[Rama Set]

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  I don't know where you are going with this.

Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.

What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement?  Did anyone else corroborate this?

You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.

Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that.  Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards?  Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.

The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.

If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.

If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.

Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.

Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface.  When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.

I disagree with most of this. You seem to think that perspective is an actual physical effect rather than a consequence of the limitations of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing. Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Please.

[Tom Bishop]

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  I don't know where you are going with this.

Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.

What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement?  Did anyone else corroborate this?

You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.

Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that.  Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards?  Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.

The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.

If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.

If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.

Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.

Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface.  When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.

I disagree with most of this. You seem to think that perspective is an actual physical effect rather than a consequence of the limitations of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing. Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Please.

It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.

[Rama Set]

Ok. Looks like we are done. we can't really have a productive conversation when you hold these beliefs. Sorry if that is harsh but I am not really interested in convincing someone that rails do not actually meet at the vanishing point.

[Tom Bishop]

You're the one screaming "illusion". I'm the one stating that where you see it, that's where it is, and that snipers can hit their marks without needing to aim below them.

Since you are claiming some sort of illusion is occurring, the burden is on you to support your beliefs.

[markjo]

It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.

Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.

[Tom Bishop]

It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.

Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.

That's right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.

It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.

[markjo]

It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.

Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.

Right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.

It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.

I think that Rama is still waiting for you to show how a dime on the ground can block someone's view of an elephant.

[Tom Bishop]

It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.

Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.

Right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.

It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.

I think that Rama is still waiting for you to show how a dime on the ground can block someone's view of an elephant.

When the dime is on the horizon its light is coming in at 90 degrees above nadir to the observer's eyes. Multiple examples were given illustrating this.

Rama Set holds that this is some sort of illusion, and light that starts off low cannot end up at a high place, despite that the distant object's side perspective being pointed directly at the horizon it is targeting.

If objects are not truly where they appear, and are created by a psychological illusion, it must be explained why this is not accounted for by snipers or by anyone else in any other profession related to interacting with or transmitting to distant bodies on the horizon.

[markjo]

When the dime is on the horizon its light is coming in at 90 degrees above nadir to the observer's eyes. Multiple examples were given illustrating this.

Actually, a precision theodolite or precision level would tell a different story.  If the ground is perfectly flat and level on a flat earth, then the dime will always be below eye level.  However, if the dime is far enough away, then the angle would be so slight as to be unnoticeable with the naked eye.

Rama Set holds that this is some sort of illusion, and light that starts off low cannot end up at a high place, despite that the distant object's side perspective being pointed directly at the horizon it is targeting.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. 

If objects are not truly where they appear, and are created by a psychological illusion, it must be explained why this is not accounted for by snipers or by anyone else in any other profession related to interacting with or transmitting to distant bodies on the horizon.

I would guess that snipers don't account for it because snipers generally don't aim at targets on the horizon/

[ClownoftheTown]

Okay sir, then why is it, that when standing on Mount Everest, or flying in a plane, that you cannot see all of the mountains in the world? Nothing would be hiding them, except the curvature of the Earth's surface, which it is.

[Rayzor]

Okay sir, then why is it, that when standing on Mount Everest, or flying in a plane, that you cannot see all of the mountains in the world? Nothing would be hiding them, except the curvature of the Earth's surface, which it is.

The limit of visibility in the standard atmosphere with perfectly clear air  is about 300 km.    This is determined by the extinction co-oefficient,   caused by Rayleigh scattering,   the same thing that makes the sky look blue.
So the further  you can see, the more blue haze you get.   Mountains in the far distance are a hazy blue. 

 the earth was flat,  the horizon would be a hazy blue boundary between earth and sky.    The fact that on a clear day we see a sharp horizon line caused by the earth's curvature is proof of a round earth.

[model 29]

It is a physical effect.

Just to clear things up...

If person A is looking toward the horizon, but is maintaining a level line of sight, does the ground physically slope upward, gaining elevation, to intersect person A's line of sight?

If another person "B" is at that distant point and looking toward person A, does the ground physically slope upward from them so also so that the horizon where person A is located is also intersecting their line of sight?

[Tom Bishop]

It is a physical effect.

Just to clear things up...

If person A is looking toward the horizon, but is maintaining a level line of sight, does the ground physically slope upward, gaining elevation, to intersect person A's line of sight?

If another person "B" is at that distant point and looking toward person A, does the ground physically slope upward from them so also so that the horizon where person A is located is also intersecting their line of sight?

Locally, the elevation the same. But from another frame of reference, the elevation is different. The distant lands are rising upwards. And if there were a series of puppies, lined up in a neat row to the eye level horizon, one could pick them off one by one by lining them up with the sight of a sniper rifle, or a laser weapon (if we want to ignore bullet drop issues), and each of those puppies will die, showing that the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.

[Rama Set]

Uphill both ways. Fascinating. So why didn't the BLE reveal this result?

[model 29]

the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.

So you are a concave Earth believer then instead of flat Earth.  You could have just said so and saved everyone the trouble.

[Rama Set]

the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.

So you are a concave Earth believer then instead of flat Earth.  You could have just said so and saved everyone the trouble.

No it is much stranger than that. The convexness of the Earth is directly proportional to the distance of the observer to a limit (the horizon) then it either flattens or descends. So two people at different distances from point A would see it at a different height. According to Tom, their perceptions are an actual reality. People walking can make the land rise and fall; it is a brave new world Tom is describing.