Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

You see, on one hand, you can't use a pair of bridge towers as a yardstick to curvature and then argue against the scopes.
So many contradictions for global explanations come into play and this is just another.

Field of view is important because it's what we have. We do not have pinpoint vision.

This is why I used a crosshair on a scope to take away that field of vision argument. You know this.

The argument is actually about the curvature of the Earth which you're trying to say is disproved by pinpoint vision. It is not.

It's one of many things that prove no globe.

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

It proves there is no curve.

It isn't.


Because the Earth curves you monumental balloon.

No, it actually doesn't. It is absolutely 100%, not a globe.

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.

It doesn't matter how far the alignment is out, even over a short distance like a bridge and tower as has been told. If they offer a following of a supposed globe then each tower should be angled away from the other as we are told.
So setting up two scopes and using the pinpoint from the crosshairs when aimed at each other perfectly level then they would not meet. You don't need bridge towers you could do it on the deck and offer a small distance to each scope on the ground. If the crosshair hit then your Earth is not a globe.

You can argue slight angles or too small to measure as much as you want but the reason for the pinpoint is to highlight a meeting or a miss with them.

Anyone can try this so it's not like it needs to be argued with whoever. It's about those who want to find out for themselves if it interests them.

And you don't need any costly scopes.

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.

I don't care what others have told me. I stand by what I've said. Acting with the majority does not offer you reality.

 

[Kevj]

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.

I’ve drawn it out to scale and I get 34.4mm difference between the top and bottom distance on the towers. The angular difference is 0.01268Deg.

I’ve then taken two imaginary lines perpendicular to each tower to see how far over the top it is of the other tower and this is measured to be 156mm. The right angle and the distance obviously having a greater effect over 1410m than it does over 155.5m height.

You see, on one hand, you can't use a pair of bridge towers as a yardstick to curvature and then argue against the scopes.
So many contradictions for global explanations come into play and this is just another.

This is why I used a crosshair on a scope to take away that field of vision argument. You know this.

It's one of many things that prove no globe.

It proves there is no curve.

No, it actually doesn't. It is absolutely 100%, not a globe.

It doesn't matter how far the alignment is out, even over a short distance like a bridge and tower as has been told. If they offer a following of a supposed globe then each tower should be angled away from the other as we are told.
So setting up two scopes and using the pinpoint from the crosshairs when aimed at each other perfectly level then they would not meet. You don't need bridge towers you could do it on the deck and offer a small distance to each scope on the ground. If the crosshair hit then your Earth is not a globe.

You can argue slight angles or too small to measure as much as you want but the reason for the pinpoint is to highlight a meeting or a miss with them.

Anyone can try this so it's not like it needs to be argued with whoever. It's about those who want to find out for themselves if it interests them.

And you don't need any costly scopes.

I don't care what others have told me. I stand by what I've said. Acting with the majority does not offer you reality.

What are you trying to achieve here with this pin point accuracy of cross hairs? What I see is another experiment in the making that you will never undertake.
1. because you are unable to.
2. because if you did, it would provide the world is round as the distances and angular measurements would be consistent with that of a globe.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I’ve drawn it out to scale and I get 34.4mm difference between the top and bottom distance on the towers. The angular difference is 0.01268Deg.

I’ve then taken two imaginary lines perpendicular to each tower to see how far over the top it is of the other tower and this is measured to be 156mm. The right angle and the distance obviously having a greater effect over 1410m than it does over 155.5m height.


What are you trying to achieve here with this pin point accuracy of cross hairs? What I see is another experiment in the making that you will never undertake.
1. because you are unable to.
2. because if you did, it would provide the world is round as the distances and angular measurements would be consistent with that of a globe.

As I said before, you can do them yourself. In fact, I thought you were going to do it until you came up with the banana against a wall carry-on. I wondered why you would waste your time with them when you could've actually done what I was proposing, even with those rolls you had.

You know exactly what I'm getting at.

 

[Kevj]

As I said before, you can do them yourself. In fact, I thought you were going to do it until you came up with the banana against a wall carry-on. I wondered why you would waste your time with them when you could've actually done what I was proposing, even with those rolls you had.

You know exactly what I'm getting at.

You’re arguing a mute point. Our eyes don’t work like the cross hair on a scope. We have field of vision and as they aren’t meant to be calibrated to the nearest 1000th of a millimetre, your analogy that we shouldn’t be able to see forums below our line of sight is quite frankly bollocks.

The banana experiment proved this inextricably as even with a narrowed field of vision, the field of view gets wider with distance. Proven by both my eye and my photographs.

You are pushing an invalid argument and making yourself look silly whilst doing so.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You’re arguing a mute point. Our eyes don’t work like the cross hair on a scope.

I never said they did and that is the reason why I use a crosshair on a scope to highlight the global indoctrinated issues.

We have field of vision and as they aren’t meant to be calibrated to the nearest 1000th of a millimetre, your analogy that we shouldn’t be able to see forums below our line of sight is quite frankly bollocks.

But we're not talking about a field of vision in this case which is why crosshair and pinpoint are mentioned.

The banana experiment proved this inextricably as even with a narrowed field of vision, the field of view gets wider with distance. Proven by both my eye and my photographs.

The banana proved nothing.

You are pushing an invalid argument and making yourself look silly whilst doing so.

Nope. I'm offering a valid argument and one anyone can test for themselves. That's the beauty of it, it cannot be hidden behind a cloak like most of the global stories are.

 

[payne]

I never said they did and that is the reason why I use a crosshair on a scope to highlight the global indoctrinated issues.

But we're not talking about a field of vision in this case which is why crosshair and pinpoint are mentioned.

The banana proved nothing.

Nope. I'm offering a valid argument and one anyone can test for themselves. That's the beauty of it, it cannot be hidden behind a cloak like most of the global stories are.

hahahahaha

 

[DaveH]

You see, on one hand, you can't use a pair of bridge towers as a yardstick to curvature and then argue against the scopes.
So many contradictions for global explanations come into play and this is just another.

This is why I used a crosshair on a scope to take away that field of vision argument. You know this.

It's one of many things that prove no globe.

It proves there is no curve.

No, it actually doesn't. It is absolutely 100%, not a globe.

It doesn't matter how far the alignment is out, even over a short distance like a bridge and tower as has been told. If they offer a following of a supposed globe then each tower should be angled away from the other as we are told.
So setting up two scopes and using the pinpoint from the crosshairs when aimed at each other perfectly level then they would not meet. You don't need bridge towers you could do it on the deck and offer a small distance to each scope on the ground. If the crosshair hit then your Earth is not a globe.

You can argue slight angles or too small to measure as much as you want but the reason for the pinpoint is to highlight a meeting or a miss with them.

Anyone can try this so it's not like it needs to be argued with whoever. It's about those who want to find out for themselves if it interests them.

And you don't need any costly scopes.

I don't care what others have told me. I stand by what I've said. Acting with the majority does not offer you reality.

Of course it matters and of course you need to calculate it.

Yes you are right in a way that such a scope setup would never be point to point exactly. But first of all you don’t appear to have a scope with a cross hair and have never tried it. Second, by modelling it with maths first we can know what to expect for our results and then if we were to test it, see if reality matches.

I’ve not had time to work it out, but my estimate from the Humber bridge example is that you are talking scopes being off by a fraction of a millimetre that you are trying to see from a distance of 155 meters. That is undetectable with a visual scope. This is back to your spirit level in the bath where you were trying to measure a nanometre curve with the naked eye.

 

[Nobby]

You have admire the effort he is putting into deflecting attention away from his parabola debacle

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Of course it matters and of course you need to calculate it.

Absolutely not.

Yes you are right in a way that such a scope setup would never be point to point exactly.

Which is all that's required. Simple and to the point (pardon the pun).

But first of all you don’t appear to have a scope with a cross hair and have never tried it.

And you can offer that as many times as you feel the need to and it becomes valid to you, not to me but feel free to carry on with whatever suits you.

Second, by modelling it with maths first we can know what to expect for our results and then if we were to test it, see if reality matches.

It's pretty simple as to what to expect.
We're told bridge building takes a global curvature into account.
Any two uprights placed into the ground at a level start to the same height will come under the same conditions of a lean back away from each other, no matter how small it is over a short stretch.
A level scope set up on each side facing each other with a pinpoint of a crosshair should miss the scope even at the smallest of angle changes over a short distance.

I’ve not had time to work it out, but my estimate from the Humber bridge example is that you are talking scopes being off by a fraction of a millimetre that you are trying to see from a distance of 155 meters.

What you would be looking at is two scopes facing each other and both by line angling upwards, not just one angling upwards.
I think millimetres would be in the many rather than the few.
Once you veer off level your angle becomes more and more veered each way to where they would intersect towards the centre of that angled line of sight and they would not be anything like straight so would offer an easy miss to each scope crosshair pinpoint.

That is undetectable with a visual scope. This is back to your spirit level in the bath where you were trying to measure a nanometre curve with the naked eye.

Nahhh. It would be detectable quite easily but it isn't detectable because we simply do not live on a globe which is why it can be just argued away as supposedly undetectable but yet detectable when it suits bridge spans that nobody can measure with any detail due to the way they're built, as in wider at the bottom and thinner at the top which would offer the natural wider gap at the top than the bottom and is easily offered as an argument to those who wish to follow that.

You have admire the effort he is putting into deflecting attention away from his parabola debacle

It's not me that offers a parabola, it came from your side. I think Dave offered it for his calculations from his supposed global horizon, somehow.

 

[payne]

I think millimetres would be in the many rather than the few.

And there we have it. Scale once again is his issue. Any sane person would understand the need to check for a small variance. This extremist knows better though.

 

[Nobby]

It's not me that offers a parabola, it came from your side. I think Dave offered it for his calculations from his supposed global horizon, somehow.

You've been parroting 8 inches per mile squared for months, off course you have offered a parabola, you just didn't understand the stuff you had learned from your appeals to authority

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And there we have it. Scale once again is his issue. Any sane person would understand the need to check for a small variance. This extremist knows better though.

And as I said earlier, scale offers a curvature in any way you want to put it, whether it's more or e;less acute, because a pinpoint sorts that out.

 

[payne]

You've been parroting 8 inches per mile squared for months, off course you have offered a parabola, you just didn't understand the stuff you had learned from your appeals to authority

He's such a liar in general but this is him proper taking the piss. @DaveH posted this for him to read after all the lies Newcastle has told regarding him not being the one who first tried to push the 8 inches per square mile thing.

You must be logged on to see external links

And as I said earlier, scale offers a curvature in any way you want to put it, whether it's more or e;less acute, because a pinpoint sorts that out.

your logical reasoning powers lead me to ask the question, have you hit your head at some time in the past?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You've been parroting 8 inches per mile squared for months, off course you have offered a parabola, you just didn't understand the stuff you had learned from your appeals to authority

I'm not parroting any parabola.

 

[payne]

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nobby]

I'm not parroting any parabola.

The what is your 8 inches stuff then?

 

[payne]

I'm not parroting any parabola.

what is 8 inches per square mile meant to represent in your own words without appeals to the flat earth authority? Did you invent the calculation yourself as you know it's not allowed to gain knowledge from an external source. You also say there's no need to calculate or work anything out as simple experiments are enough so why bother mentioning a calculation you don't believe in, understand and are not the person who invented it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

I'm not offering any horizon on a globe because there isn't one.
You lot are offering that.

 

[payne]

I'm not offering any horizon on a globe because there isn't one.
You lot are offering that.

I'm looking out my window at the sea. I can see one. Simple experiment using my own sense are pure logic has given me the answer of horizon. Fact checked and tested for a second time after I just blinked.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The what is your 8 inches stuff then?

Simple drop from horizontal to vertical over distance on your globe or over a circle if you wish.

Nothing to do with a parabola. It's your side that offers that from a global horizon, somehow.
A circle is not a parabola., so your globe is not offering anything for a parabola other than what your side of offering.

I'm looking out my window at the sea. I can see one.

You can see a theoretical horizon line because you're looking out to sea and sky over a level convergence of sea and sky, not over any curvature.

Simple experiment using my own sense are pure logic has given me the answer of horizon.

There is no horizon on a globe or circle or ball or whatever round object you wish to look at.

Fact checked and tested for a second time after I just blinked.

No facts for a globe.