[Sputnik]

So, do you guys think the Earth is literally FLAT at all points? Like, do you think hills, mountains, valleys, etc. are illusions as well?

[juner]

No.

[Sputnik]

No.

Ok, so when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this also because of the "vanishing point" or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

[juner]

No.

Ok, so when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this also because of the "vanishing point" or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

Irrelevant.

[Sputnik]

No.

Ok, so when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this also because of the "vanishing point" or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? I'm asking you a specific question. Maybe you should consult your wiki for an answer.

[juner]

No.

Ok, so when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this also because of the "vanishing point" or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? I'm asking you a specific question. Maybe you should consult your wiki for an answer.

It is an irrelevant scenario that you put forth. The wiki isn't required to point out how nonsensical it is.

[Sputnik]

No.

Ok, so when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this also because of the "vanishing point" or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? I'm asking you a specific question. Maybe you should consult your wiki for an answer.

It is an irrelevant scenario that you put forth. The wiki isn't required to point out how nonsensical it is.

You are not the wiki. I'm asking YOU a clear and direct question. Besides, the wiki DOES attempt to address this problem.

*when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this because of the "vanishing point" (mentioned in the wiki as the solution to the horizon problem) or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Why are you even wasting your time with this obvious troll Junker?

[juner]

Why are you even wasting your time with this obvious troll Junker?

I don't know

[Sputnik]

Why are you even wasting your time with this obvious troll Junker?

*when you drive a car over a hill that is, say, less than a mile away, and the tires disappear over the hill before the roof of the car (exactly as a ship will behave over a horizon), is this because of the "vanishing point" (mentioned in the wiki as the solution to the horizon problem) or is it because of the roundness of the terrain?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

[Sputnik]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

If that's not what you're saying then your illustration is absolute garbage and deals with two completely different, incomparable phenomena. 

[Sputnik]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

If that's not what you're saying then your illustration is absolute garbage and deals with two completely different, incomparable phenomena.

Are you suggesting there is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

If that's not what you're saying then your illustration is absolute garbage and deals with two completely different, incomparable phenomena.

Are you suggesting there is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon?

Yes. I'm unequivocally stating as a matter of fact: There is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon.

[Sputnik]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

If that's not what you're saying then your illustration is absolute garbage and deals with two completely different, incomparable phenomena.

Are you suggesting there is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon?

Yes. I'm unequivocally stating as a matter of fact: There is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon.

Hmm. What about roundness? Do the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon have roundness in common?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Yes. I'm unequivocally stating as a matter of fact: There is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon.

Hmm. What about roundness? Do the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon have roundness in common?

I was going to put the second "roundness" in quotes. But I didn't want to inject anything debatable into my statement. What you perceive as a car going over a hill has absolutely nothing to do with what you perceive as a boat going over a horizon.
Are you suggesting there is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon?

[Sputnik]

Are you saying the horizon on the open ocean is a hill?

Do you think I'm saying that? Is that the only/best conclusion you can draw from my question?

If that's not what you're saying then your illustration is absolute garbage and deals with two completely different, incomparable phenomena.

I was going to put the second "roundness" in quotes. But I didn't want to inject anything debatable into my statement. What you perceive as a car going over a hill has absolutely nothing to do with what you perceive as a boat going over a horizon.
Are you suggesting there is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon?

Yes. I'm unequivocally stating as a matter of fact: There is no connection between the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon.

Hmm. What about roundness? Do the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon have roundness in common?

Yes it does because its the same physical process in both scenarios.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Hmm. What about roundness? Do the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon have roundness in common?

Yes it does because its the same physical process in both scenarios.
[/quote]

Quick question: What happens to water on a hill?

[Sputnik]

Hmm. What about roundness? Do the roundness of a hill and the roundness of a horizon have roundness in common?

Yes it does because its the same physical process in both scenarios.

Quick question: What happens to water on a hill?
[/quote]

I give up, what?