Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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

Not at all.
It's clear logic when anyone cares to try it out.

 

[payne]

Not at all.
It's clear logic when anyone cares to try it out.

only for flat earthers though. the rest of humanity is just too dumb

 

[fyl2u]

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

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

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.

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

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.

Wrong.

 

[taipeisafc]

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.

We've been through this - an elevated vantage point was proven to actually need the light from the object to travel through more air and hence be less visible so another fail there. In fact a higher elevation does geometrically give you a higher viewpoint on a curved surface but not on a flat surface (another fail for you there). The thing about the crosshairs has been proven utterly wrong on here - multiple times. Complete fail - try again plank.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

only for flat earthers though. the rest of humanity is just too dumb

Nothing to do with anyone being dumb. It's more to do with how people are coaxed into following a narrative.

 

[payne]

Nothing to do with anyone being dumb. It's more to do with how people are coaxed into following a narrative.

it's exactly what it is. you actually think everyone is dumb and doesn't think for themselves so gets duped into a narrative, whereas you're just too smart for that. wouldn't enter your mind that you're a sociopath

 

[taipeisafc]

His stock answer is dense atmosphere. However as we all know, the density of the atmosphere changes with temperature, moisture, pressure etc. If you live somewhere and can only see the top half of a lighthouse on the horizon, you might have days where haze, cloud, fog means you can’t see it or the horizon at all. What you never have is days you can see the whole lot, days you can only see the top etc.

But it you say that he points to the single lake Michigan effect on still water in very specific atmospheric conditions.

It also doesn’t account for you climbing a hill and being able to see further over the horizon, exactly as maths says you should. (Actual maths, not his nut job rule)

He will not accept an argument either way, but can not provide maths for working out distance to the horizon in his fantasy land. He just knows.
ah, he typed at the same time and his is back to his very best thing. I love this one of maximum dribbling moronic levels. If you are on a tower of any height (say a small box) and live on a globe, the horizon disappears and you will only be able to see the sky. One step up and you live thinking “fuck me, where did the ground go”.

Mental.

I have some photos taken on a tower at the south end of our site (right on the edge of the bay) taken at the same point on subsequently higher elevations up to the top platform which is around 60m above grade at no point does the horizon disappear and you can see further as the bases of a string of wind turbines built on the other side of the bay (towards Hangzhou / Ningbo) become increasingly visible.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

We've been through this - an elevated vantage point was proven to actually need the light from the object to travel through more air and hence be less visible so another fail there. In fact a higher elevation does geometrically give you a higher viewpoint on a curved surface but not on a flat surface (another fail for you there). The thing about the crosshairs has been proven utterly wrong on here - multiple times. Complete fail - try again plank.

A higher elevation with a level scope would offer you more light through less dense atmospheric stacking. It would not offer you any opportunity to see more ground or sea from a pinpoint view from level.
The reason is simple and logical. You cannot see down a curve if you're looking level and pinpoint over it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Not at all.
It's clear logic when anyone cares to try it out.

Indeed.
You should.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

it's exactly what it is. you actually think everyone is dumb and doesn't think for themselves so gets duped into a narrative, whereas you're just too smart for that. wouldn't enter your mind that you're a sociopath

What you decide in what you think of others is entirely down to you. I respect the views of anyone other whether I think they're wrong or not.

Indeed.
You should.

I have. You try it.

 

[taipeisafc]

A higher elevation with a level scope would offer you more light through less dense atmospheric stacking. It would not offer you any opportunity to see more ground or sea from a pinpoint view from level.
The reason is simple and logical. You cannot see down a curve if you're looking level and pinpoint over it.

No it wouldn't - simple geometry, experiments done by people on here and maths has proven this repeatedly. You are utterly wrong, either offer some proof or stop banging on with drivel.

 

[payne]

A higher elevation with a level scope would offer you more light through less dense atmospheric stacking. It would not offer you any opportunity to see more ground or sea from a pinpoint view from level.
The reason is simple and logical. You cannot see down a curve if you're looking level and pinpoint over it.

I'm glad dense atmospheric stacking has reappeard. A wonderful string of words. Off the scale.

What you decide in what you think of others is entirely down to you. I respect the views of anyone other whether I think they're wrong or not.

I have. You try it.

You've called everyone a liar for the whole thread.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

A higher elevation with a level scope would offer you more light through less dense atmospheric stacking. It would not offer you any opportunity to see more ground or sea from a pinpoint view from level.

Because some idiot insisted on keeping it level. For no reason.

The reason is simple and logical. You cannot see down a curve if you're looking level and pinpoint over it.

So dont look level and pinpoint. Only you insist on this for your own reasons.

I have. You try it.

I've been using lenses for 50 years.
I have stood on a curve and looked through one.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I have some photos taken on a tower at the south end of our site (right on the edge of the bay) taken at the same point on subsequently higher elevations up to the top platform which is around 60m above grade at no point does the horizon disappear and you can see further as the bases of a string of wind turbines built on the other side of the bay (towards Hangzhou / Ningbo) become increasingly visible.

Your theoretical horizon line will never disappear no matter what distance because you're looking through a stacked atmosphere to where your vision catches lighter above and darker below back to your eyes to create that imaginary line.

You get it because you're not looking over any downward curvature, meaning you're certainly not looking over a globe.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

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 see your mistake was using your field of view which he simply does not offer.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it wouldn't - simple geometry, experiments done by people on here and maths has proven this repeatedly. You are utterly wrong, either offer some proof or stop banging on with drivel.

Geometry does not prove anything against what I've just said.

You've called everyone a liar for the whole thread.

I think you'll find that's been afforded about me, not by me to others but you feel free to try any way you can to gain yourself some traction.

 

[payne]

Your theoretical horizon line will never disappear no matter what distance because you're looking through a stacked atmosphere to where your vision catches lighter above and darker below back to your eyes to create that imaginary line.

You get it because you're not looking over any downward curvature, meaning you're certainly not looking over a globe.

Be class if we could calculate this to find out what atmospheric density or atmospheric crush appears at a certain elevation or distance. Maybe a scale diagram with pinpoint data using an unhindered set of rules.

Geometry does not prove anything against what I've just said.

I think you'll find that's been afforded about me, not by me to others but you feel free to try any way you can to gain yourself some traction.

Like everything you post it's vague and without detail. You basically say it every post.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Because some idiot insisted on keeping it level. For no reason.

There's a very good reason. It shows what Earth is not and it is not a spinning globe we are told we supposedly walk upon or sail upon and whatnot.

So dont look level and pinpoint. Only you insist on this for your own reasons.

This is one of the best ways to show the globe up as the fictional story it is. IMO.

I've been using lenses for 50 years.
I have stood on a curve and looked through one.

Anyone can look through a scope regardless of how many years of doing it but the same issue arises. You cannot see over a downward curve and keep the ground or sea on the pinpoint unless you can converge the ground or sea to the sky which cannot be done on a downward curve as you would only get sky on your pinpoint on your scope.

 

[payne]

You see your mistake was using your field of view which he simply does not offer.

I offered it in my own musings as my reality which is logical to sense if one wishes to throw away the chains of set narratives for what is right in front of them which is easy to see through layers of stacked atmosphere with pinpoint accuracy unhindered by curved water on a ball hurting through absolute rubbish of space balls and massive sun fire in no medium planetarium lights on a dome projector

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Like everything you post it's vague and without detail. You basically say it every post.

It comes down to who wants to delve into it and see through to a bigger picture outside of the box.
There are those that can and those that can't and those that do not care.
That's life.