YOU GLOBE EARTHERS think you KNOW IT ALL Huh - WAKE UP

[Robert5493]

The second video I posted literally shows what you are claiming doesn’t happen. You’re arguing that the ocean is curved…

yes, I am. I've done the experiment myself many times with my eyes, binoculars and spotting scopes.
The horizon distance changes based on ones height above the water.
explain why when I climb the mast things appear on the horizon and disappear when I am back on deck.

 

[ThinPicking]

I start with a simple question:

Why is there no proof of God?

It is everywhere Mr Lemonoil.

Open your eyes

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Open your eyes

Can’t see it with my eyes, like everybody else.
So, no visual proof.

Go on.

 

[Summer]

yes, I am. I've done the experiment myself many times with my eyes, binoculars and spotting scopes.
The horizon distance changes based on ones height above the water.
explain why when I climb the mast things appear on the horizon and disappear when I am back on deck.

Law of perspective. No need to make things so complicated.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Non-sequitur - You love delving into religion when we are simply trying to prove something that YOU treat as a fact - no evidence, and contradictions everywhere that gravity is supposedly a thing

Ok. Non-religion then:

Where is proof that the earth is flat?

Where are all the proofs of people reaching its boundaries?

 

[Robert5493]

Do you think atmosphere and the clouds could disperse the rays as they appear in the photos you have posted above?

exactly. These are called crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays.
another simple diy experiment one can do to demonstrate how the suns rays are near parallel is on a bright cloudless sunny day when the sun is high in the sky is to look at your shadow. It has clear contrasted edges.
If the rays were as wide an angle as those pictures, you would see a penumbral shadow.

 

[Robert5493]

Law of perspective. No need to make things so complicated.

Ok simply put the claim is perspective causes the bottom to disappear first because of the distance. because it is just getting tiny due to perspective,
But when when you zoom in with a telescope you can see it again, because it has not disappeared around any curve.
Correct?

When you climb the mast, you are now further away from the object by a tiny amount than when on deck. (hypotenuse vs adjacent)
So if I am up higher and not using magnification, why does the bottom of the object reappear even though I am farther away?

 

[Diokine]

The effect you see with light rays appearing non-parallel is caused by scattering due to particles in the atmosphere, especially clouds. This scattering changes the illumination pattern into one being provided by an extended vs point source. There are plenty of examples of either crepuscular or anticrepuscular rays appearing as if illuminated by a point source.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

crepuscular or anticrepuscular rays

Big words for invented stuff

is caused by scattering due to particles in the atmosphere

Which particles? Why are they there. Nobody sees them? How can they even float in the air when there is „gravity“?


OP: Am I doing it right?

 

[miquelangeles]

Lol

 

[miquelangeles]

Big words for invented stuff

Which particles? Why are they there. Nobody sees them? How can they even float in the air when there is „gravity“?


OP: Am I doing it right?

Not enough capital letters

 

[Summer]

Ok simply put the claim is perspective causes the bottom to disappear first because of the distance. because it is just getting tiny due to perspective,
But when when you zoom in with a telescope you can see it again, because it has not disappeared around any curve.
Correct?

When you climb the mast, you are now further away from the object by a tiny amount than when on deck. (hypotenuse vs adjacent)
So if I am up higher and not using magnification, why does the bottom of the object reappear even though I am farther away?

Okay I’ll make it very simple. Place an object at one end of a table and stand at the other end. Bend down so the table is at eye-level. The higher up you rise, the more you’ll see of the object at the other end of the table. The higher up you are, the greater your field of view.

 

[Robert5493]

Okay I’ll make it very simple. Place an object at one end of a table and stand at the other end. Bend down so the table is at eye-level. The higher up you rise, the more you’ll see of the object at the other end of the table. The higher up you are, the greater your field of view.

and simply put the higher you are, the less of the bottom you would be able to see based on perspective. Correct?
Field of view describes degrees of angle one can see, not detail of resolution.

do the experiment yourself. put your object on the table and tell me if you can see the bottom of the object any differently from eye level than from higher.
now do the same experiment with a curved surface such as a basketball.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Not enough capital letters

DON‘T TALK HOT ON MY JOKE

 

[miquelangeles]

DON‘T TALK HOT ON MY JOKE

I'm NOT talking HOT but GET OFF your HIGH HORSE

 

[miquelangeles]

Lets use our common sense:

The Sun is SUPPOSEDLY a million times larger than Earth right?

In this photo - look at the tiny speck on the left - thats us - now look the sun on the right - crazy size difference and not even drawn to scale

In my diagram 1000 Earths fit into my sun max - so in real life the size difference is 1000 times worse

View attachment 42024

Of course the rays are supposed to be parallel -

View attachment 42028

Theres no way this is possible yet we see this

View attachment 42030View attachment 42031

The only way we would be able to see this is if the sun was A LOT closer and smaller relative to Earth

If you believe in Geometry (which was invented by a mason too) and want to use Pythagoras Theorem - that will tell you the sun is 3,500 miles away - so obviously someone's lying

View attachment 42032

 

[Summer]

and simply put the higher you are, the less of the bottom you would be able to see based on perspective. Correct?
Field of view describes degrees of angle one can see, not detail of resolution.

do the experiment yourself. put your object on the table and tell me if you can see the bottom of the object any differently from eye level than from higher.
now do the same experiment with a curved surface such as a basketball.

LOL what? No, I can certainly see more of the lower half of the object the higher up I am compared to the table being at or above eye level.

 

[Robert5493]

LOL what? No, I can certainly see more of the lower half of the object the higher up I am compared to the table being at or above eye level.

so the further away you get (higher up) the more of the bottom you can see?
Interesting, as that defies the law of perspective you claim explains what is happening.
The only way this would make sense is if you have myopia so nearer things are out of focus.

picture a checkerboard standing on edge across the table.
At eye level, the lower center squares should 'appear' largest.
As you move higher, the lower rows of squares should appear smaller and smaller the higher you go.

Similar in effect to the picture miquelangeles posted above but reversed (looking up vs down)
That is how perspective actually works.

 

[Jing]

what makes things fall down? is everyones ceilings in the same direction? How do you know?

Things rise or fall depending on their surroundings. This is why we can have the same object rise of fall if we change its surroundings for instance an apple it will fall if its surroundings is air but it will rise and float if its surroundings is water....

What do you mean is everyone's ceiling in the same direction? Well yh if you are in your house or anyone's house then to look at the ceiling you have to look up when has a ceiling ever been on the floor? Or on the wall I'm confused are you just trolling now?

 

[Jing]

No dig out the wet soil and turn it on its head.

I'm not sure what you mean explain more.