drawn with a curved surface seen on ground or above ground, it doesn’t look realistic, because it’s not really curved at all.

If Earth was curved, the only reason we’d see it rise at all is over a short distance of a very slight curve it would have to that point. In other words, when it’s almost like a flat surface over a short distance. But it would still rise less than a flat surface would, and the horizon would be lower than on a flat surface. Beyond that distance, it is less flat and more curved, and ever less it would appear to rise up. The curve becomes ever greater and greater over more distance. It’s hard to imagine seeing this, but it would look very weird if we ever did.

We’ve simulated and drawn what we’d see on curved surfaces. No straight lines or flat surfaces look very odd to us. They don’t look real at all, and that’s because they aren’t real on Earth.

The curve makes you the highest point on a ball or sphere. You’re no higher or lower on a flat surface than anything out from you.

Again, look at your coffee table or floor, which are flat surfaces. They all appear to rise up higher over them, because of persoective acting over flat surfaces over more length or distance out from us.

The slightest curve over your table or floor would not rise as high over more distance, even if it’s close to the same height compared to it being fllat.

When we draw it slightly curved it looks different and off kilter in some way. It’s not what we ever see on Earth so it’s alien in its appearance, even if we just feel it is without seeing a curve at all,

Drawing a horizon three miles away is always done with straight converging and rising lines and a flat rising surface. To draw an eight inch curve must have slightly curved lines and a curving down surface outward and across it.

But the slightest curve drawn is not realistic or seen on Earth.

The largest real sphere is the one in Vegas, which is huge.

Someone climbed to the top of it recently, and did you see what it looked like?

Everywhere around him was curving lower away from him, even though it’s much much smaller than a ball Esrth would be.

Expanding that ball larger and larger would make it look less curved and more flat, but it cannot appear to rise up higher than him at any size it is. Even over one mile an eight inch downward curve is not going to look higher than you are. It’s would appear higher, but not any higher that you.

Persoective acts on all surfacres, but differently than over a flat surface,,no matter how much or less it is.

The illusion of a rising surface and converging lines is over a flat surface in two dimensions we view it over distances outward.

We see depth and distances out in two dimensions, over a two dimensional flat plane or surface with straight lines and boundaries.

No, we don't.
We see based upon angles. That would more appropriately described as a sphere.

A curved surface is a three dimensional surface, not two dimensional.

No, a surface is 2 dimensional. For a sphere, that uses latitude and longitude. 2 dimensions.
The surface is embedded in three dimensions.
A volume is 3D.

Spheres as large as Earth don’t exist or are ever seen

Except Earth and other planets.

so it’s hard to imagine what it would look like, but it would look very different than what we do see on Earth now.

And yet again such a BS statement.
You claim it is hard to imagine, but assert it must be different.
If you can't imagine it then you can't say what it would be like.

Conversely, I have explained repeatedly how it matches what is observed on Earth.

Depth and distance out on a spherical curved surface doesn’t exist for longer views. The surface curves down below our view.

i.e. you get a horizon, which blocks the view.
i.e. exactly what we see in reality.

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?

Perspective acts in all directions.
Left right up down

An infinitely long hallway vanishes into a point.

The ground does not literally "rise up" as you calim it should.

There is no conflict of conversation here...

The surface we see on Earth or above Earth can and has been drawn and simulated and looks exactly like we see it, right?

Yet it always has straight, converging lines and a flat surface which appears to be rising up in the distance. They never have any curved lines or curving downward surfaces on them.

So if you think they show a curved surface on them, how do you think a flat surface would look, because they are completely different surfaces, and must look different from one another?

At what point do you make it any MORE flat than it already IS?

Everything is flat and has straight lines which appear to converge, surfaces which appear entirely flat throughout and appear to rise.

You’re not going to make it any flatter than it is, because it IS a flat surface.

The largest of spheres will be curved over it.

More distance over a sphere makes it more and more curved downward.

It can appear to rise up, if it is a slight curve and a large sphere, because that makes it close to a flat surface. More like a flat surface is the reason persoective acts on it more, yet less than it acts on an actual flat surface.

When we see the surface still rising up at 30000 feet to see it across from us at that altitude, that is still a flat surface.

We’ve never had to look down from planes to see any horizons in the distance. We’d have to look more and more downward as we go higher up in air over a ball Earth.

Trying to show a manipulated image of a slightly lower horizon at a higher altitude, would make Earth 1000 times a bigger ball than you claim it is.

We know it must curve below our view at some altitude above a ball Earth, so how high would that ever be?  I’ve never seen it any lower at all,,you say it’s slightly liwer, but we can still see it directly out the window,,so not much lower at all by then.

It’s absolute nonsense

Whats nonsenses is your refuaal to tell us the angle between segments of an 8,000sided polygon.

The surface we see on Earth or above Earth can and has been drawn and simulated and looks exactly like we see it, right?

I wouldn't say exactly, because getting exact is hard. But you can certainly get a simulation that is quite close.
These simulations use the fact Earth is round to create the horizon.
Especially for long distance shots where the bottom of an object is hidden.

Yet it always has straight, converging lines and a flat surface

Only simple, less accurate diagrams.

At what point do you make it any MORE flat than it already IS?

By removing the horizon, allowing you to see forever if you zoom in and not having any objects obscured from the bottom up.

It can appear to rise up, if it is a slight curve and a large sphere

Again, if this was true, a small enough ball would appear as nothing more than a point.

ALL spheres will "appear to rise up".
The only question is how much.

When we see the surface still rising up at 30000 feet to see it across from us at that altitude, that is still a flat surface.

No, it isn't. As already explained.

We’ve never had to look down from planes to see any horizons in the distance.

Yet as shown by your own evidence, the horizon is below eye level.

We’d have to look more and more downward as we go higher up in air over a ball Earth.

And we do.
Starting from basically nothing at all, to a few degrees at 30 000 ft.

Trying to show a manipulated image of a slightly lower horizon at a higher altitude, would make Earth 1000 times a bigger ball than you claim it is.

PROVE IT!
Do the actual math.
Note that there is no simple way to get the angle from those images.

We know it must curve below our view at some altitude above a ball Earth, so how high would that ever be?  I’ve never seen it any lower at all

You have seen it lower. The evidence I have provided clearly shows that, the evidence YOU provided clearly shows that.
You just refuse to accept it.

but we can still see it directly out the window,,so not much lower at all by then.

And you wouldn't expect it much lower.
Again, the math is quite simple. The angle you expect to see it is given by arccos(r/(r+h)).
So for a 10 km altitude (like in a plane) you expect to see it at roughly arccos(6371/6381)= 3.2 degrees.
Not much.

Yet again, you are just asserting baseless BS, where it is trivial to show you are wrong.

And again, importantly it is BELOW level, as shown by the evidence YOU provided.
So there is no escaping it, the horizon does get lower with altitude. And you have no explanation for that.

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?

Simulating what we’d see on top of a sphere, of any size of sphere, is seen flatter when bigger, to a certain distance.

If Earth were a sphere, it would be a very large sphere, and be flatter over a certain distance, and we’d see horizons on them.

Except we’d never see a higher horizon than the very first one we see on ground.

Curved surfaces always go downward, more and more over them, a surface going down and down cannot appear to keep rising up and up.

Horizons that are 200 miles away from us, are seen from a plane as completely flat and rising up the whole distance.

It’s easily proven by anyone in a plane, by images of it from planes.

There’s far more images and videos of horizons directly in view from planes, seen halfway up windows of planes, at any altitude, because that is what we DO see all the time from planes.

Your side has never said what range of altitude we’d first see it curving over the horizons, and how much lower we’d see them curved.

It’s nonsense

We’d never see over 200 miles of the surface completely flat and appearingv to rise up directly in our view.

That would be 200 miles curving downward 5 miles or so, by that point.

Perspective can only act on a visible surface, not a curved out of sight surface. It doesn’t look over a curved out of view part of the surface and make it flat like the other part is, not will it ever flatten out a curved surface and make it rise up!

The illusion of perspective is making flat surfaces appear to rise upward over a distance, it does not make curved surfaces look flat, nor the opposite.

Simply the fact that we always see the ENTIRE surface as flat, over any distance, is absolute proof that it IS flat.

A curved surface over 200 miles out, would curve down by 5 miles, and we’d never see 200 miles out on it.

The horizon over 200 miles away would be 5 miles downward over the curvature by that point.

And perspective doesn’t make 5 miles of a curved downward surface rise up and flatten it, and make it all rise up like it’s completely flat, that’s not going to happen!

Does vision perspective not "rise in" from left-tight as well as top-bottom?..

The horizon over 200 miles away would be 5 miles downward over the curvature by that point.

And perspective doesn’t make 5 miles of a curved downward surface rise up and flatten it, and make it all rise up like it’s completely flat, that’s not going to happen!

Huh.  Deja vu bitch…

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2024, 01:33:11 AM

I said perspective is only consistent over a flat surface, not your twisted version. 

Dude.  You’re just babbling at this point.


Posted documentation of the earth’s curvature. 

With the dip of the horizon you can explain.

I asked you a question.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 12, 2024, 03:16:53 AM

Look at a ball.

Like this?

Quote

“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat



https://flatearth.ws/basketball

Which produces a horizon.  Where FE doesn’t explain the witnessed horizon, and the dip of the horizon with earth.

Where you stupidly and ignorantly ignore the proven and established dip of the horizon. 

If Earth were a sphere, it would be a very large sphere, and be flatter over a certain distance, and we’d see horizons on them.
Except we’d never see a higher horizon than the very first one we see on ground.

Just like reality.
Where the horizon at sea level is at an angle of elevation of roughly 0, and as you go higher, the horizon gets lower.
As repeatedly proven with you unable to refute it and instead just needing to lie, including by providing evidence which showed you were a lying POS.

Horizons that are 200 miles away from us, are seen from a plane as completely flat and rising up the whole distance.

No, they aren't.
If they were seen as completely flat there wouldn't be a horizon.

There’s far more images and videos of horizons directly in view from planes, seen halfway up windows of planes

Again, half way up the window is a useless measure as you have no reference for level.

The evidence YOU PROVIDED showed they were below level.
There is no way out of it for you.

Your side has never said what range of altitude we’d first see it curving over the horizons, and how much lower we’d see them curved.

Pure BS.
We have provided simple formulae you can use to determine the angle of dip to the horizon based upon your altitude.
You just refuse to use it.

As for "see it curving over the horizons" just what do you mean?
Are you trying to see the ground past where the ground is blocked from view?

We’d never see over 200 miles of the surface completely flat

And we don't.

You are yet to explain just how we are seeing this as "completely flat".
You just keep making the same BS assertion.

That would be 200 miles curving downward 5 miles or so, by that point.

Now try doing the math.
5 miles down at 200 miles is 1.14 degrees.
Also look at the comparison to what you are actually seeing. You are in a plane 5 miles high, so the ground is 5 miles below you.

Perspective can only act on a visible surface

Which includes the visible portion of the curved surface.
But it isn't so much that perspective is magic and can't act elsewhere, it is that the view is blocked.

The illusion of perspective is making flat surfaces appear to rise upward over a distance, it does not make curved surfaces look flat, nor the opposite.

Again, stop repeating the same delusional BS.
Perspective acts on ALL surfaces, not just flat ones.
Again, it is simple geometry.

Simply the fact that we always see the ENTIRE surface as flat

That is not a fact. That is your blatant lie you keep on repeating to desperately cling to the idea that Earth is flat.

Again if it was actually flat, we would be able to see THE ENTIRE SURFACE, not just the portion up to the horizon. If it was flat there would be no horizon.

The existence of the horizon is absolute proof that it is NOT flat.

A curved surface over 200 miles out, would curve down by 5 miles, and we’d never see 200 miles out on it.

Why?
Yet again you just assert pure BS with no justification.
Why should 5 miles be the magic distance we can see?
Do you have any justification at all?
And no, I don't mean vague handwavy BS. I meant numerical, quantitative predictions.

e.g. the expected distance you can see for a round Earth can be approximated as:
d=sqrt(2*r*h).

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.

Serious

Turbo
Can you answer any questions?


Is persepctive rising rhe flat ground?
Is it squeezing the walls?
Is it lowering the ceiling?

Is your irrational question about rising groind while simultaneously dropping curvature relevant?


https://youtube.com/shorts/HR33cBdFalk?si=waaR8cR9M2fm6xbU

Again if it was actually flat, we would be able to see THE ENTIRE SURFACE, not just the portion up to the horizon. If it was flat there would be no horizon

And again, you have no clue that’s completely impossible.

You’re saying if Earth had a flat surface, that entire surface would be seen by us, at any point on the ground, while always appearing to rise up in the distance, never forming horizons at all… Because you believe that horizons are real features on only curved surfaces, and never form on flat surfaces, because horizons are edges where they curve down….

Saying over and over that the entire surface would be seen from the ground, would be completely impossible, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you.

The surface always appears to rise, you claim, beyond where we see horizons on Earth, never forming horizons at all, always appearing to rise up over the entire surface, thousands of miles out, over a flat Earth.

Once again, your scenario, doesn’t work, because we would NOT BE ABLE TO SEE over the entire surface, spanning out thousands of miles in all directions on a flat Earth.

Get this through your head, if it’s not atrophied from lack of use by now….

Look at how high a horizon appears to be at about 3 miles out. You say it would be slightly higher on a flat surface, or at least that high.

When it appears that high up at only three miles out, it’s not possible to see much past three miles out over it, whatever the surface is. 

A slight higher surface would never work, the whole surface cannot be seen with a slight rise higher over it.

See that little part on the surface, it’s two hundred miles out from here! Do you see over the whole surface of 200 miles to that little wedge up?

You’re probably the only person, or I hope you are anyway, who thinks we’d be able to see over thousands of miles of surface, from the ground, if it is a flat surface.

After it’s been explained to them why it’s not possible to see over the whole surface, it’s understood by most of them. Not that they like it, but they know it’s impossible.

When it’s only a slight rise up, it becomes too small, over those further spans of surface.

We can look at it another way

Take the first three miles out on the surface we see now, and compress it all in a thin layer, representing the next, let’s say, 200 miles out on the surface.

How much can you compress our first three miles of surface doesn’t matter to me, but you must compress it to a degree, and then compress more of the surface, past 200 miles out, which is even thinner than that one is, and so on.

What eventually happens over more and more distance, is something so slight, so thinly higher up, that it will form into a line, nothing more to see but a line, just like we see an edge of a skyscraper rooftop as a line.

And that would be a horizon on a flat surface, right?

You’re saying if Earth had a flat surface, that entire surface would be seen by us, at any point on the ground, while always appearing to rise up in the distance, never forming horizons at all… Because you believe that horizons are real features on only curved surfaces, and never form on flat surfaces, because horizons are edges where they curve down….

I'm not merely saying it. I have clearly explained why. Including providing the simple geometry that shows it.
Conversely, you have no refutation of it, and instead can only pretend to by claiming that would mean it would have to rise up and entirely obscure your vision.

The closest you get is a blur where you can't resolve it, but then better optics allow you to, until the atmosphere itself scatters light so much it would be a blur.

This is entirely inconsistent with the observed properties of the horizon.

Once again, your scenario, doesn’t work, because we would NOT BE ABLE TO SEE over the entire surface, spanning out thousands of miles in all directions on a flat Earth.

Why not?
You keep asserting this, but can't explain it.
You can't even provide numbers.
Meanwhile I provided numbers showing your claim is pure BS.

Look at how high a horizon appears to be at about 3 miles out. You say it would be slightly higher on a flat surface, or at least that high.
When it appears that high up at only three miles out, it’s not possible to see much past three miles out over it, whatever the surface is.

WHY?
Yet again you just baselessly assert BS with no justification.
And you say "much past", just how much?

Using normal units, we can see from 4 km to 5 km. Do you know what angle that is?
Do you know what angle 5 km to 10 km corresponds to? Why can't we see that?

Note: This directly relates to three questions you keep on avoiding:
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?

You have no explanation at all for why it should that particular distance.
You just say it is that because that is what is observed in reality.
Meanwhile, the RE does have an explanation which you have been unable to show fault with.

And more importantly, it isn't just the surface we are trying to see.
It is objects above them, such as tall buildings and boats.
And we observe how the horizon obscures them from the bottom up.

Even when we can clearly resolve smaller parts than what is hidden.
That is another thing you have no explanation for.

We can look at it another way

Yes, numerically, using basic geometry. Something you entirely refuse to do, instead appealing to vague, handwavy BS.
Because you know the simple geometry shows you are wrong.

How much can you compress our first three miles of surface doesn’t matter to me

Of course it doesn't. Because you don't care about the truth. You don't care about checking that what you are claiming matches reality.
You are happy with vague BS to pretend your delusional fantasy matches.

So stop with the vague and tell us just how much it should be.

just like we see an edge of a skyscraper rooftop as a line.

No, nothing like that.
We see that as a line, because it is an edge.
That would be a horizon on a curve, where the flat surface of the side of skyscraper curves to become the roof.

None of your magic BS there.

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.

You’ve yet to ever explain why we WOULD be able to see over the entire surface.

From the height of a horizon three miles out, add on another 300 miles of a flat surface to it.

Now make sure that we can see over that entire 300 miles more of the surface, from the height of that horizon, which is not on a flat surface.

Look at how high the surface appears to rise over three miles.

In order to see over this further 300 miles of surface, you must slope it up like over the first three miles, at a sharp enough angle for us to see it entirely.

Please draw this out for us, but make sure we can see over the whole 300 miles of surface.

You’ve yet to ever explain why we WOULD be able to see over the entire surface.

I have.
Basic geometry:


And the fact that the angle of dip to a point is atan(h/d).

You have NOTHING to refute this.
You have NOTHING to justify why we should magically stop seeing further.
You have NOTHIGN to justify why the horizon should be at 5 km, and it hides further objects.

In order to see over this further 300 miles of surface, you must slope it up like over the first three miles, at a sharp enough angle for us to see it entirely.

No, we don't.

Again, if you wish to assert this BS, DO THE MATH!
If you can't, stop asserting it.

Better still, address the questions you keep fleeing from.

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.

Basic geometry:


And the fact that the angle of dip to a point is atan(h/d).

You have NOTHING to refute this.

Yes, it’s refuted because your diagram isn’t what we see outward over the surface, it shows a horizon across the surface.

Actual geometry shows what the actual surface is, not what the surface looks like outward from us, it isn’t based on the actual geometry of the surface.

We see the surface appearing to rise up in the distance, geometry, reality, measurements, don’t apply to it, what we see isn’t really true, but it’s what we see. An illusion of a rising up surface, that acts as if it WERE rising up as we see it.

It doesn’t matter that it’s not really rising up, what matters is that we see it rising up, and 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.

If it would only rise slighter and slighter, it would not rise high enough to see over the whole surface. Instruments cannot make the surface entirely visible. Instruments can only see what our eyes COULD see if closer to us.

That is, if this slight rise over the surface was seen up close to us, like the instrument would over a long distance, neither our eye nor our instrument would be able to see over the whole surface  rising up so slightly.

If 300 miles over the flat surface is seen rising up by an inch more, that inch represents 300 miles of the surface.  You cannot see above an inch of surface, nor can instruments see above an inch of surface.

Being geometrically above any flat surface, we see it appear to rise up higher than 
Us.

You’re out of excuses.

A flat surface isn’t seen over the whole surface because that’s what geometry says we would be able to see.