Cheers. I promised to come back to that, as well as running two arguments at once, I was struggling with the video at home because of really dodgy broadband - but now is not the time for a rant about OpenReach!
There are a few things in that video and you have covered a lot of them. A couple of other points I was going to pick up on was they climbed the dunes to be able to see it. On a globe, higher elevation allows you to see further.
No. On your globe a higher elevation would offer you nothing but sky from a level viewpoint. You would be ever so slowly tilted back the higher you climbed. You would be looking into the sky not at any ground.
On a flat earth it should not matter, so that does play a part.
Looking over a flattish sea for instance would offer you your horizon. Something a globe could not offer you.
We've been through this.
A higher elevation over a flattish sea would offer you a view through less atmosphere than below which offers you more light back to the eye and a more distant horizon (theoretical) line.
Something a globe could not offer.
The other bit was the quote from the photographer (I may not have this correct). "That is why I love photographing here, it is always changing, always different". There are clear atmospheric reasons why this happens and it only seems to be at certain times of the day and year with certain weather conditions. If you notice, none of the documented photos are on cold cloudy days. It would no be always different, even on a cold day you would be able to see it. That is exactly why I argue as "err refraction" for the single answer to why lots of things don't work but could be fixed on a flat (or lemon squeezer earth). Yes refraction is absolutely a thing that can be seen in certain weather conditions. It is not a fixed repeatable thing consistently over all weather conditions all over the world.The whole phenomena has been described as 'rare and unique'. If the earth was flat, then we would see this all the time everywhere. Why would you only see this evidence of 'not a globe' at certain times of day in certain weather conditions in just this one place? Take Tower Hamlets area of London, which is our collection of the tallest buildings in the UK. Next to a river and said to be 10m above sea level. Then consider the Thames Estuary, with the north coast of Kent, Southend On Sea and The Isle of Sheppy, all at sea level, but only 20-30 miles away. Can you see such detail of Tower Hamlets there all year round?
Refraction would be fine over a flattish area. A mirage would be easily achievable due to atmospheric changes.
On a globe your distant view offers you a sky in the fantasy world of the global model of course.
The reality would be no globe at all and no room for argument.But obviously we have to argue from the mainstream ideals.
If the "conspiracy" was the other way round and world governments were using this as the single source of proof for a globe then it would be laughed at.
It wouldn't.
Why do you need to go to a special place? Why can't you see it everywhere? But flat earthers are hanging on to the one thing.
Are they?
Then the final thing is Nukehasslefan is no longer claiming the earth is flat
I never did in the first place but you just can't help it, can you?
, he claims it has a minor curve into a central "hump" very reminiscent of a large hemisphere.
No. I said it has a central gradient and nothing to do with a large atmosphere. But you carry on doing what you do.
If this is proof the earth is flat then it proves it is not his lemon squeezer either!
Nothing proves the Earth being flat. I don't think it's flat. Never have done.
Water is flat and level, unhindered.
Earth is clearly not as we can all see.
Mountains and hills and uneven ground.
Massive gradients and so on.
This feels like the people who say "we never went to the moon because when we went there aliens told us it was their listening post and keep away". Err, which is it now?
Errrr, nahhh, it's not. This is people like you using this stuff because it suits your argument, yet has no bearing on anything whatsoever.
It is your understanding that is silly. But this one is a really good example for an explanation that you will reject out of hand for no particular reason, only because you like saying 'nah bollocks'. However you have also described maths as something we are "just schooled in", that we learned some magical equation without reasoning and just have to accept and regurgitate what we are told. Well this is a good one to work through from first and basic principals and not just accept advanced magic like trigonometry.
Maths and trig is fine for reality.
That's about it.
It's no good for the pretence of distant so called light year stars.
The question really is, if there are two buildings a certain distance apart on a globe and logically they would lean away from each other, then by how much do they lean? I.e. what is the angle between them? If we can answer that question then we know what to expect.
I suppose the answer to that over 50 miles on your supposed globe would be a decent amount but not only that, it would also offer any person stood on those buildings an impossible level view of each other over a small distance never mind a long distance.
Ok so consider that for any point on a globe, straight down is towards the centre. So for any two points where a building might sit then you can draw lines down from both to the centre and the angle between those two lines is the angle a building will appear to lean apart.
If you take a cross section of a sphere through the middle on the line between two points then you get a circle. The circumference of a circle is 2 x Pi x radius and we can check this ourselves with any sized circle we decide to measure. If we know a distance on the surface then we can work out what the ratio of the distance between two points and the circumference is. For example if we have a 10 mile circle and 2 points 1 mile apart, the ratio is 1:10. However now consider the angle between those two points. There are 360 degrees in a circle. We know if those two points were a quarter of the way round the circle apart, the angle between would be 90 degrees, half way round would give an angle of 180 degrees, an eighth of the way round, an angle of 45 degrees. All of those angles are the same fraction of 360 degrees as the fraction of the total circumference.
So we know there is no conspiracy there, all we need to know is the ratio of the distance between two points to the total circumference and take that ratio of 360 degrees and we have the angle they are apart. In terms of an equation that is:
a = 360 x (d / 2 x Pi x r)
where a is the angle apart, d is the distance between and r is the radius of a circle. We can test this with any sized circle, or clock etc on a measurable scale and it will work up to a planetary scale.
What you find is the "leaning back" or "leaning apart" is a tiny fraction of an angle, calculated by simple maths, unless the planet you are on is very small. Earth is not. You can see by looking at the equation that if the radius r is really big and d relatively small, then d / 2 x Pi x r will be a very small number. 360 multiplied by a very small number gives a very small number. It is enough to take into account if you are an engineer building a bridge but not something the human eye can see.
This is exactly the same as your bath 'experiment'. Really big planet, tiny effect on local scale.
Let me make this clear.
The smallest angle will skew the angle into the distance by a great amount, visually.
If you are stood atop of a skyscraper looking towards an identical skyscraper, opposite at 10 miles, you would be looking set level through your scope, meaning your scope would be horizontally level and the opposite scope would be.
The issue your globe has is, it's...well, it's a globe. It means the buildings would have to be set on the convex curve of it at those points which means they would have to be angled no matter how small.
So therefore you have to understand that each person with their scopes have to lean like the towers, however small.
It means they cannot hit the scope of the person opposite. It would simply go above each others heads as the angle over distance raises higher into the sky.
It's just not happening and doesn't happen because when level is set, it is level because the Earth is not a globe and cannot ever be a globe without the amount of magical mysteries to make it appear logical, which any person who gives it a bit of thought outside of the box, will see.
So what is the force that keeps water on this disc called earth
I think we're done here. You were told I don't go with a disc.
