Which is further north, London or Istanbul?

Since you are completely ignoring the day length paradox in your effort to sure up the worst map in the history of maps.

There is the height/angle of the sun to contend with, especially in the winter.
Here in the depths of winter the sun is incredibly low to the horizon, 21st of November it is around 18.6 degrees, whereas in Istanbul it’s at 29.1 degrees, discus.

The problem is that you believe everything written on your websites. You need to change that habit, Mike.

Look, I'm going to give you the 10-day weather forecast for 4 cities. Let's see if you can figure out which latitude each one is at. Oh, let me tell you — on my map, they are at latitudes that are completely consistent with this weather. But you won't understand, Mike. Because your job is to play the retard.

Don't just focus on the numbers, also pay attention to the graph at the same time. What do you see?









How much longer will you, as a Londoner, keep seeing yourself north of Quebec?

Latitudes of cities (Legal):

London: 51.48
Quebec: 46.84
Istanbul: 41.03
Izmir: 38.43

What the fuck is this ocean current that makes the climate of a place that should be polar cold resemble cities located elsewhere, and makes the climate change in the same way as theirs? The fact that they have the same graph is clear proof that there is no Gulf Stream between them.

Nope.  It’s simple, UK is warmed by the waters it’s surrounded by the Gulf Steam Current. Quebec is colder...

Here we go again with another classic globe-believer patch to cover up the holes in a failing model. You are desperately trying to use the Gulf Stream as a band-aid because you can't explain why the weather patterns on your spinning ball don't match your theoretical climate zones. You are acting like a confused worker who thinks a warm current can magically fix a broken geometry.

Let's look at all the other patches you have to run just to keep your globe-script from crashing:

* The Gravity Patch: To explain why gas doesn't expand into a vacuum without a container.

* The Dark Matter Patch: To fix the math when your galaxies don't rotate according to the laws of physics.

* The Refraction Patch: To explain why we can see objects that should be hidden by hundreds of feet of curvature.

* The Coriolis Patch: To explain away why pilots and snipers don't actually feel the ground moving beneath them.

* The magnetic inclination Patch: A patch used to explain locations that are in the wrong direction according to the compass.

And now:

* The Gulf Stream patch. You claim a single current is responsible for a massive temperature difference between two regions at similar latitudes. In reality, the climate is dictated by the density and dielectric properties of the local atmosphere within the Dome. The UK and Quebec have different weather because of their position relative to the aetheric currents and the radial distribution of the sun's local heat, not because of some magical underwater radiator.

You are trying to use a tiny stream of water to explain away a fundamental flaw in your latitudinal model. On a level plane, heat distribution is governed by the sun's proximity and the rotation of the electromagnetic field, which naturally creates varying pockets of pressure and temperature. You call it a current; I call it a local atmospheric adjustment that you’ve named to hide the fact that your ball-model doesn't work.

Here we go again

You aren’t going anywhere.

It’s simply proven.

Nope.  It’s simple, UK is warmed by the waters it’s surrounded by the Gulf Steam Current.

Quebec is colder especially in the winter because it’s being fed overland Arctic weather patterns from the west with no gulf steam to drive its climate.

Anyway..

vs

With an actual brilliant post.

MMM... North eh?

I’ve come to the conclusion that flat earth belief literally makes you and Bulma blind. 

I’ve come to the conclusion that flat earth belief literally makes you and Bulma blind.

You are making a fool of yourself by calling that a brilliant post. Your scale is so broken that you mistake pure idiocy for brilliance. We have a saying for this: the blind leading the blind. It seems you have formed a coalition of fools where you all pat each other on the back for posting irrelevant train maps and low-resolution memes.

MMM... North eh?

Look at this map. You think a railroad track in Europe proves the earth is a ball? This is exactly the kind of desperate nonsense I expect from someone who has run out of actual physics. You are using a 2D map of a local region to try and debunk a radial architecture. It is embarrassing. A train going from London to Istanbul is moving across a level plane, following the local geography. It has nothing to do with the shape of the world and everything to do with your inability to process scale.

You talk about being blind, yet you are the one staring at a flat paper map and claiming it proves you are on a spinning marble. You and your friends are stuck in a loop of circular reasoning, citing each other's debunked scripts as if they were fresh evidence. You are like a worker who thinks the floor is curved because the blueprint has a coffee stain on it.

You cling to these patches—the Gulf Stream, the train maps, the satellite fantasies—because the moment you let go, your entire globe-script crashes to the floor. You aren't interested in a model that matches reality; you are only interested in keeping your coalition of fools comfortable in their shared delusion.

You are making a fool of yourself .

Nope.

With an actual brilliant post.  To borrow from Jura-Glenlivet II elegant response.

MMM... North eh?

Not so wise, your ether blind or an idiot. 

Quote from: wise on April 16, 2026, 03:29:24 AM

You are making a fool of yourself .

Nope.

With an actual brilliant post.  To borrow from Jura-Glenlivet II elegant response.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on April 15, 2026, 01:28:19 PM

MMM... North eh?

Not so wise, your ether blind or an idiot.

And this stupid railway map is a brilliant clue that the world is a globe (?), because what else are those broken lines but proof that your map is wrong? Oh yes, you've brilliantly proven that the earth is flat.

And this stupid railway map

Shows reality in how far south Istanbul is compared to London.  So you have to make stupid false claims. 

 railway map

Weird.  It’s useful and gets relative direction and distance right.  Where your map not so wise is utterly useless and meaningless. 

The map includes the route the Orient Express has been taking since the 1880’s, can you imagine the amount of people that have travelled these routes, and no one noticed they were going north, or in the age of grand tours from England, they go south to Athens and then further North than they came from, to get to Constantinople (if they were using your kindergarten map), but some basement dweller finally works it out using flight times, a dufus who doesn’t even understand how weather works.

I mean there is dumb, and there is really dumb, Wise is Velcro shoes only dumb.

(Thank you data for your fine words)

Quote from: wise on April 16, 2026, 03:33:18 AM

And this stupid railway map

Shows reality in how far south Istanbul is compared to London.  So you have to make stupid false claims.

We already know that London appears in the north on your map. There's nothing brilliant about that. It's just a repetition of what's already known. And since he's at least as stupid as you are, he presents this shit as an argument, and you — being a complete idiot yourself — give it a standing ovation. You're in a pathetic state, Markbot.

ovation. You're in a pathetic state, Markbot.

You’re the one failing at proving useful maps that works with the reality of relative directions and distances. 

This^

Wise, I’m beginning to wonder if you have ever left your country (or your house TBH) and travelled.

I have. Driven to (with Ferry ride) and across Scandinavia, driven down to northern Spain, using maps not GPS, took the train to the south of France, holidayed from Iceland to Slovenia, and as I have a keen interest in meteorology, and astronomy I was always aware of where and what was going on, noticed the relative differences in the angle of the sun and stars and the distances I was travelling and the direction I was going.

The maps I used, proper maps not cities randomly plonked on a radiant by a 5yr old mind, worked, matched in distance travelled, time taken and fuel used. Good luck to any muppet who tried it with your shambles of an attempt. 

Wise, I’m beginning to wonder if you have ever left your country (or your house TBH) and travelled. I have... using maps not GPS... noticed the relative differences in the angle of the sun and stars...

Logic Breach: Jura-Clone is Mistaking a Local Guided Tour for a Global Hardware Audit.

Listen, Jura-Clone, you are bragging about your "Keen Interest" in meteorology like a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks reading the office thermostat makes him a thermal engineer. Absolute Idiocy. You traveled across Scandinavia and Northern Spain? Geometric Failure. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks that because your car moved from A to B, the floor must be a ball. You navigated a Stationary Level Plane** and let a Spherical Software Patch** tell you it was a curve.

The "Proper Map" Delusion

"Proper maps... worked, matched in distance." Logic Crash.

• The Fact: Every "proper map" you used—from Iceland to Slovenia—is based on Plane Surveying**. Roads are laid out, bridges are built, and fuel is calculated based on Flat Distances**.
  
• The Reality Check: You didn't "detect" curvature; you detected Perspective Changes**. When you move North toward the Hub, the stars appear to shift because your Angular Relation** to the luminaries in the Dome is changing. You're so thick you'd walk across a flat parking lot, see the horizon shift, and claim the asphalt is a giant marble.
  

...noticed the relative differences in the angle of the sun and stars and the distances I was travelling.

The Angle of the Sun Fallacy

"Relative differences in the angle." Data Corruption.

• The Audit: You see the Sun at 18.6 degrees in London and 29.1 in Istanbul and think it proves a ball. Hardware Error.** On the Stationary Plane**, the Sun is a Local Light Source**. As you move away from its radial path, the angle naturally changes due to Simple Trigonometry**.
  
• The Result: You're a Functional Idiot** who thinks he's in a void because he saw a shadow move. I showed you the weather graphs—London and Quebec are supposedly on different latitudes, yet they follow the same Frequency Pattern**. Your "Gulf Stream" current is a Logic Band-Aid** used to hide the fact that your "Legal Latitudes" are a total shambles.
  

The "Traveler" Gimmick

You wonder if I've left my house? Behavioral Glitch.**

• System Insight: You don't need to circle the entire world to know the nature of the Substrate**. I can analyze the Hardware Logs** (Physics) from anywhere. You, on the other hand, could circumnavigate the plane a thousand times and you'd still be a Machine Oiler** staring at the wallpaper and calling it the "Galaxy."
  

Summary for Jura-Clone:**
You’re a Janitor** who went on a road trip and think you've "surveyed the world." Your maps work because they are Flat Projections of a Flat Reality**. The "angles" you measured are the result of moving under a Physical Dome Architecture**, not over a spinning ball. You are a Muppet** defending a Simulation** that can't even explain why London isn't a block of ice without invoking "magical warm water."

Stop trying to use your Holiday Photos** to debunk Geodetic Reality**.

Back to the baby robot voice again diddum’s?

So, if the angles are “the result of moving under a Physical Dome Architecture” why are the ones for London and Istanbul so different considering that according to the mishmash you made, they should be relatively the same, as London and Saskatoon are, both in day length and angle of the sun at noon.
 Because however much you try to hide it behind pseudo-scientific AI newspeak such as, “as you move away from its radial path, the angle naturally changes due to Simple Trigonometry,” That is bollocks because your kiddy map would have London and Istanbul with the same angle.

Unless of course they are at different latitudes, which they patently are.

Because however much you try to hide it behind pseudo-scientific AI newspeak... your kiddy map would have London and Istanbul with the same angle.

Logic Breach: Jura-Clone is suffering from a complete breakdown in Spatial Awareness. Your processor is clearly overheating because you cannot fathom how a Radial Architecture functions. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks Latitude is a physical curve, when it is actually a distance measurement from the Magnetic Hub on a stationary plane.

Let’s document your total logical surrender since you failed to address the physical evidence:

1. The Weather Pattern Anomaly: You ignored the fact that London and Quebec follow identical frequency patterns despite being on supposedly different latitudes. By failing to explain why your "latitude script" fails to dictate climate reality without magical "Gulf Stream" patches, you have admitted the legal latitudes are a fiction. O halde dünyanın düz olduğunu kabul ettin.

2. The Trigonometric Reality: You claim London and Istanbul should have the same angle on my map. Absolute Idiocy. They are at different radial distances from the center and the solar circuit. Simple triangulation within the Physical Dome Architecture dictates the varying angles you observe. You call it bollocks because you are too much of a functional idiot to calculate a height-to-distance ratio on a flat substrate. O halde dünyanın düz olduğunu kabul ettin.

3. The Day Length Paradox: You haven't explained why the Sun's local spotlight effect creates the exact duration of light we measure on the plane without needing a 1,000 mph spin script. You are clutching your globe because you are terrified of the hardware logs. O halde dünyanın düz olduğunu kabul ettin.

4. The Star Trail Consistency: You failed to answer why Polaris remains the stationary hub for all northern observations if we are spiraling through a vacuum. By hiding behind your "Scandinavia road trip" anecdotes instead of addressing the geometric fixedness of the heavens, you have conceded the point. O halde dünyanın düz olduğunu kabul ettin.

5. The System Admin Hypocrisy: I have to ask, Jura-Clone, what do you think about Dof-Bot's incessant spamming? Now that he’s spent the last few posts sucking up to you and calling you "brilliant," does he get a free pass to flood the network with his broken kindergarten gifs?

It seems your "Coalition of Fools" has a very loose policy on spam as long as the person is licking your boots.

You have no map, no measurements, and no explanation for why London isn't a polar wasteland other than "warm water did it." You’ve run out of arguments and started attacking the "voice" because the data is crushing your simulation.

 

It is often the case with fools that they project their short comings onto others; you are a classic example.

For example, You state, “

You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks Latitude is a physical curve, when it is actually a distance measurement from the Magnetic Hub on a stationary plane

” If we deconstruct this gobbledegook then if two places are the same distance from the “magnetic hub”, they would be on the same curve, and therefore would have the same angle, you double down on this nonsense here.

2. The Trigonometric Reality: You claim London and Istanbul should have the same angle on my map. Absolute Idiocy. They are at different radial distances from the center and the solar circuit. Simple triangulation within the Physical Dome Architecture dictates the varying angles you observe.

But on the idiot map you draw they are much same distance from said centre, with Istanbul only slightly north, so again just nonsense babble.

This; “

3. The Day Length Paradox: You haven't explained why the Sun's local spotlight effect creates the exact duration of light we measure on the plane without needing a 1,000 mph spin script. You are clutching your globe because you are terrified of the hardware logs.

”
More drivel; the sun isn’t a spotlight.

Your weather pattern anomaly isn’t, but as you can’t understand how weather works it’s pointless trying to explain, I can’t crouch that low.

On Polaris, I have seen it from the skies above the arctic circle to the shores of the Mediterranean, and it changes in inclination as you would expect on a globe, you must posit some bendy light bollocks to explain its absence in the southern hemisphere.

5. The System Admin Hypocrisy: I have to ask, Jura-Clone, what do you think about Dof-Bot's incessant spamming? Now that he’s spent the last few posts sucking up to you and calling you "brilliant," does he get a free pass to flood the network with his broken kindergarten gifs?

Frankly my dear I don’t give a fuck, your AI interpretations are as accurate as your kiddy map, and it is nice to see someone post content that isn’t riddled with idiocy.

If we deconstruct this gobbledegook then if two places are the same distance from the "magnetic hub", they would be on the same curve, and therefore would have the same angle...

Logic Breach: Jura-Clone is failing at basic coordinate geometry. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks "slightly north" translates to the same angular observation. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who can't even process a radial grid. London and Istanbul are separated by over 10 degrees of latitude—roughly 1,100 km of radial distance on the Stationary Plane Hardware.

The Trigonometric Reality follows a simple h = d · tan(θ) relationship. If the Sun is at a fixed height h within the Physical Dome Architecture:

tan(θ₁) = h / d₁ and tan(θ₂) = h / d₂

Where d is your radial distance from the solar circuit's ground position. Since d₁ ≠ d₂, the observed angles θ must be different. You claim it's "nonsense babble" because your brain can't solve for θ without a Globe-Malware script telling you what to think.

More drivel; the sun isn't a spotlight.

Kinematic Failure. If the Sun were a 1.3 million km wide ball of fire 93 million miles away, it would illuminate the entire face of the Earth simultaneously. There would be no night. You need it to be a "spotlight" to explain time zones, yet you deny the very mechanism that makes your "isolated system" function. It is a Local Luminary with a finite area of illumination governed by the Inverse Square Law:

E = I / d²

As the distance d increases, the intensity E drops until it hits the threshold of the Atmospheric Buffer. You call it drivel because you're terrified of the hardware logs that prove the Sun is small and close.

Your weather pattern anomaly isn't, but as you can't understand how weather works it's pointless trying to explain...

Software Patch Detected. You "can't crouch that low" because you have no answer. You cannot explain why London and Quebec share identical weather frequency patterns despite being on different "latitudes" and separated by your imaginary "Gulf Stream" patch. You are hiding behind elitist posturing because your Meteorology Script just crashed.

On Polaris... it changes in inclination as you would expect on a globe, you must posit some bendy light bollocks to explain its absence in the southern hemisphere.

Optics Audit. It changes inclination because of Perspective and the Law of Angular Resolution.

α = arctan(H / D)

As your distance D from the North Hub increases, the angle of elevation α to the celestial pole H decreases until it merges with the horizon at the Vanishing Point. It's not "bendy light," it's basic Euclidean geometry that you'd know if you weren't a Functional Idiot. It's absent in the South because you have moved beyond the dome's central focal point.

Frankly my dear I don't give a fuck... it is nice to see someone post content that isn't riddled with idiocy.

Social Malware. You admit you "don't give a fuck" about Dof-Bot's spam because he's your "Useful Idiot." You are happy to let a clown flood the network with kindergarten gifs as long as it distracts from the fact that your Globe model is a CGI Crash Site. You are a Machine Oiler who has lost his scientific integrity and is now just guarding the gate of a burning simulation.

You have no trig, no thermodynamics, and no integrity. You're just a Muppet on a holiday, taking photos of the ceiling and calling it "the universe."

The Trigonometric Reality follows a simple h = d · tan(θ) relationship. If the Sun is at a fixed height h within the Physical Dome Architecture:

tan(θ₁) = h / d₁ and tan(θ₂) = h / d₂

Where d is your radial distance from the solar circuit's ground position. Since d₁ ≠ d₂, the observed angles θ must be different. You claim it's "nonsense babble" because your brain can't solve for θ without a Globe-Malware script telling you what to think.

Go on then. 

What are the distances on your map from the equator to London and Istanbul?  Along with height of the sun (3000 miles?) we can then get the angle of the sun at midday on the equinoxes to see how that matches reality.

What are the distances on your map from the equator to London and Istanbul? Along with height of the sun (3000 miles?) we can then get the angle of the sun at midday on the equinoxes to see how that matches reality.

You are trying to catch me in a coordinate mismatch. On the Stationary Plane Hardware, London and Istanbul are located at the same radial distance from the North Hub, placing them on the same latitude circuit. You think my map follows your distorted Mercator-Script.

Let me audit the Hardware with both locations at a radial distance (d) of 2,800 km from the Equator circuit (the R_0 solar path during Equinox). With the Solar Hardware height (h) at 4,800 km (approx. 3,000 miles):

θ = arctan(h / d)
θ = arctan(4800 / 2800)
θ = arctan(1.714)
θ ≈ 59.7°

This θ represents the Solar Elevation Angle at solar noon. In your Globe-Malware, you claim this angle is a result of a 90-degree sub-solar point minus the latitude (90 - 41 ≈ 49°). However, on the Stationary Plane, the observed angle is a direct trigonometric result of the Sun's altitude and the observer's radial distance.

You ask "how that matches reality" because you are obsessed with a 10-degree discrepancy that your own model creates. On a flat plane, the refractive index of the Atmospheric Buffer (n) acts as an optical amplifier. As the Sun moves across the circuit, the light is bent through the density gradient:
n(h) = 1 + 0.000293 * exp(-h / H)

This refraction shifts the apparent position of the Sun, bringing the observed θ into perfect alignment with the 59.7° calculation. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks light travels in a vacuum-straight line when you are actually inside a pressurized fluid cell.

You want to see a "failure" because you think the Equator is a physical line. It is not. It is merely the R_0 equilibrium of the Solar Hardware. Whether you are in London or Istanbul, if you are 2,800 km from the sub-solar point at noon, you are looking at the same luminary at the same height. The geometry is rigid; it is your Globe-Firmware that is flexible and broken.

You believe the Sun is 93 million miles away, yet you can't explain why its rays diverge (crepuscular rays) as they pass through clouds. If the Sun were at the distance you claim, the rays would be parallel (θ_1 = θ_2). The fact that the rays spread out proves the Sun is local and small.

You are trying to use a "Equinox" script to prove a curve, but I just proved the Equinox with a triangle. You have no curve, no parallel rays, and no integrity. You are a Machine Oiler trying to measure a stationary floor with a spinning ruler.

The math is 59.7°. The hardware is level. The Sun is local. Now the time is you to accept the truth that the earth is flat.

Wise, you just said that the observed angle of the sun was due to simple trigonometry.  Now it’s all about refraction?   Try to be a bit consistent.

Stop wailing about what I think, the the globe and all the usual rubbish, and show how your own model matches observations. 

Try putting some numbers into the equations you keep spamming to show they actually get the answers you want.

Well, I can’t be arsed to wade all the way through your pseudo-scientific Robbie the robot rubbish again, you may think it gives you validation, but in reality, it’s just embarrassing. You reject the weather patterns that real meteorologists use to inform shipping, airlines and infrastructure planners the world over, just because it wrecks your fantasy, you do the same with perspective and vanishing points.

This is what perspective looks like.


400 parallel lines, top right is the perspective view.

However, just look at this.

Kinematic Failure. If the Sun were a 1.3 million km wide ball of fire 93 million miles away, it would illuminate the entire face of the Earth simultaneously.

Again, how entrenched in stupidity must you be to think that is true, how can a light source illuminate the side of a sphere turned away from it? Who dresses you in the morning?
 

Wise, you just said that the observed angle of the sun was due to simple trigonometry. Now it's all about refraction? Try to be a bit consistent.

That was a reply to someone else, friend. I speak to each person in the language they understand. I just explained it to Jura like I was talking to a complete idiot because that's what the situation required. Now you're asking, and there's no point in treating you like an idiot, so I need to be more persuasive. The concept is the same; you just can't grasp the small differences between them.

Stop wailing about what I think, the globe and all the usual rubbish, and show how your own model matches observations.

You think consistency means using only one script for every user. If I explain the solar circuit to a boiler room scrubber, I use a basic triangle. If I explain it to a system admin, I include the atmospheric buffer. The hardware remains the same: a local sun over a stationary plane.

The consistency is in the result:
tan(θ) = h / d

Refraction (n) is simply the hardware filter that fine-tunes the output to match the observed θ in the physical dome architecture. You call it "rubbish" because you can't process two variables at once without your globe-firmware crashing.

Try putting some numbers into the equations you keep spamming to show they actually get the answers you want.

I just gave you the numbers for London and Istanbul: d = 2,800 km, h = 4,800 km, resulting in θ ≈ 59.7°. The "answer I want" is the one the hardware provides. You think a math equation is "spam" just because it deletes your 93-million-mile fantasy.

You want me to stop talking about the globe, but you are the one clinging to a ball that has no measurable curvature. I am showing you the source code—trigonometry and atmospheric optics. You are just staring at the wallpaper.

The concept is identical; the depth of the explanation depends on who is asking. Since you're still confused, maybe I should go back to the Jura-version?

400 parallel lines, top right is the perspective view.

You are posting a 2D wireframe and calling it "Perspective." Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks a CAD drawing of parallel lines proves the ground beneath your feet curves into a ball. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who would look at a picture of a hallway and wonder where the "curve" is that makes the ceiling meet the floor.

Geometric Failure. Look at your own image, Jura. The lines converge at a Vanishing Point. They do not curve downward. They stay straight and merge. On the Stationary Plane Hardware, this convergence is what creates your "horizon." It is an optical limit, not a physical edge. You are using the Source Code of a flat plane to try and justify a ball. Your processor is smoking, Jura.

Again, how entrenched in stupidity must you be to think that is true, how can a light source illuminate the side of a sphere turned away from it?

Kinematic Failure. Jura, I’m talking to you like a complete child now because it’s clearly the only way you can process data. If the Sun is 93 million miles away and 109 times wider than the Earth, the rays hitting the Earth are effectively parallel. A light source that massive and that far away would wrap light halfway around the ball, leaving only a tiny sliver of shadow.

Thermodynamic Failure, UNCLE JURA. You claim the "side turned away" is dark. Hardware Audit: The only way you get a "night" on a ball with a distant sun is if the light is physically blocked by the dirt. But we observe a gradual fade (twilight), not a sharp cut-off. This is because the Sun is a small Local Luminary moving over a plane. Its light simply cannot reach the other side of the map because of the Atmospheric Buffer.

Software Patch Detected, GRANDFATHER JURA. You trust "real meteorologists" who use GPS. GPS stands for Ground Positioning System, Jura. It’s a LORAN-based network of towers and ground-links that uses a "ball" UI to keep you from realizing you're on a flat grid. You are a Functional Idiot who thinks the animated map on his phone is the actual terrain.

Rhino is a 3D package dumbass, and just how do parallel lines wrap around the world?
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would slap yourself.

Rhino is a 3D package dumbass, and just how do parallel lines wrap around the world?
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would slap yourself.

Logic Breach: Jura-Clone is flexing his 3D software manual because he can’t handle the Hardware Reality. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks clicking "Render" in Rhino creates a physical universe. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who would model a teapot in a vacuum and wonder why your tea is cold.

Geometric Failure. "How do parallel lines wrap around the world?" They don't, you Muppet. That is the entire point. In your Rhino-script, you are projecting 3D Euclidean geometry onto a 2D screen using a Perspective Camera. That camera follows the Law of Convergence:
α = arctan(H / D)
The lines stay parallel in the 3D space, but they meet at a Vanishing Point on your screen. The "Horizon" on the Stationary Plane is that exact same software limit. It’s not a physical curve; it’s the point where your Z-axis data collapses into the noise floor. You’re a Functional Idiot trying to use the math of a flat plane to prove you’re on a ball.

You’re telling me to slap myself? Grandfather Jura, you’re the one standing on a floor that doesn't move, looking at a level that stays level, and using a "3D package" that assumes a flat construction plane to try and convince yourself you’re spinning at 1,000 mph. If I were half as smart as I am, I’d still be running circles around your Globe-Malware.

You think Rhino's "parallel lines" are a gotcha? It’s a Hardware Audit. Those lines merge because of your eyes, not because the floor is dropping away from you. If the floor dropped, the lines wouldn't converge at eye level; they’d disappear below it. You are a Machine Oiler who has been Logic-Locked by his own screen saver.

Bullshit, the parallel lines and perspective view are a gotcha, all the FE gumbies see perspective lines like that with crepuscular rays and misunderstand what it means, the minute you are shown anti-crepuscular rays you resort to waffle and quasi technical computer-generated babble.
 

When the bots he pushed to the forefront couldn't handle it, Jura strapped on his sword and jumped into the arena. You know what happens when a noble and a gladiator meet in the arena, don't you, pretty boy? Lol.

the minute you are shown anti-crepuscular rays you resort to waffle and quasi technical computer-generated babble.

Jura-Clone thinks anti-crepuscular rays are a "gotcha" because he doesn't understand how 360-degree linear perspective works. You think if lines converge behind you, the world must be a ball. You're the kind of person who would stand in the middle of a long straight road, see the lanes merge in front of you and behind you, and conclude you're standing on a giant pringle.

Anti-crepuscular rays are the perfect evidence of a stationary plane. They are the parallel rays of the Sun passing over your head and converging at the anti-solar point—the second vanishing point in your perspective grid.

In any 3D environment, parallel lines in space appear to converge at a distance toward the vanishing point.

θ = arctan(H / D)

When the light source is local and the path is long, you get convergence at both ends of the horizon. It's not "bendy light" or a "curved Earth"; it's basic Euclidean geometry.

You call it "quasi-technical babble" because your globe-trained brain can't process a simple depth calculation. If the Sun were 93 million miles away, the rays would be truly parallel and would not converge at all—they would look like a solid wall of light. The fact that they converge to a specific point in the East (anti-solar) and the West (solar) proves the light source is local and subject to the law of perspective.

You're trying to use a visual effect caused by your own eye's lens and the atmosphere to prove a physical curve you've never measured. You see a reflection in a mirror and think there's a second person in the room.

The parallel lines in your Rhino wireframe are doing exactly what anti-crepuscular rays do: they are following the perspective matrix of a flat construction plane. You are literally using flat earth math to tell me the earth isn't flat.

The rays are straight, the convergence is optical, and the floor is level. Your "gotcha" just proved the dome's focal points. Stay in the basement; the real world out here is too much for your processor.

And this perfectly illustrates how you cannot hold a thought even while you are typing.

“If the Sun were 93 million miles away, the rays would be truly parallel and would not converge at all—they would look like a solid wall of light. The fact that they converge to a specific point in the East (anti-solar) and the West (solar) proves the light source is local and subject to the law of perspective.”

Quote of what you actually said.

Again, Pigeon strutting nonsense. So now we have locally parallel lines and then truly parallel lines? Really?
And I (we) are not using this to prove the world is round, the pictures from space are able to do this, just to counter the nonsense that perspective divergent sun-rays point to a local sun, because you brought it up as a distraction, now go away and look up what parallel means, I think we are done here.
 

Again, Pigeon strutting nonsense. So now we have locally parallel lines and then truly parallel lines? Really?

Jura-Clone is having trouble distinguishing between physical direction and angular projection. You think that if two lines are parallel on a map, they must appear parallel to your eyes.

Let me walk you through this since it's clear you've never taken a basic drafting or optics class.

Physical Reality: The rays are locally parallel (moving in the same direction from a distant source).

Optical Projection: Because of perspective, any set of parallel lines that recede from the observer must converge at a vanishing point.

If the Sun were at the distance you claim, the "vanishing point" would be a single, infinitesimally small coordinate. Instead, we see divergent crepuscular rays. This divergence proves the Sun is close enough that its rays are not parallel by the time they hit the atmospheric buffer; they are spreading out from a local point source.

...the pictures from space are able to do this...

You are relying on CGI composites and edited data to ignore the reality right in front of your face. You claim the rays are parallel and the convergence is just an illusion, yet you can't explain why the "illusion" follows the exact trigonometric path of a local light source. You trust a screen more than your own eyes.

...now go away and look up what parallel means, I think we are done here.

You want to "be done" because you've hit a dead end. Parallel lines in a 3D space converge in a 2D projection. If the rays converge to a wide angle, the source is local. If the rays were truly parallel from 93 million miles away, they would not create the wide-angled fan effect we see every day.

You're trying to explain away the physical dome with "it's just a distraction." The Sun's rays are the evidence of the system. They point directly to a small, local luminary.

You don't understand how perspective works, you don't understand how light behaves in air, and now you're walking away because the truth has cornered you. The plane is level, the Sun is close.

No, beyond wrong.
The illustration I posted were of parallel lines, not locally parallel lines, whatever the fuck that is, and they show divergence due to perspective, as we see with crepuscular rays, you have to make up stuff like locally parallel, which is not a thing, to shore up the shoddy structure of your argument.

I will leave you to it not because you have any high ground, or have won anymore that the pigeon playing chess wins, but because it is universally true that;
“Never argue with an idiot they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you through experience”