Put a flat earthier into space


So if I look down my eyesight should be better then, right?
That depends on the light reflected back to the eye.
If you're looking down a hole your light will be blocked if there's no reflection back to the eyes.
Weather conditions can hamper view.
I’m glad I’m not the only reading that thinking WTF?

Ok, say what you are saying is true (most is bollocks), what other documented evidence have you got of being able to see buildings from far far further away than you should be able to.

Uluru is really big and in a big flat open area of land. Is there evidence of being able to see that from 50 miles away, or even from Durham with a powerful telescope?
A lot of view from distance is massively dependent on the weather.
Most times the human eye will see short distances. A telescope can magnify what's in that distance but ultimately the density of atmosphere will scupper most opportunities to see into the distance. It takes certain days where you manage to get more clearer views over distance. You know this so there's no need to argue this point.

The simple end product is, if Earth was the globe we're told it is then we should not be seeing any distant buildings....ever.
Tbh I think he believes this stuff, but is just trolling now.

He has been shot down so many times from so many directions he is just parroting out answers most of the time for shits and giggles rather than putting the effort in that he used to
Not one single shot has hit its target but the shooting keeps coming.
Not one of you has any proof and you know it.
That is just his water level patter. If you look through the thread he is out of his depth on so many other things. His entire rewrite of all known science is a tangled web of contradictions. If anyone could be arsed to go back through the thread, you would find he can mostly out argue himself.
The tangled web of contradictions come from the global side.
That's why I think he is trolling.

He has his basic belief of a non global earth and uses what he has seen on YouTube to back that up.
The rest he makes up on the fly from what he has read/seen/thought of.

He is out of his depth but enjoys the attention
Then don't give me any attention.
 
Last edited:
That depends on the light reflected back to the eye.
If you're looking down a hole your light will be blocked if there's no reflection back to the eyes.
Weather conditions can hamper view.

A lot of view from distance is massively dependent on the weather.
Most times the human eye will see short distances. A telescope can magnify what's in that distance but ultimately the density of atmosphere will scupper most opportunities to see into the distance. It takes certain days where you manage to get more clearer views over distance. You know this so there's no need to argue this point.

The simple end product is, if Earth was the globe we're told it is then we should not be seeing any distant buildings....ever.

Not one single shot has hit its target but the shooting keeps coming.
Not one of you has any proof and you know it.

The tangled web of contradictions come from the global side.

Then don't give me any attention.

Such lack of knowledge. Such lack of understanding of simple concepts. So many lies. So much denial.
 
Such lack of knowledge. Such lack of understanding of simple concepts. So many lies. So much denial.
Of course. I mean your knowledge on your global spinning Earth is not going to match anything I say against it.
The real issue is, what knowledge are we dealing with?
The knowledge of memorising fiction or the knowledge gleaned from finding facts.
You can recite the entire Harry Potter books/films and be so knowledgeable on reciting those books/films.

I come along and ask you for proof. Your answer would be " it's fiction. It's told and sold as fiction."
But if it was told and sold as fact.would it then be believed and argued in favour of against logical arguments?

Because this is what's happening with a spinning global model, only this is sold as fact and those who read up on it or watch the docs/films and can memorise a lot of it to recall instantly to memory.
Knowledge?
It's subjective when it pertains to this stuff.
 
Of course. I mean your knowledge on your global spinning Earth is not going to match anything I say against it.
The real issue is, what knowledge are we dealing with?
The knowledge of memorising fiction or the knowledge gleaned from finding facts.
You can recite the entire Harry Potter books/films and be so knowledgeable on reciting those books/films.

I come along and ask you for proof. Your answer would be " it's fiction. It's told and sold as fiction."
But if it was told and sold as fact.would it then be believed and argued in favour of against logical arguments?

Because this is what's happening with a spinning global model, only this is sold as fact and those who read up on it or watch the docs/films and can memorise a lot of it to recall instantly to memory.
Knowledge?
It's subjective when it pertains to this stuff.

Its not fiction though is it?

As it can he tested by different people around the globe and the results would be the same.
 
That is just his water level patter. If you look through the thread he is out of his depth on so many other things. His entire rewrite of all known science is a tangled web of contradictions. If anyone could be arsed to go back through the thread, you would find he can mostly out argue himself.
I just can't understand such a level of narcissism in a human being
 
The misunderstanding is not from my side where a global spinning Earth is concerned.

Water level is just one nailed on surety.
See how the second sentence disproves and contradicts the first?
Why do boats appear to sink as they go over the horizon? Something you can observe with binoculars. Hull disappears first. The opposite happens as they come into view. Wouldn't happen if water was level. You can verify this yourself
He cant, it would leave him with nothing.
 
Why do boats appear to sink as they go over the horizon? Something you can observe with binoculars. Hull disappears first. The opposite happens as they come into view. Wouldn't happen if water was level. You can verify this yourself
Made up bullshit about an atmospheric phenomenon he has no evidence for
 
That depends on the light reflected back to the eye.
If you're looking down a hole your light will be blocked if there's no reflection back to the eyes.
Weather conditions can hamper view.

So if I get a see through plastic tube which allows light through and I look down I would be able to see better?
 
Why do boats appear to sink as they go over the horizon?
Atmospheric mass affecting reflective light back to the eyes.

Something you can observe with binoculars. Hull disappears first. The opposite happens as they come into view. Wouldn't happen if water was level. You can verify this yourself
The atmosphere is stacked. It's layered.
Density of atmosphere is layered from more to less form ground to sky, respectively.
You looking horizontally out to sea creates your theoretical horizon line. The theoretical line between high to lower dense mass of atmosphere, condensed over distance to your vision.

Within that theoretical line is a much wider separation of layers of atmosphere that your eyes simply cannot see as being that and instead create a vanishing line, kind of thing.
Just like looking down a rail track and seeing it converge but knowings it is parallel.

Does a train go skinny at the front and converge into that rail line or does it carry on running the parallel lines?
What you see of your ship is light not being able to return to your vision from below as that ship moves farther away into distance and converging into that horizon (theoretical) line.

This is why you see above and lose below.

You can also verify losing your ship over what you say is your Earth curve and you can bring it right back into focus with binoculars and even better with a stronger telescope.
Why?
Because your convergence to your naked eye is now magnified meaning you get to see what the naked eye lost due to weak magnification of the eyes.

If you really put your mind to it you would understand that this ships going over a curve would offer you a totally different set up if you go by what's being said about the hull being lost and then the mast being last to go.
Why?
Because you would see a tilt of the mast, not just a sinking of the mast as if it was descending down a lift shaft. It should look like it's going down a slide, tilted and anything seen over distance would have to be tilted.

We know it never is because it's pretty clear we do not live on a globe and water is essentially level and atmosphere sits atop of that water in layers and those two densities create the horizon effect and also offer the vanishing points/convergence due to reflected light being obscured back to the eye.

The reason you can bring objects back into view even when they disappear from a scope is due to elevation. You offer yourself an angle through the atmosphere meaning less dense to more dense but the convergence becomes always eye level. It allows more light back from the object to your vision. You do this by hitting your theoretical horizon line by offering a level sight to that converging point/line.
So if I get a see through plastic tube which allows light through and I look down I would be able to see better?
If you placed that tube and a same size tube that was opaque and both stood upright against the ground, you would see the ground much better through your clear plastic tube to the ground much much better than looking down your opaque tube.
 
Last edited:
If you really put your mind to it you would understand that this ships going over a curve would offer you a totally different set up if you go by what's being said about the hull being lost and then the mast being last to go.
Why?
Because you would see a tilt of the mast, not just a sinking of the mast as if it was descending down a lift shaft. It should look like it's going down a slide, tilted and anything seen over distance would have to be tilted.
Put your mind to it and calculate the angle of the tilt...
 
Atmospheric mass affecting reflective light back to the eyes.


The atmosphere is stacked. It's layered.
Density of atmosphere is layered from more to less form ground to sky, respectively.
You looking horizontally out to sea creates your theoretical horizon line. The theoretical line between high to lower dense mass of atmosphere, condensed over distance to your vision.

Within that theoretical line is a much wider separation of layers of atmosphere that your eyes simply cannot see as being that and instead create a vanishing line, kind of thing.
Just like looking down a rail track and seeing it converge but knowings it is parallel.

Does a train go skinny at the front and converge into that rail line or does it carry on running the parallel lines?
What you see of your ship is light not being able to return to your vision from below as that ship moves farther away into distance and converging into that horizon (theoretical) line.

This is why you see above and lose below.

You can also verify losing your ship over what you say is your Earth curve and you can bring it right back into focus with binoculars and even better with a stronger telescope.
Why?
Because your convergence to your naked eye is now magnified meaning you get to see what the naked eye lost due to weak magnification of the eyes.

If you really put your mind to it you would understand that this ships going over a curve would offer you a totally different set up if you go by what's being said about the hull being lost and then the mast being last to go.
Why?
Because you would see a tilt of the mast, not just a sinking of the mast as if it was descending down a lift shaft. It should look like it's going down a slide, tilted and anything seen over distance would have to be tilted.

We know it never is because it's pretty clear we do not live on a globe and water is essentially level and atmosphere sits atop of that water in layers and those two densities create the horizon effect and also offer the vanishing points/convergence due to reflected light being obscured back to the eye.

The reason you can bring objects back into view even when they disappear from a scope is due to elevation. You offer yourself an angle through the atmosphere meaning less dense to more dense but the convergence becomes always eye level. It allows more light back from the object to your vision. You do this by hitting your theoretical horizon line by offering a level sight to that converging point/line.

If you placed that tube and a same size tube that was opaque and both stood upright against the ground, you would see the ground much better through your clear plastic tube to the ground much much better than looking down your opaque tube.

So you've never bothered to actually observe this.
It gets smaller because it's further away. You bring it back into focus but part of hull is missing, yet the deck, cabins, mast all still there. It moves further away so keeping it in focus as it keeps moving the deck is now disappearing yet still perfectly focussed.

Why not go and try it yourself, it's easily done.
Made up bullshit about an atmospheric phenomenon he has no evidence for

Nailed it
 

Back
Top