WHY would the government trick us?

No, I'm not lying. He literally does shamelessly plug that camera.

No, I'm not lying. He literally does shamelessly plug that camera.

Which is not the lie I was referring to.
What I was referring to, as clearly indicated by my post (i.e. what I said):

Whereupon he brings objects outside horizon back in

He didn't. That is a lie by you.

Wow amazing

You see the horizon behind the boat?

That means the boat has not rwached the horzion.

Just like the pier


Congratulations, proving youre stupid once again.




Stupid

That is correct.

Our eyes suck, and you can use a zoom camera of only 83x to zoom in on stars  (reportedly) trillions of miles away.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_Coolpix_P900

That's the camera hyped by Eric Dubay. Whereupon he brings objects outside horizon back in, and looks as supposedly distant stars. Part of the reason he mentions it is because it isn't the supposed zoom you should need to see such things.

Just as I don't support NASA, I'm not gonna buy his merch tho. I'm naturally skeptical when people make overtures to me, you see.

Yes, I thought you did. Most of you flat earthers do think the horizon is just an optical illusion to do with perspective and the way human eyes work. In perspective drawing, the horizon line is the same as the viewer's eye line. But you think the physical horizon is always equal to your eye line too, don't you, Bulma? Just like the way Mr. Eric Dubay explained it.

Well, I've devised a way you can prove to yourself your own personal eye line is not the same as the physical horizon line. This will shut that smug Eric Dubay up, and prove he is wrong about what he says of the horizon.

The problem is, you need to have access to a beach with view to the sea horizon. By the sounds of it, you live in an enclosed farming area where everybody plays the banjo and walks around with a piece of straw hanging from their mouth. Going to a beach might be too far for you to travel to on your electric scooter or tractor.

The only smug person I see here is all of you. Wait, I just mismatched singular and plural. In any case! 

I've been to the beach. I've been to mountains too. And no, our town is connected to roads. I solemnly swear that I have never played a banjo, nor kissed my sister. Nor have I been in a hoedown, nor brewed any liquor in a still.

The horizon is equal to eyeline because this is the way vision works. Not because Eric Dubay said it, but because this is how things are. As you look outward, your eye tells your brain that there are things there, and it figures out how to organize them spatially. Bottom to top, top to bottom, towards a center point. This is also why historically, God has trouble with us worshipping idols. We tend to focus on things central to our vision. We stare at things like an internet page, and suddenly a half-hour is gone.

This is also why, unless you are deeply brainwashed, when you see a line of electricity poles and suddenly they curve instead of diminishing into a singularity, your brain immediately tells you that this is wrong. We as humans instinctively know what looks right and what looks wrong. And you can keep your fake friend attempts to yourself. If you want to be my actual friend, don't insult my intelligence. The people I trust don't try to deceive me.

Been to the beach, watched the sea horizon. Your thinking goes, the sea horizon should be six feet below the land horizon, because sea level is zero, and average human height is zero. But in fact, the horizon at sea looks above a person. The thing is that's impossible on a sphere. A sphere, using poor ASCII which is all I can draw on this Kindle, looks like so.

          o
          +
          ^
         /\
        /   \
       /     \
      /        \
      \         /
       \       /
         \    /
           \/

Now, obviously, a sphere is not a diamond, but the point is that you ought to be looking down at any point on a sphere. Why then does the view look uphill? Especially since the waterline at the beach is six feet below, and even more from the deck of a ship, but look.



The ship is at least twenty feet off the ground from this view, yet the horizon appears level to halfway up the pillar.

Your RE mindset is the hick one. I've been on a cruise near the dam in China. I've seen things.

Bulma is correct about the horizon rising to meet your eyeLEVEL. Check for yourselves you roundy shills. Next time you put down your banjo, ask your sister to go to the beach with you. Instead of sleeping on your sleeping bag. Spend some money and go to a tall hotel or condo on the beach. The horizon will be LEVEL with your eyes from the 1st floor of the 20th floor. BAM

Bulma is correct about the horizon rising to meet your eyeLEVEL.

No.  Your eye is drawn down to the horizon level.

The only smug person I see here is all of you. Wait, I just mismatched singular and plural. In any case! 

I've been to the beach. I've been to mountains too. And no, our town is connected to roads. I solemnly swear that I have never played a banjo, nor kissed my sister. Nor have I been in a hoedown, nor brewed any liquor in a still.

The horizon is equal to eyeline because this is the way vision works. Not because Eric Dubay said it, but because this is how things are. As you look outward, your eye tells your brain that there are things there, and it figures out how to organize them spatially. Bottom to top, top to bottom, towards a center point. This is also why historically, God has trouble with us worshipping idols. We tend to focus on things central to our vision. We stare at things like an internet page, and suddenly a half-hour is gone.

This is also why, unless you are deeply brainwashed, when you see a line of electricity poles and suddenly they curve instead of diminishing into a singularity, your brain immediately tells you that this is wrong. We as humans instinctively know what looks right and what looks wrong. And you can keep your fake friend attempts to yourself. If you want to be my actual friend, don't insult my intelligence. The people I trust don't try to deceive me.

Been to the beach, watched the sea horizon. Your thinking goes, the sea horizon should be six feet below the land horizon, because sea level is zero, and average human height is zero. But in fact, the horizon at sea looks above a person. The thing is that's impossible on a sphere. A sphere, using poor ASCII which is all I can draw on this Kindle, looks like so.

          o
          +
          ^
         /\
        /   \
       /     \
      /        \
      \         /
       \       /
         \    /
           \/

Now, obviously, a sphere is not a diamond, but the point is that you ought to be looking down at any point on a sphere. Why then does the view look uphill? Especially since the waterline at the beach is six feet below, and even more from the deck of a ship, but look.



The ship is at least twenty feet off the ground from this view, yet the horizon appears level to halfway up the pillar.

Your RE mindset is the hick one. I've been on a cruise near the dam in China. I've seen things.

Well, I could give you this experiment as a thought experiment, but it would have much more impact for you to do it physically at the beach. It's so simple, I don't know why I didnt think of it sooner.

Hoppy, ofcourse, is quite wrong. (As usual).

I live in duelling banjo country myself, where I have to be careful sometimes not to be mistaken for a sow. Have you seen the movie, "Deliverance"?

Are you really wanting me to destroy your physical horizon and eyeline being the same, belief?

You guys are going to be very very upset with Mr Eric Dubay.

I hope you and your sister pack up ASAP. You will see the horizon straight in front of you no matter how high you go.

I have seen Deliverance.

Unlike you, however, I know the historical backstory behind such a film.

You see, back in America's early history, people settled in the mountains of the Appalachian, in Tennessee, Virginia, etc. Because their property was grandfathered in, they owed no property taxes, and were allowed that land by right. But the developers came in to build highways, towns, and railroads, and seeing these people stubbornly keep their family homes, they made books and movies that painted these people as ignorant weirdoes who were raised with some weird religious background. Everything from Hardy Boys where people living in that old ranch were always criminals to films where those quiet places were settled by Bible-basher types. These stories were used as a justification for the public cooperating in having them shooed off their land, similar to painting all transgender people as perverts who sneak into bathrooms to molest children. Voters give undue power by what they support and oppose.

No, nobody in small towns that I know of chases newcomers around to have sex with them, any more than they duel on banjos. It's a form of blockbusting, paint the holdouts in a rural community as hicks, and run them off if they stand in the way of development. Just as if I turned 80, I was the last person living in my small town, and they wanted to bulldoze the place to build a line of skyscrapers or shopping malls, they would resort to some sort of method to get me to sell.

If you were a sensible person, you'd understand that I don't want to be bothered, and just want people to be honest in their dealings with me. But even if you're not, I still don't think you're capable of destroying anything. I joined here, what, 5 years ago? Have any of you talked me out of Flat Earth since then?

I have seen Deliverance.

Unlike you, however, I know the historical backstory behind such a film.

You see, back in America's early history, people settled in the mountains of the Appalachian, in Tennessee, Virginia, etc. Because their property was grandfathered in, they owed no property taxes, and were allowed that land by right. But the developers came in to build highways, towns, and railroads, and seeing these people stubbornly keep their family homes, they books and movies that painted these people as ignorant weirdoes who were raised with some weird religious background. These stories were used as a justification for the public cooperating in having them shooed off their land, similar to painting all transgender people as perverts who sneak into bathrooms to molest children. Voters give undue power by what they support and oppose.

No, nobody in small towns that I know of chases newcomers around to have sex with them, any more than they duel on banjos. It's a form of blockbusting, paint the holdouts in a rural community as hicks, and run them off if they stand in the way of development. Just as if I turned 80, I was the last person living in my small town, and they wanted to bulldoze the place to build a line of skyscrapers or shopping malls, they would resort to some sort of method to get me to sell.

If you were a sensible person, you'd understand that I don't want to be bothered, and just want people to be honest in their dealings with me. But even if you're not, I still don't think you're capable of destroying anything. I joined here, what, 5 years ago? Have any of you talk toed me out of Flat Earth since then?

These paid trolls are here to try to talk you out of the truth and discourage open minded people. They want to call you names, lie, and make things confusing for everyone. Thanks for standing on the side of truth.

. I joined here, what, 5 years ago? Have any of you talked me out of Flat Earth since then?

Cant fix stupid...

I hope you and your sister pack up ASAP. You will see the horizon straight in front of you no matter how high you go.

That there sounds to me like a challenge!

Allow me then to pull the wool away from yours and Bulmabriefs eyes, on a very important flat earth matter.

I can agree with you and bulmabriefs on two matters.

First, that water always finds it's level.

Second, that the distance to the horizon increases, the higher you ascend.

Are we all on the same page that these are  two indisputable facts?

I have seen Deliverance.

Unlike you, however, I know the historical backstory behind such a film.

You see, back in America's early history, people settled in the mountains of the Appalachian, in Tennessee, Virginia, etc. Because their property was grandfathered in, they owed no property taxes, and were allowed that land by right. But the developers came in to build highways, towns, and railroads, and seeing these people stubbornly keep their family homes, they made books and movies that painted these people as ignorant weirdoes who were raised with some weird religious background. Everything from Hardy Boys where people living in that old ranch were always criminals to films where those quiet places were settled by Bible-basher types. These stories were used as a justification for the public cooperating in having them shooed off their land, similar to painting all transgender people as perverts who sneak into bathrooms to molest children. Voters give undue power by what they support and oppose.

No, nobody in small towns that I know of chases newcomers around to have sex with them, any more than they duel on banjos. It's a form of blockbusting, paint the holdouts in a rural community as hicks, and run them off if they stand in the way of development. Just as if I turned 80, I was the last person living in my small town, and they wanted to bulldoze the place to build a line of skyscrapers or shopping malls, they would resort to some sort of method to get me to sell.

If you were a sensible person, you'd understand that I don't want to be bothered, and just want people to be honest in their dealings with me. But even if you're not, I still don't think you're capable of destroying anything. I joined here, what, 5 years ago? Have any of you talked me out of Flat Earth since then?

Thanks for the history lesson. But I'm about to throw shade on a gigantic flat earth proof that the horizon is always at your eyeline snd it's all to do with perspective.

You agree that water always finds it's level and the distance to the horizon increases with the viewer's altitude, and decreases with the viewers's descent?

The only smug person I see here is all of you.

Says the smuggest of them all, who boldly acts like they must be right with no chance that they are wrong and anything that shows they are wrong is fake; all while being completely incapable of justifying their delusional BS.

The horizon is equal to eyeline because this is the way vision works.

And why don't you explain how you tested this and confirmed it?
Or have you just assumed that, not been able to notice any difference and assumed your baseless claim was true with no actual evidence?

As you look outward, your eye tells your brain that there are things there, and it figures out how to organize them spatially. Bottom to top, top to bottom, towards a center point.

No, it doesn't.
As you look outwards, your eyes are hit by incoming light, which produces an image based upon the incoming angle of that light.
Your brain doesn't need to organise it any more than a camera does.

This is also why, unless you are deeply brainwashed, when you see a line of electricity poles and suddenly they curve instead of diminishing into a singularity, your brain immediately tells you that this is wrong.

You mean that is why IF YOU ARE deeply brainwashed, you say that must be wrong.
When you observe something in reality that goes against the belief you have been brainwashed into believing, then reality must be wrong, it couldn't possibly be that belief you believe with no absolutely no evidence supporting it.

We as intelligent human beings can work out how to make tests to see if the horizon is below the vanishing point or not.
And plenty have been carried out and show that is not the case.
You, as a brainwashed fool, instead reject any part of reality that goes against your belief.

You have been provided with plenty of examples of how you could do this yourself to confirm it hasn't been faked, but you refuse to, as if deep down you know you are believing and promoting pure BS.

The people I trust don't try to deceive me.

Yet you try to deceive them so often it isn't funny.

Your thinking goes, the sea horizon should be six feet below the land horizon

No, our thinking goes based on angles.

The thing is that's impossible on a sphere.

You mean it is impossible on your tiny balls.
How about instead of a completely useless picture which demonstrates absolutely nothing of value at all, you try doing the math? And provide a picture to support your delusional BS.

but the point is that you ought to be looking down at any point on a sphere.

And the question is "How much"?

Why then does the view look uphill?

It doesn't.
That is just you completely failing to understand what you are looking at.

An increasing angle of elevation does not mean it is going uphill.
Try comprehending the basic geometry you claim to understand.

The ship is at least twenty feet off the ground from this view, yet the horizon appears level to halfway up the pillar.

You mean they have the same angle of elevation.
Again, try understanding basic geometry.

Bulma is correct about the horizon rising to meet your eyeLEVEL. Check for yourselves you roundy shills. Next time you put down your banjo, ask your sister to go to the beach with you. Instead of sleeping on your sleeping bag. Spend some money and go to a tall hotel or condo on the beach. The horizon will be LEVEL with your eyes from the 1st floor of the 20th floor.

Congrats on providing absolutely nothing of any value and instead choosing to repeat the same pathetic baseless lie.
Before "checking for yourself", you need to do the math.
This is because any measurement you take will have some level of uncertainty.
So how far below you would you expect the horizon to appear?
And to what level of uncertainty are you making your measurement?

Because if you can't measure it precisely enough, you can't tell.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of observations/measurements showing your claim is a blatant lie:

These paid trolls are here to try to talk you out of the truth and discourage open minded people. They want to call you names, lie, and make things confusing for everyone.

So they will do what you are doing?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 18, 2025, 10:49:42 AM

I have seen Deliverance.

Unlike you, however, I know the historical backstory behind such a film.

You see, back in America's early history, people settled in the mountains of the Appalachian, in Tennessee, Virginia, etc. Because their property was grandfathered in, they owed no property taxes, and were allowed that land by right. But the developers came in to build highways, towns, and railroads, and seeing these people stubbornly keep their family homes, they made books and movies that painted these people as ignorant weirdoes who were raised with some weird religious background. Everything from Hardy Boys where people living in that old ranch were always criminals to films where those quiet places were settled by Bible-basher types. These stories were used as a justification for the public cooperating in having them shooed off their land, similar to painting all transgender people as perverts who sneak into bathrooms to molest children. Voters give undue power by what they support and oppose.

No, nobody in small towns that I know of chases newcomers around to have sex with them, any more than they duel on banjos. It's a form of blockbusting, paint the holdouts in a rural community as hicks, and run them off if they stand in the way of development. Just as if I turned 80, I was the last person living in my small town, and they wanted to bulldoze the place to build a line of skyscrapers or shopping malls, they would resort to some sort of method to get me to sell.

If you were a sensible person, you'd understand that I don't want to be bothered, and just want people to be honest in their dealings with me. But even if you're not, I still don't think you're capable of destroying anything. I joined here, what, 5 years ago? Have any of you talked me out of Flat Earth since then?

Thanks for the history lesson. But I'm about to throw shade on a gigantic flat earth proof that the horizon is always at your eyeline snd it's all to do with perspective.

You agree that water always finds it's level and the distance to the horizon increases with the viewer's altitude, and decreases with the viewers's descent?

I literally just showed you that the horizon increased with the viewer's altitude.

You're not about to throw shade on anything.

Because God arranges that people who deceive others will find their arguments thwarted at every turn.

The Dead Sea is the lowest (non-underground) point on Earth. It's 430 meters below sea level.

Right? So why is it that this line of horizon appears to rise higher than the heads of those swimming and even standing up?

Here's the highest view.

With no fisheye filter, this is exactly why you see. Notice that the viewpoint is exactly the same. The sky slopes upward even when pretty much above most sky. That's how horizon works.

The horizon is not governed by sea level. It's governed by eye level. Period.

Now, stop trying to throw shade on other people's beliefs and mind your own business.

Listen, I don't care what you believe. You want to worship a literal globe, I'm not about to stop you.

I'm gonna post here regardless. But you ought to ask yourself why exactly it's so important that you, kabool, Data, and JackBlack actively need to all gang up. Stop trying to catch my words in a trap, stop pretending to be my friend, and stop "throwing shade" as you put it. If I believe the Earth is a cylinder or a triangle or a trapezoid, in what way is it any of your business?

I literally just showed you that the horizon increased with the viewer's altitude.

No, you didn't. Because you seem to entirely fail to understand the difference between physical height and angular position.

You have not shown any change in physical height, because what you have provided is incapable of doing so.
You haven't shown that the angular position remains constant, because you have no reference for that. And no, you can't use the horizon for that reference.

Because God arranges that people who deceive others will find their arguments thwarted at every turn.

Like yours have been?

Right? So why is it that this line of horizon appears to rise higher than the heads of those swimming and even standing up?

In this case, that horizon formed by the mountains is physically above them. So that is a really pathetic point to make.

For the general case, simple geometry. I thought you said you understood that?

Here is a simple drawing, very much not to scale, with an exaggerated curve, showing the main principle:


Your vision is based upon angles.
The angle to these people is lower than the angle to the horizon.

Not hard to understand.

With no fisheye filter,

You mean clearly taken with a fish eye lens and then "corrected".
As we can tell from several parts of the photo.
The first give away is the top and bottom edges. These are horribly stretched out with pixels being stretched to take the place of several pixels, and having a much lower pixel density than the centre.
We can also see this in the definition of the edges of the clouds and objects on the ground, because it is effectively the same thing.
In the middle they are very well resolved, but at the bottom, it is all stretched making it blurry.

Likewise, we can see the glare from the sun, which goes around in arcs, instead of the straight lines it should, showing the straight lines have been "corrected" to a curve.
And we see it in the balloon, which is so horribly distorted it isn't funny, and the cord from it strangely arcing instead of going down in a straight line.

But if that isn't enough, we can go to the original source and see it is a 360 degree video which you have dishonestly misrepresented:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000005433524/noaa-ozone-balloon.html

Now, stop trying to throw shade on other people's beliefs and mind your own business.

We are "throwing shade" on your blatant lies.

If you don't want them to be exposed as the lies they are, then stop saying them.
If you don't people to point out your beliefs are BS, then keep them to yourself.

I'm gonna post here regardless. But you ought to ask yourself why exactly it's so important that you, kabool, Data, and JackBlack actively need to all gang up.

We don't.
We just each want to respond.

This isn't some crappy movie fight scene where we all take turns fighting.
This is real life, where if you spout pure BS, everyone gets to object at the same time.

Stop trying to catch my words in a trap, stop pretending to be my friend, and stop "throwing shade" as you put it.

We aren't.
I am not your friend. I would never be friends with someone like you, a compulsive liar who refuses to admit when they are wrong.
I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, I'm calling out your BS, including where you directly contradict yourself.

If I believe the Earth is a cylinder or a triangle or a trapezoid, in what way is it any of your business?

Because instead of keeping your BS belief to yourself, you decide to publicly lie to everyone and try to propagate this harmful mindset.

If you don't want people calling your beliefs BS, keep it to yourself.

The Dead Sea is the lowest (non-underground) point on Earth. It's 430 meters below sea level.

Right? So why is it that this line of horizon appears to rise higher than the heads of those swimming and even standing up?

Hills in the background make the horizon appear higher than eye level?   Who would have thunk it.

The horizon is not governed by sea level. It's governed by eye level. Period.

The horizon is defined as the imaginary line where the earth and sky appear to meet.  This has nothing to do with eye level.

The dead sea is low.
The hills are high.

Wow
Wheres the confusion?

Spectacular



When i stand up, my legs are below me.


Crazy!




Idiot.


Moron.

Hills in the background make the horizon appear higher than eye level?   Who would have thunk it.

Before you even get to the hills, actually. Watch.



Just the water alone is taller than pretty much all of the people.

The horizon is defined as the imaginary line where the earth and sky appear to meet.  This has nothing to do with eye level.

The horizon is a real line. The sky and earth appear to rise in accordance with the viewpoint.


The view in this case is thousands of feet above the ground, yet it still rises to the horizon.

Bulma,

I'm not trying to necessarily turn you away from your flat earth belief. I would like to educate you on something said by Eric Dubay and others on the flat earther circuit, which is blatantly incorrect.

This is about education, not bullying. It's not your fault, Eric Dubay doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a grinning buffoon.

In perspective drawing, the viewer eye line is always the same as the horizon line. But, that is perspective drawing.

The physical horizon, while closely aligned with the eyeline, especially at ground level, is in actual fact, not the same, and I can show you how to prove it to yourself. Hoppy as well.

But, first, do you agree water always finds it's level? Do you agree that increase in altitude increases the viewer's distance from the horizon?

If you refuse to answer, I'll just assume you aren't ready to for this realisation, even though all you do on this forum is argue all the flat earther points as correct.

Spectacular concept that vision converges

SmokeAndMirrors, take a look sometimes at the number of comments I get. It is anywhere from three to five, often with three or more different posters.

In other words, yes, it does begin to feel like bullying.

Second, I don't offer you unsolicited advice, do I? What about unsolicited education? No, I only explain my position (and I am often asked to repeat it anyway).  When I was younger, my grandmother used to give everyone advice about what she thought we should do with our lives. But last I checked, you're not related to me, so "Eric Dubay is not a good Christian man" is going to fall on deaf ears. You get to pick your Neil deGrasse Tyson guy, so if I wanna watch videos, yeah that's on me. I have also watched some Happy Science and Patchman (Spirit Science) videos. No, I'm not a follower of either of these, they just have fucking interesting movies.

SmokeAndMirrors, take a look sometimes at the number of comments I get. It is anywhere from three to five, often with three or more different posters.

In other words, yes, it does begin to feel like bullying.

Second, I don't offer you unsolicited advice, do I? What about unsolicited education? No, I only explain my position (and I am often asked to repeat it anyway).  When I was younger, my grandmother used to give everyone advice about what she thought we should do with our lives. But last I checked, you're not related to me, so "Eric Dubay is not a good Christian man" is going to fall on deaf ears. You get to pick your Neil deGrasse Tyson guy, so if I wanna watch videos, yeah that's on me. I have also watched some Happy Science and Patchman (Spirit Science) videos. No, I'm not a follower of either of these, they just have fucking interesting movies.

For fucksake, Bulshitbeliefs144! Aren't you trying to school everybody here in the mindset of the flat earther?

Why is it so goddamn hard for you to answer two yes or no questions?

Do you believe water always finds its level?

Do you believe your visual distance to the horizon increases with altitude?

They are not trick questions, Bulma!!!!!

Most flat earthers would be falling over themselves to answer yes to both questions and most globe earthers the same!!

It's s base to start at.

You know what? Fuck it. In my next post I'm going to explain to you how you can easily disprove the physical horizon is the same as your eyeline.

They are trick questions.

They are a trick because you can obviously find the answer to them with even a basic search of my own past posts.

I am tired of answering the same questions over and over again, and having you guys play a police interrogation on me "Look, you answered that differently that time! You must be lying." Suit yourselves. No answer will be forthcoming.

Why is it so goddamn hard for you to answer two yes or no questions?

Most real questions do not have a yes or no answer that you can trap people in, they have what is called a nuance.

For example, does water always find its level? No, because that is the wrong phrase. Yes, water is always level. There is no such thing as a pool of water that mounds. You've just described a Dragon Quest slime there. But why is "find its level wrong?" Well it implies a wrong assumption that water is not level to start with, and has to seek out a level height. If this were so, waves could not happen. But waves move back and forth because there are things like springs and whirlpools. Water is level, but it flows in and out of areas based on conditions.  Because by find, you are implying that there is some force leading it to be level, when no, it simply is level. So that's not a yes or no answer but a "mostly yes, I guess."

What about the second question? Well, if your question is "can you see a farther away object from a higher elevation?" Yes, you can. But you can also see a tall and wide object (such as a mountain) from a fairly low elevation. And you can see a high up object (such as a plane or balloon) from either elevation. The way you phrased this question is also awkward, because it essentially also asks "is there a longer 'box' of perspective from a higher vs lower elevation?" Unfortunately, the answer to that one appears to be no. Even though you can see objects that are like 100 miles away, this is effectively compressed perspective. That is to say, if at nearly sea level, three to five miles looks to be as far as you can see, your perspective looks to be the same width. Is that a yes answer? A no answer? Something else?

If your questions really are as simple as you claim they are, the answer is yes to both. But if they are trick questions, then the answer is one you'll need to read that paragraph to understand.

Before you even get to the hills, actually. Watch.

And before you start typing again, watch:


Do someone who allegedly designs games, and who allegedly understands geometry, you sure do act like a complete imbecile that can't even tie your own shoes.

This is not hard to understand at all.
Stop playing dumb, unless you are telling us you are actually that dumb, that all the brainwashing has damaged your brain so much you don't understand?

The horizon is a real line

I agree, the real line which is the edge of Earth.
And for a sphere, that edge can be anywhere.

The view in this case is thousands of feet above the ground, yet it still rises to the horizon.

Do you not realise just how stupid and useless that statement is?
You are saying the horizon will rise to the horizon?
That applies regardless of if the horizon is at eye level, up at an angle of 45 degrees, down at an angle of 45 degrees, or pretty much anywhere.

In other words, yes, it does begin to feel like bullying.

Lots of people telling you you are wrong and explaining why isn't bullying.
No one is forcing you to come here, spout the refuted BS again and again, and ignore the refutations of it.
That is all you.

No, I only explain my position

No, you don't.
You are asked to explain, but you never do.
Instead you flee and deflect.

There are plenty of things we are still waiting on an explanation from you for.

I am tired of answering the same questions over and over again

Then try to actually answer the questions we ask, and stop contradicting yourself.

As for your meme "Only the sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute.
Nuance allows others to deal in absolutes, because some things truly are a simple absolute.

Well it implies a wrong assumption that water is not level to start with, and has to seek out a level height.

No, it implies that if there is a disturbance that the water will return to level.
That is basically the principle of waves. They are disturbed and they try to return to level, causing the water to move around.
This also means water will not always be level, but it will try to return to it.
So pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying.

What about the second question? Well, if your question is "can you see a farther away object from a higher elevation?" Yes, you can. But you can also see a tall and wide object (such as a mountain) from a fairly low elevation. And you can see a high up object (such as a plane or balloon) from either elevation. The way you phrased this question is also awkward, because it essentially also asks "is there a longer 'box' of perspective from a higher vs lower elevation?" Unfortunately, the answer to that one appears to be no. Even though you can see objects that are like 100 miles away, this is effectively compressed perspective. That is to say, if at nearly sea level, three to five miles looks to be as far as you can see, your perspective looks to be the same width. Is that a yes answer? A no answer? Something else?

And this is an example of in your nuance you have contradicted yourself.
By saying you can only see three to five miles from at nearly sea level, yet you can see a high up object from lower elevations.
This is important as it shows your claims about perspective and magic parabolas are BS.

What I'm seeing there is some line going straight up (Platonic geometry is abstract forms, not real objects, so there is no actual such thing as a line; that you're confusing abstractions for real objects is the core of your problems), then hitting what I assume is a person then going ahead on a curve.

But your model is impossible. And stupid. You claim light can never dissipate or end but your own model has the line of sight abruptly ending, when by your own statements, it should go like this.



Also, he's looking towards this line which is looking towards the horizon. Is this supposed to prove something? Beyond your profound mental retardation, I mean.

There's that whole "unless an unbalanced force acts upon it" crapola. Water is level by definition. It doesn't have to seek anything. On a water slide, water is pumped under pressure to the top of the slide, where it flows down slide into the pool below. Water is pumped constantly while all of this is going on. But if you were to stopper the slide, the model would look like this:

Water doesn't seek level (accurate, but not exact), it is level. So in an enclosed space, it reaches the point of its container, and in a circumstance where there is more water than the container, the container overfills while the source empties. If we were to continue this image, the water slide would flood, and some of the water might even drip back into the pool. No "force" did this. It's all volume of water.
You could say that this is a disturbance, but the water very much does not "return to level," (not until it overflows and its source runs out). If it never got plugged up, however, the water would be at level from the simple fact that while it's filling up top, it's emptying on the bottom.
In much the same way, an underground spring (in Hawaii, for example) fed from a nearby ocean, fills a mountain lake, dumps down a waterfall, then flows back toward the ocean. If it were "seeking" level, it wouldn't head up the mountain.

It is because it is level that nothing can be done to make it otherwise.

So now tell me again how all that curved water works?

They are trick questions.

They are a trick because you can obviously find the answer to them with even a basic search of my own past posts.

I am tired of answering the same questions over and over again, and having you guys play a police interrogation on me "Look, you answered that differently that time! You must be lying." Suit yourselves. No answer will be forthcoming.

Quote

Why is it so goddamn hard for you to answer two yes or no questions?

Most real questions do not have a yes or no answer that you can trap people in, they have what is called a nuance.

For example, does water always find its level? No, because that is the wrong phrase. Yes, water is always level. There is no such thing as a pool of water that mounds. You've just described a Dragon Quest slime there. But why is "find its level wrong?" Well it implies a wrong assumption that water is not level to start with, and has to seek out a level height. If this were so, waves could not happen. But waves move back and forth because there are things like springs and whirlpools. Water is level, but it flows in and out of areas based on conditions.  Because by find, you are implying that there is some force leading it to be level, when no, it simply is level. So that's not a yes or no answer but a "mostly yes, I guess."

What about the second question? Well, if your question is "can you see a farther away object from a higher elevation?" Yes, you can. But you can also see a tall and wide object (such as a mountain) from a fairly low elevation. And you can see a high up object (such as a plane or balloon) from either elevation. The way you phrased this question is also awkward, because it essentially also asks "is there a longer 'box' of perspective from a higher vs lower elevation?" Unfortunately, the answer to that one appears to be no. Even though you can see objects that are like 100 miles away, this is effectively compressed perspective. That is to say, if at nearly sea level, three to five miles looks to be as far as you can see, your perspective looks to be the same width. Is that a yes answer? A no answer? Something else?

If your questions really are as simple as you claim they are, the answer is yes to both. But if they are trick questions, then the answer is one you'll need to read that paragraph to understand.

Ok, so you head on down to your nearest beach on a fine or cloudy day, but one where you can see that straight ass, level, motherfuckin horizon out to sea, where seawater meets sky. A gentle breeze has flattened the waves to the point the sea looks like a plane of glass laying flat.

We've all seen it, and I know you have, too, Bulma. Now, because water always finds it's level, the surface of that sea water in front of you to the horizon, is as perfectly level as it could possibly be.

So, you walk down to the water's edge, so the water line is equal to the undersides of your feet. Now, you look across at that horizon in front of you.

The horizon looks to be at your eye level, but it can't be  can it? That horizon line out at sea, has to be the same level as the bottom of your feet. Your eye line is however high as it is, above the bottom of your feet.

This means, when you look at that physical horizon line out at sea, with the bottom of your feet at sea level, you must be looking ever so slightly down at that physical horizon line. In this instance, your eyeline cannot be the same as the surface of the seawater at the undersides of your feet level.

Do you catch my drift?

Now, let's say, for dramatic purposes you are 6'5 tall, and standing next to a 4' tall person doing the same observation and you both have equal eyesight tested and proved. As the 4' tall person's eyes are 2.5' lower to the ground than your eyes, it stands to reason the 4' tall person must see the horizon as closer, than you do. If two sets of eyes have the same eyesight, and distance of earth seen, is dictated by change in altitude and not eyesight capability, it stands to reason, that even though that seawater to horizon is perfectly level, it must also be curved.

In fact, if you went into that seawater and submerged yourself until your eyes, or more specifically pupils, were at the waterline, looking out at the horizon,, at long long last, your eyeline would be matching up with your physical horizon in front of you.

What have you got to say about that, Bulma? You agree water always finds it's level. You agree a person can see further with elevation.

Therefore that seawater must be curving downwards in front of you and the physical horizon as seen out at sea, is ever so slightly different, to the horizon line taught in perspective drawing. At ground level the differences are almost imperceptible, but the difference is there. In art and perspective drawing, you can get away with calling the eyeline the same as the horizon line.

But now you know better.

What I'm seeing there is some line going straight up (Platonic geometry is abstract forms, not real objects, so there is no actual such thing as a line; that you're confusing abstractions for real objects is the core of your problems), then hitting what I assume is a person then going ahead on a curve.

The black line is a representation of a person standing there with their head above the people.
The black circle and line represents one of the people in the boat.

The purple line is a line showing the direction to the person in the boat and another one showing the direction to the horizon.
Notice how the one to the person in the boat is at a lower angle, meaning they will be seen by the person at a lower angle.

Again, for someone who allegedly designs games, and who allegedly understands geometry, you sure do act like a complete imbecile that can't even tie your own shoes.

But your model is impossible. And stupid. You claim light can never dissipate or end but your own model has the line of sight abruptly ending, when by your own statements, it should go like this.

Yet you can't show any fault with it and instead need to act like a complete imbecile to pretend there is a problem.

Just what is the problem with my model?
The line was just drawing a line to the horizon. It doesn't need to go on forever, but you can make it go as far as you want.

The point is, do you understand why the people in the boat appear lower?
Or do you want to continue acting like a complete imbecile?

The horizon looks to be at your eye level, but it can't be  can it? That horizon line out at sea, has to be the same level as the bottom of your feet. Your eye line is however high as it is, above the bottom of your feet.

This is why I told you. On the Dead Sea, it's 400+ m below the sea level. In the upper atmosphere, it's thousands of feet above sea level. But horizon always appears at eye level. This is why water seems to rise when you look straight ahead. Yes, I know that with water at the level of the of the bottom of my feet, sea level is at basically zero elevation. But the sea is not the horizon. The horizon is the brain telling the eye, or the camera telling a lens where top, bottom, and front are, and organizing objects according to coherent  positions. And yes, I did make a horizon in this post.