Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Higher elevation, just like a crow's nest on a ship enables a person to see farther.
On a globe, this would be impossible.

Or exactly as is to be expected.

You see, in the distance, you always have your theoretical horizon line.

Or, as it is acually known, the horizon

If you elevate your sight your theoretical horizon line rises with you and offers you farther sight into the distance, without having to alter your eye line.

No, you can see as far as you can see, height does not matter except in that it allows you to see further across a curved surface.

A scope with crosshair will show this to be correct.

It wont

Now it comes down to the other part whether people want to believe they can see farther on a globe by elevation with that very same scenario.
The answer is absolutely not.

The answer is obviously "why include the scope in this case?"
It's easily demonstrated that anything hidden by curvature is less hidden if your viewpoint is raised. You dont need a scope and you dont need to insist on level sight.

As I pointed out before. If you raised a level scope your pinpoint on the crosshair would not offer you any angle down to the ground or sea. It would offer you nothing more than the sky because the ground and the sky will not intersect due to a curve downwards no matter how small or large.
A downward curve would be just that and offer you absolutely nothing through a horizontal pinpoint view through a scope.

And as several have explained before, the pinpoint view exists only in your theory, it's not how the eye works and even the most powerful of scopes does not reduce the field of view to a pinpoint.

The only argument that seems to arise with this is when people try to use the field of vision which I clearly do not offer, hence the pinpoint view.

It doesn't matter if you offer it or not, it exists, it is real and it's how vision works.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Or exactly as is to be expected.

Of course. The narrative has been set and the story offers that so I have no issue with why people think that.

Or, as it is acually known, the horizon

The horizon is a theoretical line, nothing more than that.

No, you can see as far as you can see, height does not matter except in that it allows you to see further across a curved surface.

In your opinion which, as I said is fine by me.
It makes absolutely no sense for it to be like that for reasons I explained but then again that's just my point of view.

The answer is obviously "why include the scope in this case?"

Because a scope and crosshair and especially the actual pinpoint of the crosshair show that nothing can ever be brought back into view over distance at the horizontally level view.
This could never happen when looking along a downward curve as the pinpoint simply raises for each overall view from start to finish.

It's easily demonstrated that anything hidden by curvature is less hidden if your viewpoint is raised. You dont need a scope and you dont need to insist on level sight.

It's actually not easily demonstrated. It cannot be legitimately demonstrated but the story can be told of it working and nothing more than that. IMO.

And as several have explained before, the pinpoint view exists only in your theory, it's not how the eye works and even the most powerful of scopes does not reduce the field of view to a pinpoint.

The pinpoint view is there for anyone to see and use as their realistic yardstick. You can go and test it in any way you want over a curve.

 

[payne]

Not sure what you are going on about craters not being able to form and the moon always being the same then, if you now admit it can happen.

This is a short paper I wrote a while ago when I first telling you the 8" square rule you love to bring up is bollocks:

You must be logged on to see external links

If you are now saying it is bollocks too, then fantastic. Stop using it to "disprove a globe" because it is a load of crap. We never need speak of it again.

He's just ignoring this as it's not part of his narrative

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Of course. The narrative has been set and the story offers that so I have no issue with why people think that.

It's not a narrative, it's simple geometry.

The horizon is a theoretical line, nothing more than that.

In your opinion, which is amusing to me

In your opinion which, as I said is fine by me.
It makes absolutely no sense for it to be like that for reasons I explained but then again that's just my point of view.

Exactly, just your point of view. Not reality.

Because a scope and crosshair and especially the actual pinpoint of the crosshair show that nothing can ever be brought back into view over distance at the horizontally level view.
This could never happen when looking along a downward curve as the pinpoint simply raises for each overall view from start to finish.

Only if you're so dense that you refuse to move the pissing pinpoint

It's actually not easily demonstrated. It cannot be legitimately demonstrated but the story can be told of it working and nothing more than that. IMO.

It's so easily demonstrated that there's only one person on this whole thread who would fail to grasp it.

The pinpoint view is there for anyone to see and use as their realistic yardstick. You can go and test it in any way you want over a curve.

The pinpoint view is only being discussed because you mistakenly think it proves something for you. It doesn't.
If I aim a scope at something I want to view and find it partially obscured, I can raise the scope to see over the obstruction. Then, if needed, adjust the angle of the scope to point at the same thing.

 

[payne]

The pinpoint view is only being discussed because you mistakenly think it proves something for you. It doesn't.
If I aim a scope at something I want to view and find it partially obscured, I can raise the scope to see over the obstruction. Then, if needed, adjust the angle of the scope to point at the same thing.

As a kid I used to go out with my dad and use the air rifle. We'd make targets like what you see in archery competitions on pieces of A4. We'd go over Tunstall Hill on the bottom bit where the Hope Road runs alongside and aim towards the line so there was the large hill of earth where the slugs would hit. I'd look down the crosshair to aim for the target, hopefully hitting the middle and scoring a 10. I used the pinpoint view to accurately aim, adjusting the iron sights to compensate for my eyes. At all times I could see the whole piece of paper and a large part of the massive bank behind it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The pinpoint view is only being discussed because you mistakenly think it proves something for you. It doesn't.
If I aim a scope at something I want to view and find it partially obscured, I can raise the scope to see over the obstruction. Then, if needed, adjust the angle of the scope to point at the same thing.

Try that on a curve.

As a kid I used to go out with my dad and use the air rifle. We'd make targets like what you see in archery competitions on pieces of A4. We'd go over Tunstall Hill on the bottom bit where the Hope Road runs alongside and aim towards the line so there was the large hill of earth where the slugs would hit. I'd look down the crosshair to aim for the target, hopefully hitting the middle and scoring a 10. I used the pinpoint view to accurately aim, adjusting the iron sights to compensate for my eyes. At all times I could see the whole piece of paper and a large part of the massive bank behind it.

You're not looking over a curve so why wouldn't you see the target and the hill behind it?

 

[legend7]

as above

Is there even an above, I lose track of his musings.

 

[payne]

Is there even an above, I lose track of his musings.

you most certainly can't move your neck to look

 

[legend7]

Due to atmospheric mass from a level sight, I agree distance is gradually blocked out but more distance can be seen when moving into an angled position due to higher elevation.

Higher elevation, just like a crow's nest on a ship enables a person to see farther.
On a globe, this would be impossible.

You see, in the distance, you always have your theoretical horizon line.
If you elevate your sight your theoretical horizon line rises with you and offers you farther sight into the distance, without having to alter your eye line.

A scope with crosshair will show this to be correct.

Now it comes down to the other part whether people want to believe they can see farther on a globe by elevation with that very same scenario.
The answer is absolutely not.

As I pointed out before. If you raised a level scope your pinpoint on the crosshair would not offer you any angle down to the ground or sea. It would offer you nothing more than the sky because the ground and the sky will not intersect due to a curve downwards no matter how small or large.
A downward curve would be just that and offer you absolutely nothing through a horizontal pinpoint view through a scope.

The only argument that seems to arise with this is when people try to use the field of vision which I clearly do not offer, hence the pinpoint view.

Simply no grasp of scale whatsoever.
Myself and others did some drawings which debunked your theory of it being dense lower atmosphere blocking your vision.

 

[payne]

Simply no grasp of scale whatsoever.
Myself and others did some drawings which debunked your theory of it being dense lower atmosphere blocking your vision.

He really thinks we're standing on a size 5 footie

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Simply no grasp of scale whatsoever.
Myself and others did some drawings which debunked your theory of it being dense lower atmosphere blocking your vision.

You debunked nothing.

 

[legend7]

you most certainly can't move your neck to look

Or my eyes.
I feel like one of the Easter Island heads staring out at the so called horizon with my pinpoint vision

You debunked nothing.

We did.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Try that on a curve.

As always.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

He really thinks we're standing on a size 5 footie

A curvature is exactly that whatever the scale, which is exactly why I used the pinpoint and not a field of view.
Level a scope over any curvature and you will never bring the ground into view, nor the supposed sea at that exact pinpoint.

Basically, you would never see any theoretical horizon line at any time and only sky even by trying to argue for the magic of a supposed globe.

Or my eyes.
I feel like one of the Easter Island heads staring out at the so called horizon with my pinpoint vision

Nothing to do with you having pinpoint vision it's all to do with the pinpoint of a scope into the distance.
Your vision offers you a field of view.

 

[payne]

A curvature is exactly that whatever the scale, which is exactly why I used the pinpoint and not a field of view.
Level a scope over any curvature and you will never bring the ground into view, nor the supposed sea at that exact pinpoint.

Basically, you would never see any theoretical horizon line at any time and only sky even by trying to argue for the magic of a supposed globe.

Nothing to do with you having pinpoint vision it's all to do with the pinpoint of a scope into the distance.
Your vision offers you a field of view.

it's a scale thing dude

 

[Nukehasslefan]

As always.

And you'll find it does not work and never will.

 

[legend7]

A curvature is exactly that whatever the scale, which is exactly why I used the pinpoint and not a field of view.
Level a scope over any curvature and you will never bring the ground into view, nor the supposed sea at that exact pinpoint.

Basically, you would never see any theoretical horizon line at any time and only sky even by trying to argue for the magic of a supposed globe.

Nothing to do with you having pinpoint vision it's all to do with the pinpoint of a scope into the distance.
Your vision offers you a field of view.

You don't understand scale though so that's a ridiculous argument.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

it's a scale thing dude

The scale does not matter with a curve whether the curve is a tennis ball and a level sight or a supposed global Earth and level sight.
The same end product will happen. No horizon line and simply no ground or sea at the pinpoint of the scope.

You don't understand scale though so that's a ridiculous argument.

And that argument is pointless.

 

[payne]

The scale does not matter with a curve whether the curve is a tennis ball and a level sight or a supposed global Earth and level sight.
The same end product will happen. No horizon line and simply no ground or sea at the pinpoint of the scope.

And that argument is pointless.

no

The scale does not matter with a curve whether the curve is a tennis ball and a level sight or a supposed global Earth and level sight.
The same end product will happen. No horizon line and simply no ground or sea at the pinpoint of the scope.

And that argument is pointless.

pinpointless

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

And that argument is pointless.

It's only pointless because of your absolute refusal to accept what is simple, logical truth to anyone without a false narrative to defend.