Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

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.

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

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.

Wrong.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Draw a curve and place your scopes on it like was mentioned with the bridge and towers and show me how those two scope crosshairs can be seen pinpoint to pinpoint.

The bridge argument kills off the scope view.

Ok

Logon or register to see this image

Before you start, the Earth in blue is curved, but it's so big it just looks flat.
The line between the two towers represents your scopes, looking at each other. Even though the two towers are actually leaning very slightly away from each other, the angle is so tiny that the scopes will still be well within each others field of view.

I know you dont like/understand field of view but it's still a fact.

I know you're expecting the two scopes to be pointing up in relation to each other and therefore missing from each others crosshair, and if the bridge towers were far enough apart this could be the case, but firstly that would be one hell of a bridge and secondly, there is no reason why the scopes couldnot be angled to compensate, unless the towers were so farapart that the curvature of the Earth hid the scopes from each other of course, but again, that's one hell of a bridge.

Oh and....

Logon or register to see this image

The higher the viewpoint, the further along the curved surface you can see. Unless for some unknown reason you are not allowed to move your eyes or neck and only have single pixel, pinpoint vision.
I know you dont do scale, and I know that on this diagram the eye is moving 100s of miles above the surface, but the geometry works the same on any scale.

See 13080 if you need more accurate numbers

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok

Logon or register to see this image

Before you start, the Earth in blue is curved, but it's so big it just looks flat.
The line between the two towers represents your scopes, looking at each other. Even though the two towers are actually leaning very slightly away from each other, the angle is so tiny that the scopes will still be well within each others field of view.

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

I know you dont like/understand field of view but it's still a fact.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

I know you're expecting the two scopes to be pointing up in relation to each other and therefore missing from each others crosshair, and if the bridge towers were far enough apart this could be the case, but firstly that would be one hell of a bridge and secondly, there is no reason why the scopes couldnot be angled to compensate, unless the towers were so farapart that the curvature of the Earth hid the scopes from each other of course, but again, that's one hell of a bridge.

The scopes cannot be angled to compensate because that would offset the level and still kill off the argument anyway.
There's no way around it.

Oh and....

Logon or register to see this image

The higher the viewpoint, the further along the curved surface you can see.

Not on a level set up you wouldn't, which is what's being argued.
Merely angling the line of sight over the circle offers nothing.

Unless for some unknown reason you are not allowed to move your eyes or neck and only have single pixel, pinpoint vision.

The whole premise is a pinpoint from a level scope.

I know you dont do scale, and I know that on this diagram the eye is moving 100s of miles above the surface, but the geometry works the same on any scale.

Scale is of no issue with a level and a pinpoint over a circle or a globe/ball.
A level sight to a pinpoint will never offer the ground or the sea. It would offer sky only if it was magically a globe.

 

[payne]

When making an airfix model and it has 1:47 scale on the box can I build the thing without a scope is what I'm wondering?

 

[DPTT]

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

The scopes cannot be angled to compensate because that would offset the level and still kill off the argument anyway.
There's no way around it.



Not on a level set up you wouldn't, which is what's being argued.
Merely angling the line of sight over the circle offers nothing.

The whole premise is a pinpoint from a level scope.


Scale is of no issue with a level and a pinpoint over a circle or a globe/ball.
A level sight to a pinpoint will never offer the ground or the sea. It would offer sky only if it was magically a globe.

How would they not meet up

 

[Nukehasslefan]

When making an airfix model and it has 1:47 scale on the box can I build the thing without a scope is what I'm wondering?

Absolutely.

How would they not meet up

You can never expect two opposing crosshairs to be tilted back over away from each other and then meet at a pinpoint to pinpoint by the view.

Go and try this with two simple scopes and make your own crosshairs unless you have two ready-to-use ones.

 

[Kevj]

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

The scopes cannot be angled to compensate because that would offset the level and still kill off the argument anyway.
There's no way around it.



Not on a level set up you wouldn't, which is what's being argued.
Merely angling the line of sight over the circle offers nothing.

The whole premise is a pinpoint from a level scope.


Scale is of no issue with a level and a pinpoint over a circle or a globe/ball.
A level sight to a pinpoint will never offer the ground or the sea. It would offer sky only if it was magically a globe.

Well I never. A flat earther making his own rules (regardless of relevance or accuracy) in order to discuss a point which bears no resemblance to how the real world works.
It’s a distraction technique.

 

[DPTT]

Absolutely.

You can never expect two opposing crosshairs to be tilted back over away from each other and then meet at a pinpoint to pinpoint by the view.

Go and try this with two simple scopes and make your own crosshairs unless you have two ready-to-use ones.

So how does this prove the earth is not a globe though

I understand if two cross hairs are tilted away from each they won’t match but am failing to understand the relevance

Can you explain please

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

Well again, you're just showing that you dont understand the scale and how minute the angles are going to be, and still for reasons unknown insisting the scopes remain level.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

Field of view is important because it's what we have. We do not have pinpoint vision.
The argument is actually about the curvature of the Earth which you're trying to say is disproved by pinpoint vision. It is not.

The scopes cannot be angled to compensate because that would offset the level and still kill off the argument anyway.
There's no way around it.

So what is your problem with angling the scopes? Is it because the need to angle them proves there's a curve perhaps?

Not on a level set up you wouldn't, which is what's being argued.
Merely angling the line of sight over the circle offers nothing.

The whole premise is a pinpoint from a level scope.

It isn't.

A level sight to a pinpoint will never offer the ground or the sea. It would offer sky only if it was magically a globe.

Because the Earth curves you monumental balloon.

 

[payne]

@The Snockerty Friddle It's his normal thing of inventing a rule then trying to say we're all arguing on his terms. Same thing about the 8 mile per square inch. He comes out with it, attributes it to the global model. He's told that isn't the rule used and then ends up by saying why did everyone else say using the equation of a parabola is what we use for the world.

 

[DaveH]

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

Suggest a distance apart at the base for the towers and a height for the towers then if I'm not beaten to it, I'm happy to do the calculations. Lets see how far the alignment is out. It is a fairly simple bit of maths.

 

[payne]

Suggest a distance apart at the base for the towers and a height for the towers then if I'm not beaten to it, I'm happy to do the calculations. Lets see how far the alignment is out. It is a fairly simple bit of maths.

no need for calculations. simple logic and pinpoint crosshair kills the globe earth flat

 

[fyl2u]

If you're going to offer two bridge towers at an angle over that short of a distance then you are still going to offset the pinpoint of the crosshairs of both scopes atop those towers.
They simply would not meet up.

The field of view is not in the argument with this. You know this.
The pinpoint is the argument.

The scopes cannot be angled to compensate because that would offset the level and still kill off the argument anyway.
There's no way around it.



Not on a level set up you wouldn't, which is what's being argued.
Merely angling the line of sight over the circle offers nothing.

The whole premise is a pinpoint from a level scope.


Scale is of no issue with a level and a pinpoint over a circle or a globe/ball.
A level sight to a pinpoint will never offer the ground or the sea. It would offer sky only if it was magically a globe.

Wrong.

 

[Pancho]

Any idea?

The horizon line is imaginary and there's no need for calculation for any horizon line.
The calculation comes directly from a sphere from start to end distance horizontally and to the vertical from that horizontal back to the sphere or circle if you prefer.

You must be logged on to see external links

Try working your droop out for 60 miles and see where you get to.

Repeating mixed with word salad doesn't make it less bollocks.

Many posters before myself have told you that this expression refers to a parabola and not a sphere.

The correct formula to calculate the earth's curvature is in the link that I provided.

Now stop lying.

 

[DaveH]

no need for calculations. simple logic and pinpoint crosshair kills the globe earth flat

When I reloaded this page your name was just off the top and I only had the text, I thought it was from him!

That is the sort of thing he says. Rather than taking the viewpoint of "Would this be the case, lets explore". He assumes something to be the case and then swears by it as the truth.

 

[payne]

When I reloaded this page your name was just off the top and I only had the text, I thought it was from him!

That is the sort of thing he says. Rather than taking the viewpoint of "Would this be the case, lets explore". He assumes something to be the case and then swears by it as the truth.

but if you stand on a bridge and two people lie on their backs looking through the sites of a rifle that proves the world is flat

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If you search for "Humber Bridge Towers" this comes up


"How far apart are the Humber bridge towers?


The concrete towers are 155.5 metres (510 feet) tall and were built to be 36mm further apart from each other at the top than at the bottom, to allow for the curvature of the Earth."

 

[legend7]

If you search for "Humber Bridge Towers" this comes up


"How far apart are the Humber bridge towers?


The concrete towers are 155.5 metres (510 feet) tall and were built to be 36mm further apart from each other at the top than at the bottom, to allow for the curvature of the Earth."

We can't have facts and real life situations getting in the way of a good musing man.
Obviously the Humber bridge people are in on the big lie as well as the hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people who keep the flat earth secret.

 

[DaveH]

If you search for "Humber Bridge Towers" this comes up


"How far apart are the Humber bridge towers?


The concrete towers are 155.5 metres (510 feet) tall and were built to be 36mm further apart from each other at the top than at the bottom, to allow for the curvature of the Earth."

I’ll have to sketch it out to check, but if you imagine plumb line at the midpoint between the towers then the top of each tower ’leans away’ from that at 18mm at the top. That means the lean angle is tan a = opposite over adjacent = 18mm over 155.5m. I can’t do that in my head, but it is very small.

The next step is to calculate the drop that angle makes over the span and that is how much the crosshairs are off by. My guess is it is in the order of 0.01mm.

 

[Pancho]

It's arguable with some reason that this whole thread, apart from any new stuff one may have learned, has been a bit of a waste of everyone's time.

So in an effort to offset the wasted time bit, I thought I'd share this interesting and topical article from today's Guardian.

You must be logged on to see external links