[Dual1ty]

"hidden by the curve of the earth" 

With no distance change:



Keep insisting on this garbage because you got nothing else. GO.

2) Perspective makes things smaller, it doesn't explain half a building being hidden by the curve of the earth - if you dispute that's what's hiding the building then what is? I've explained in '1' why it isn't refraction.

It doesn't just make things smaller. Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.

[AATW]

Yes, refraction can vary. Those photos were clearly taken in very different atmospheric conditions.
The Turning Torso observations were taken in the same weather conditions, the only difference was the distance. Where's the rest of the building?
And a point I note you ignored is that refraction generally allows us to see MORE of a distant object, not less.

Ah, I see you've made a second reply - you can just edit your posts, dude.
I was simplifying a bit with perspective, but one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon. Things have to sink behind something. If it's not the curve of the earth then what is it?

[Dual1ty]

Yes, refraction can vary. Those photos were clearly taken in very different atmospheric conditions.
The Turning Torso observations were taken in the same weather conditions, the only difference was the distance. Where's the rest of the building?
And a point I note you ignored is that refraction generally allows us to see MORE of a distant object, not less.

Ah, I see you've made a second reply - you can just edit your posts, dude.
I was simplifying a bit with perspective, but one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon. Things have to sink behind something. If it's not the curve of the earth then what is it?

Yeah, if you remove the atmosphere there's no longer a "curve" lmao. So your globe is just some assumption of curve when the atmospheric conditions are just right - just the right amount of refraction and misunderstandings to support your absurd debunked model.

"one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon." LOL. The horizon is a result of perspective. So everything that goes towards the horizon will disappear with it eventually. Basic angular resolution that zealots like you will always deny.

[AATW]

Yeah, if you remove the atmosphere there's no longer a "curve"

Incorrect. Refraction makes the curve appear less than the reality. But the Turning Torso video clearly shows the way distant objects disappear behind the curve of the earth.

The horizon is a result of perspective.

This is also incorrect. The horizon is the limit you can see before the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude - it allows you to see further over the curve. Angular resolution clearly can't be the explanation. That does explain why you can't see things with the naked eye, but optical zoom can allow you to see them, if visibility allows. But why when zoomed in can you only see the top of the Turning Torso building? Why can't you see the rest? What's hiding it? I know the answer, do you?

[Dual1ty]

I just realized that this "Turning Torso" observation obviously must be some globe zealot "white swan".

I could just as easily come up with FE's "black swan" and use it as "proof of FE". Or any of the hundreds of other observations that match the FE reality.

However, since I'm not an idiot and that wasn't the point, I'm not going to do so.

You present a tangible experiment, they give you excuses or pretend they don't know what you're talking about and they immediately go to cherrypicked observations because they have nothing else. Clear for all to see.

[SteelyBob]

"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.

[Dual1ty]

"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.

I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view

[AATW]

"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.

I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view

"ground floors of buildings disappear first".

Why would they?
The angular size of the bottom floor is the same as the angular size of the top floor. Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom. So why can you see the top floor but not the bottom?

[Dual1ty]

"ground floors of buildings disappear first".

Why would they?
The angular size of the bottom floor is the same as the angular size of the top floor.  So why can you see the top floor but not the bottom?

Because you're standing on the ground/sea, not 50 feet (or x feet) in the air to match building height half-way...

Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom.

Nope. It's bigger.

[AATW]

Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom.

Nope. It's bigger.

No.

Let's imagine you're a a thousand feet away from a building. And for the sake of simplicity let's say each floor is 20 feet high and your viewer height is 10 feet. That means your view of the bottom floor forms an isosoles triangle, the base of it is 20 feet and the long sides are 1000.05 (using pythagorus, it's the hypotenuse of the right angled triangle 1000 feet long and 10 high). Using a triangle calculator the angle at the point of that triangle, in blue, is 1.146 degrees, which is your angular size.



You can also use Pythagorus to find the lengths of the sides of the triangle to the top floor. I've assumed 6 floors.
So those lines are the hypotenuses of the right angled triangles 1000 long and 90 high for the bottom line and 1000 long and 110 high for the top line. The base of that triangle is also 20 and the angle at the point of that triangle, in green, is 1.135 degrees. And that's the angular size of that floor, which is smaller.

This is obvious just be thinking about it. If you're looking up at a tall building then the higher floors appear smaller because they're further away. It's the same principle here.

[Dual1ty]

IT IS BIGGER. In that stupid diagram you're not accounting for ground rising up (due to perspective).

So unless you think the top floor is at ground level too, you have problems.

[AATW]

IT IS BIGGER. In that stupid diagram you're not accounting for ground rising up (due to perspective).

That is accounted for by the line from the viewer to the bottom of the ground floor. That line is almost straight which demonstrates that the bottom of the ground floor is almost, but not quite at eye level.

So unless you think the top floor is at ground level, you have problems.

It's the fact that the top floor is NOT at ground level which makes it appear smaller.
As things get closer they appear bigger, yes?
Which is closer to you, the ground floor or the top one?

[Dual1ty]

Ok, I take that back.

You're not accounting for the curvature of the eye - that's the real problem.

In the diagrams I presented you can clearly see it's bigger due to curvature of the eye/retina, plus you are standing at ground level or not very far from ground level.

Curvature of the eyes plus being close to the ground is also the reason why you can't see farther than you can and there is a horizon at a few miles.

We all have roughly the same eye shape, BTW. Usually an oblate spheroid. Coincidence? Of course not.

[Dual1ty]

What I just said in my previous comment is 100% fact, by the way. And it 100% debunks the globe.

ONLY globe ZEALOTS will deny it and/or try to misrepresent it, or claim it's irrelevant (because some facts don't fit their narrative).

So, if you are someone who maybe believes in the globe but is not a globe zealot and you are reading this - just think for yourself, look at what I have presented from Google Drive and look at the facts.

This will help you understand it better:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view

[AATW]

You're not accounting for the curvature of the eye - that's the real problem.

I honestly wouldn't know how to and I don't believe you have to. I don't really understand the diagrams in the documents you posted.
But sure, if you want to demonstrate how to account for that in my diagram then I'll have a look.

Curvature of the eyes plus being close to the ground is also the reason why you can't see farther than you can and there is a horizon at a few miles.

Counterpoint - no it isn't. Because you CAN see further than the horizon - that's how you can see the rest of the Turning Torso building which is much further away than the horizon. You just can't see the bottom of it. Because it's hidden by something. What do you think that something is?
In your world you can see a few miiles of sea and then...there's thousands of miles more see in front of you but you can't see any of it? Why not? You can see the sun setting into the sea, which even in FE models is thousands of miles away. Where's the rest of the sea?

We all have roughly the same eye shape, BTW. Usually an oblate spheroid. Coincidence? Of course not.

It's neither coincidence nor relevant to this discussion.

[Dual1ty]

You can see farther by using some optical device (or by going higher). But the device will also be optically limited. The fact that you deny this... well, I already said what I had to say.

Now it's your turn to claim reality is irrelevant and that Earth is still a globe regardless. You're already doing it, eh? Good job, ZEALOT!

[DuncanDoenitz]

What I just said in my previous comment is 100% fact, by the way. And it 100% debunks the globe.

ONLY globe ZEALOTS will deny it and/or try to misrepresent it.

So, if you are someone who maybe believes in the globe but is not a globe zealot and you are reading this - just think for yourself, look at what I have presented from Google Drive and look at the facts.

This will help you understand it better:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view

"It's true because I say it is". 

What, exactly, is the relevance or provenance of the Google Drive stuff?  Who wrote it?  Who reviewed it?  It's nonsense.  For instance, in the second clip, the diagram illustrates rays of vision crossing in the middle of the orb of the eye.  They don't; they cross in the lens. 

And what is the relevance of "the curvature of the eye", when reviewing photographs. 

[Dual1ty]

"It's nonsense because I don't like those facts".

Keep digging lol.

[AATW]

You can see farther by using some optical device. But the device will also be optically limited. The fact that you deny this...

What? Of course I don't deny it. The Turning Torso video demonstrates this - at the greater distances the building is noticeably fainter, there is a limit to how far we can see things through the atmosphere (the sun being a notable exception because it's so bright). So visibility is one factor and yes, the limits of the optics is another. If that building were a few hundred miles away then I doubt the zoom would be powerful enough render it visible even if there were no atmospheric limits. But...given that the zoom is good enough to show the building at all the distances in that video, why do increasing amounts of the building disappear? It's not visibility or limits of the optics - the top of the building is clearly visible. Where's the rest of it? It's pretty clear it's being occluded by something and I'd suggest the only candidate for what is occluding it is the horizon itself.

[DuncanDoenitz]

"It's nonsense because I don't like those facts".

Keep digging lol.

But they aren't facts, are they?  It's just random, unattributed slides from a "write-your-own-science" site on the internet. 

LOL. 

(Obviously, because a post isn't complete without disparaging your antagonists).