[Dual1ty]

Masons do not go around threatening peoples' families.

Think about your basic argumentation here:

1) Masons do dirt for each other, meaning they help each other; and,
B) Masons are gonna kill their brothers if they don't do the dirt.

Sorry, those things just don't line up. Lots and lots of dissonance in the tune your singing there....

I didn't say anything about Masons doing that. It's other groups doing that to Masons. Or whoever. That said, some Masons may be involved in directing those other groups in some capacity. Or they simply put in an "order" that they pay for (or perhaps not if they are government-affiliated). I know for a fact that these groups exist.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

By the way - it's "you're", not "your".

[AATW]

You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors

I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors. The images both showed a boat where the bottom was clearly not visible.
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
The context being honk saying "The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window."
Duncan replying "The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd."
And then Dual1ty saying "it can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view"

I assumed that Dual1ty was claiming that boats don't really disappear below the horizon, they just get too small to see, the bottom merges with the sea and with optical zoom you can bring them back in to view. That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time.

Fair question. As I've told you, I post here partly because it's a diversion during downtime at work and partly because I don't like to see bullshit go unchallenged.
I guess it's the same reason I've engaged with Tom a fair bit in my time here. He's obviously wrong about a load of stuff, it is frustrating to see him dig his heels in harder and harder no matter how clearly he's shown to be wrong, but it's something to do and I can't let such nonsense stand without correction.

you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end.

Well obviously I don't regard it as nonsense and therefore don't accept I've been corrected.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.

I'm struggling to see what we are arguing about here. I've seen the FE claim that boats don't really sink from the bottom first, optical zoom restores them. It isn't true. It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction, they do disappear and that's what I was trying to demonstrate.

Even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time.

Literally in the post you're replying to I outlined some work I did on this at a recent trip to the seaside.
BUT...it's not just about the cost of getting there, it's also about having the right optics and they aren't cheap. I have a mid-range camera and the zoom is OK, but when I was trying to do some tests I didn't get anything conclusive.

You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
I'm not sure that's quite true although I don't think our approaches are a million miles apart.
I believe your philosophy is you have to check everything out for yourself. Mine is that doing that isn't possible - I either don't have the equipment, competence or knowledge to do that. I take a more evidence based approach, and I don't think the only evidence admissible is what I've personally observed.

[Pete Svarrior]

As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.

Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.

I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors.

This:



Again, same problem. You lack an understanding of what's being said, so you produce evidence that matches some keywords ("wow, zoom = restoration!") without getting even remotely close to addressing the claims actually being made. It's OK that you don't understand things yet - that's what self-study and conversation are for. But, for fuck's sake, could you spend a little more time learning the arguments you're trying to dispute, and a little less time just shouting "FAAAAAAKE" and replying with lengthy non-seqs?

That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.

You have not accomplished that. This discussion concerns the horizon. You have yet to post one picture of the horizon. You posted plenty of pictures of things that are not the horizon and asserted that they prove your point.

When you combine that with grandiose statements about how you're "challenging bullshit", it really looks pretty weak. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary of science, but here you are, acting like you're superior to those scientifically literate.

Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?

What I said now and what I said then is exactly the same thing. You are showing us something that you describe as a "sharp horizon", despite it not being the horizon at all. You're showing us a body obstructing your view long before the horizon would be seen. Functionally, it is identical to claiming that this picture shows the "horizon":



Wow, look at how sharp and defined this "horizon" is! And no matter how much I zoom in with my camera, nothing behind the stop s"horizon" is revealed!!!!! Wowie! This must mean you're right!

Realistically, you have never seen the true horizon, but you may have seen something that's close enough for demonstration purposes. Your examples, however, are not close enough.

I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.

Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT after a few months is not proof of you adapting to new information. If anything, it shows that you lack object permanence.

It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction

Well, yes, if you restrict your options to 2 incorrect ones, it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It starts to matter once you consider the FE option.

You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"

You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.

[ichoosereality]

As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.

Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.

Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass, but setting that aside what about observations over land?  There are plenty of posts on the net of careful observations of mountains with precisely leveled telescopes where not only does the bottom of the mountain become obscured but the top of the mountain appears lower as you move further away.   All easily explained via the RE model.

[Pete Svarrior]

Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass

Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time? Yes, friend, the wave in the still photograph does never seem to pass. That's one of the main selling points of photography.

but setting that aside what about observations over land?

Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure - otherwise you're just reintroducing the same issue. Luckily, that would never happen with someone like y-

mountains

Sigh. Try again.

[ichoosereality]

Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass

Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time?

I was not referring specifically to that photo but the "wave explanation" used so commonly in similar cases.  Here's a video for you

but setting that aside what about observations over land?

Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

mountains

Sigh. Try again.

Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.

[Dual1ty]

I see that Mr. ichoosemirage has chosen to ignore what I posted before since I already anticipated such "curvature proof" (lol) would be posted.

The globe relies on cherrypicked visual "proofsies" of "boats and things gone over the curve" that can easily be debunked by doing simple observations such as this:



No wonder the globe cult won't touch anything to do with a physical measurement of the curve with a 10-foot pole (only to say that it's impossible or a waste of time because they already know it's a globe). They want to stay on mirage/refraction/perspective (all of which they purposefully misunderstand, by the way) la-la-land for all eternity and just dismiss any of the hundreds (if not thousands by now) of long-distance observations that match FE predictions as "light bending over the curve at its exact rate". Not to mention the fact that no curvature has ever been measured anywhere despite the fact that it should be literally everywhere if Earth is really a globe (and they've had thousands of years to do so according to their own history).

Lots of other videos on that channel as well that prove that visual phenomena have nothing to do with curvature and change depending on conditions.

Too bad for the globe defenders that the main "globe proof" can be so easily debunked.

[Pete Svarrior]

I was not referring specifically to that photo

I'm very happy for you. If at any point you're ready to discuss the actual topic at hand, rather than something you chose seemingly at random, please let us know.

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.

Ah, yes, skylines, those near-perfectly representations of the horizon.

You really don't know what's being discussed here, do you?

[ichoosereality]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat. 

[Pete Svarrior]

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.

No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.

But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.

Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.

Thus the earth is not flat.

Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.

[Action80]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

Where do these people come from!?!?

[ichoosereality]

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.

No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.

This thread was derailed long before I joined in, including by your own posts, but whatever.

But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.

Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.

Its an easy test to perform, there are plenty of examples on the net but of course you won't accept those nor bother to do the test yourself.

Thus the earth is not flat.

Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.

Because you say so?  How would this disprove RE?

[ichoosereality]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

[Action80]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.

You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.

[ichoosereality]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.

You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.

The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT.  Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity which makes it tangential to the surface.  Since the earth is round the angle of that tangent plane changes at each observation point resulting in the telescope pointing higher relative to the target as the distance between them increases.

[Dual1ty]

The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT.

Does anybody know what he's talking about?

Are you talking about moving the telescope?

Is this some AI-generated answer? Sure seems that way when you read the rest of the text.

[Pete Svarrior]

Does anybody know what he's talking about?

He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.

I already warned him and asked him to stop, so he won't be doing it much longer, one way or another.

[ichoosereality]

Does anybody know what he's talking about?

He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.

Watching a target move away from a fixed observation point produces exactly the same effect as moving the telescope to points of increasing distance from a fixed target, nor did I make any assumptions about the shape of the earth in describing the methodology, only in what the expected result would be.  But you don't wish to discuss it, so I'm done here.

[AATW]

You think the horizon is caused by obstruction

I don't know if I'd say "caused". It's the result of the earth being a globe. That means the sea slopes away from you which limits how far you can see.
It also means that as objects move away they will disappear from the bottom first as they go over that curve and eventually you won't be able to see them at all. Like an object going over a hill.
I thought what Dual1ty was saying is that this doesn't actually occur but instead if you zoom in you can "restore" the whole object. You can't. Certainly not always. That's what the photos were intended to demonstrate, as does the Turning Torso video.

You lack an understanding of what's being said

I'd invite you to consider who I was replying to. He has a habit of declaring things without explanation or evidence.
So sure, it's possible I misunderstood him. From past experience asking questions doesn't yield much of a sensible reply.

This discussion concerns the horizon.

Dual1ty didn't use the word horizon. He said
"if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view".
That's what I was originally responding to.

Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT

It's not the same argument because the two discussions are about different things.
The previous one was about the differences between a RE horizon and a FE one. This is about whether ships really disappear from the bottom first.

You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.

I routinely come to different conclusions to you. You seem to struggle when I don't immediately come to think you are very very right about things.
When you explain things clearly and present evidence and I can see you are right - as you did in that previous thread - then sure, I change my position.
When you're vague, just tell me I'm wrong and don't answer questions then it's a more difficult conversation.

[Dual1ty]

lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history. It certainly is not proof of curvature. You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?

If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?

And also no observations of curvature at sea level that aren't assumptions of curvature directly in front of the observer due to visual phenomena and perspective hehe!

Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE by saying "it's just refraction" while not undertanding that refraction would ALWAYS have to occur at the exact same rate as the rate of curvature to make a consistent image. Literally impossible in the real world. Only works with math and equations on a white board. 

Oh, and dismiss any of the JTolan observations because that's too high to account for with refraction equations LOL.