Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For a logical proof to be sound (true), the premises must be true. You'd need to demonstrate that "we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye" rather than just asserting it.
Meantime, I won't pretend my model's perfect when my own top scientists even admit to being '95% stupid'.
This one's been nailed shut. There are scores, if not hundreds, of vids on YT. It's a simple experiment that you can perform yourself, with the aid of a decent zoom lens and tripod. Consistent repeatable results, hard to mess up.
You can retrieve the sun after it's set ?Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?
Physical evidence... like the measurable horizon drop at various altitudes? Which is consistent with other measurements of earth's radius?Happy to do that, when someone can present me with some actual physical evidence of curvature or motion.
You don't have a "model". What you have is conjectures, claims and empty words.Meantime, I won't pretend my model's perfect when my own top scientists even admit to being '95% stupid'.
Ah, that would be very easy to demonstrate.Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?
LOL, "Model", you haven't got any model.
A youtube scholar eh?
You can retrieve the sun after it's set ?
There are enough examples, even on YouTube, of major structures or geological features where only the bottom parts are "lost to the eye".
The explanation of perspective, lensing or angular size or other "optical effects" cannot apply in these cases, because the top parts of these objects are still clearly seen.
I did try but found no videos of objects being retrieved by zoom lens' after they've disappeared over the horizon. Maybe they don't exist?
You can find tons of videos of Bigfoot and flying saucers on YouTube too, I guess that proves they're real.
As long as we are talking about "beyond the visible horizon", the range is quite irrelevant, wouldn't you think? After all... we were talking about the sun. Is that a "marginal example"?Maybe, but they should be completely obscured in many cases. We're talking long range stuff, not marginal examples.
Yes, that is an existing optical phenomenon. And we know how and why it works.Maybe 'inferior mirage' is the effect:
An object which is small enough (a small sailboat, for example) ... can disappear due to the limit of our vision, ... only to be retrievable with technology which increases the limits of our vision.That one, no. But terrestrial objects, yea.
As long as we are talking about "beyond the visible horizon", the range is quite irrelevant, wouldn't you think? After all... we were talking about the sun. Is that a "marginal example"?
So, again: take an object that is (acording to the globe model) partially obstructed by the curvature of the earth. A tall building. A mountain. Something where you can clearly see the visible part.
And then zoom in on it and "retrieve" the hidden part.
Do that, and I will consider the flat earth model.
The observation(s) which might disprove this are ... retrieving the sun after it has set, or recovoring the obscurred portion of a still visible object which is only partially obscurred by the horizon.
I keep hearing this from people pushing an idea that they like. But they haven't and dont seem to want to do the hars work to check their ideas.I don't have all the answers...yet.
Test, retest, remove variables, repeat others tests. Dont take other people's word for it even if it supports your claim.
Arguing on a form is not doing any of that.
That didn't keep you from presenting your "answers" before, hinting at "effects that haven't been pinpointed yet".Just keep hammering away at the sun point my man, I don't have all the answers...yet.
Yes, there will always be some "miraging" effect. But these effects will not be constant, and not in the magnitude or way that would be necessary to explain the visible drop of the horizon.Hm, but isn't there always going to be some miraging or 'melding' optical effect around the base?
If there were such examples, this would be something that needed to be explained. Those examples that I have seen are usually the result of shoddy measurements.And again, if there are many examples of visible objects that should be entirely hidden behind lots of curve, why wouldn't they do the job? They should blow that concern out of the water, no?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?