What I don't understand is how this thread got to 19 pages and we're not talking about Covid vaccines?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Now the really interesting but would be to get a theodolite or similar survey tool.
Line it up on the horizon, set your scale to Zero.
Then rotate it in the vertical plane until it lines up with the opposite horizon. Flat or ball the total angle should be a bit over 180. (Or get a an accurate reference to vertical and the angle should be a bit over 90)
On a flat earth, the angles should be less, because you're on a flat plane. The angles would increase pretty linearly as you raised the elevation.
On a ball however, the angle would be greater to start with, and then increase very differently as you increase your elevation.
But I imagine the tricky part would be figuring out just what limits your vision to the horizon on a flat earth? Is it a consistent phenomenon that you can rely on to take these measurements?
Great experiment, I hadn't thought of doing it that way before.
So in both flat and ball earth the angle will increase with elevation, but much more so with a ball earth.
We'd need some figures calculated before hand so we'd know what our results meant.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I have done the experiment like twenty times and the horizon lined up with my straight edge.
Try it out again tomorrow.
I think I've had this discussion with you before Pete, and you just don't understand this experiment and are doing it all wrong.
You aren't pointing the level at the horizon, you are holding it parallel to it, and of course it lines up. Turn the level 90deg and see if it points to the horizon, while it's level. That's what Fangy is asking you to do now.
And a straight edge is no good, you need a LEVEL, that is level.
But maybe you don't know the difference?
Mmm, sorry I may have put this off on a tangent by asking about curved horizons.
It now seems everybody is still arguing, but they all agree the same thing about the horizon being level. Flat or ball it will look level if you are standing on the surface.
I think I get fangman's point now. it is that when he looks along the length of the table, the horizon he sees in the distance isn't in line with a horizontal projection along the line he is looking along, i.e. it is below the line. I was reading it that the horizon was banana curved left to right, and did not line up with the level edge of the end of the table that is perpendicular to his line of sight. So his conclusion is actually that the table must be bent forward to back, not left to right as he looks at it.
Although, I can now suggest that if he is looking from table level to sea level it won't be lined up, it will be below the sight line - assuming tha table is elevated, to make it into a useful table. Hence his sight line should be lining up another table top at Boombas, measured to be the same height as the one he is picnicing on. Then the debate will be settled, once and for all.
Edit : decrepit beat me to it. But in decrpit's example Pete needs to get another person of equal standing to be the sighing pole, otherwise he will be looking from PM33 eye leve to the ground level, which is an elevation drop.
Now, just need to find somebody on an equal standing to PM33.
Hey FormulaNova, you busy ??
What about laying a straight tube along the level table and see what part of Boombas can be seen. Maybe even put your phone camera up against the tube and show us.
Remery you have forgotten that the Illuminati have developed the astonishingly good tech in phone cameras to artificially bend the extremes of any horizon shot. If this wasn't the case it would have been much easier to post a photo here and just show the table top and horizon losing their love for one another at each end. {insert facepalm meme here}
As a corollary, as @philn has pointed out: 19 pages, now 20 pages ... Can I use my new fav term 'epistemologically crippled' yet?
We have had a pretty good look at all the planets in our solar system. Why is ours the only flat one?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
We have had a pretty good look at all the planets in our solar system. Why is ours the only flat one?
Well that is just blatant Shape Shaming. 
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Well that is just blatant Shape Shaming.
Oblate spheroid planets are still planets.
From your laughably insulting to intelligence link a comment that makes sense.
And decrepit tell me again in your own words why horizontal and level are different?
I want to have a good laugh.
Yeah, BUT you are inside the rail cars protected from the wind. Try that on the top of the train and you would be like a bug on a windshield. The evidence is all around us that everything from a butterfly to ourselves cut through the air with relative ease but somehow the air is supposedly moved sideways at 1100 mph (at the equator) and we don't feel it?
" ....but somehow the air is supposedly moved sideways at 1100 mph (at the equator) and we don't feel it?"
There's a fraction too much friction,... and other physics type stuff not worth the papyrus it was written on when the original Illuminati lizard people worked it all out.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
From your laughably insulting to intelligence link a comment that makes sense.
And decrepit tell me again in your own words why horizontal and level are different?
I want to have a good laugh.
Yeah, BUT you are inside the rail cars protected from the wind. Try that on the top of the train and you would be like a bug on a windshield. The evidence is all around us that everything from a butterfly to ourselves cut through the air with relative ease but somehow the air is supposedly moved sideways at 1100 mph (at the equator) and we don't feel it?
Imagine yourself on the Tokyo bullet rain travelling at 320 kmh. You toss a donut across the aisle to your friend. How far does the donut travel? How far does the donut travel when observed by someone standing outside the train.
In everyday usage horizontal and level are often used interchangeably, but they are not quite the same. It can be confusing because they can be either a verb, noun or adjective.
I think in the case you are suggesting: (adjective) Horizontal describes the uniform plane at ninety degrees to the vertical plane. Commonly it is aligned with the horizon, but this does not have to be the case. It's all relative, for example if you section a ball with a horizontal cut taken through from the centre of the ball, the cut will intersect the surface of the ball vertically, from the surface perspective.
Level describes a plane that in not necessarily straight, but is non intersecting with another plane. Think of a set of concentric rings. At a local level they are parallel. Each ring is 'level' compared to the adjacent ring. In everyday terms, a level is the same distance above the surface . On an earth that is spherical ( I can't believe I just wrote that), two points the same distance above from the centre of the earth, separated by any distance will be considered level.
Speaking of levels how are you going replicating, or otherwise, my picnic table experiment?
I have one of those laser pointers, the ones that the do-gooders banned, I can come down for an experiment.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said.. >>>> And decrepit tell me again in your own words why horizontal and level are different?
I want to have a good laugh.
I have no idea why I'm bothering to answer this, because you have a very strange sense of humour.
I don't think I ever said horizontal and level are different. (if I ever did, blame it on a silly old fart moment)
I said level and straight are different.
But it doesn't surprise me that you have the two mixed up.
I think i figured it out
Pc is actually from back in time when the earth was flat
You know before 3d was invented
..... actually come to think of it most of you are that old
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Imagine yourself on the Tokyo bullet rain travelling at 320 kmh. You toss a donut across the aisle to your friend. How far does the donut travel? How far does the donut travel when observed by someone standing outside the train.
Oh... me me me... I want to answer that.
When you throw a donut across the aisle, of course it blasts a hole in the wall, because, you know... it is travelling at 320kph.
Welcome to the PM33 school of physics. Sermons start at 10am, followed by bible study, and then for entertainment we are going to have some youtube videos featured Amber Plaster.
At some point I am sure all of us must think 'he is surely taking the piss. No one can think that, can they?'
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I have one of those laser pointers, the ones that the do-gooders banned, I can come down for an experiment.
They are banned?
If they are, good. I had an arsehole shine one into my eye at a train station. I am pretty sure he wouldn't have tried it if I could have gotten to him quickly.
I guess some idiots have aimed them at pilots, god knows what they wanted to achieve.
P.S. I am sure I have one or two somewhere as well, but how often do you need to use them?
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said.
Yeah, BUT you are inside the rail cars protected from the wind. Try that on the top of the train and you would be like a bug on a windshield. The evidence is all around us that everything from a butterfly to ourselves cut through the air with relative ease but somehow the air is supposedly moved sideways at 1100 mph (at the equator) and we don't feel it?
Imagine yourself on the Tokyo bullet rain travelling at 320 kmh. You toss a donut across the aisle to your friend. How far does the donut travel? How far does the donut travel when observed by someone standing outside the train.
Were you to throw up a tennis ball in a train or bus its true the ball will come down in the same place.
Now do the same experiment with the tennis ball in an open rooftop bus or train travelling at the same speed the tennis ball will land in a different position.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..remery said..Pcdefender said.
Yeah, BUT you are inside the rail cars protected from the wind. Try that on the top of the train and you would be like a bug on a windshield. The evidence is all around us that everything from a butterfly to ourselves cut through the air with relative ease but somehow the air is supposedly moved sideways at 1100 mph (at the equator) and we don't feel it?
Imagine yourself on the Tokyo bullet rain travelling at 320 kmh. You toss a donut across the aisle to your friend. How far does the donut travel? How far does the donut travel when observed by someone standing outside the train.
Were you to throw up a tennis ball in a train or bus its true the ball will come down in the same place.
Now do the same experiment with the tennis ball in an open rooftop bus or train travelling at the same speed the tennis ball will land in a different position.
What would happen if you are on an open-top bus, traveling at 30kph and there is a a 30kph tailwind? When you throw something into the air, surely it comes down in the same place?
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Speaking of levels how are you going replicating, or otherwise, my picnic table experiment?
Will go sailing on Saturday and get back to you then.
If you do experiments that show the horizon is not a straight edge but that it actually curves, then you should believe the earth is spherical.
I would probably believe so myself too were it not for the theory that at the equator we are supposed to be like revolving ay 1000 mph plus lol.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
At some point I am sure all of us must think 'he is surely taking the piss. No one can think that, can they?'
I once thought there was proto chat bot that was learning interaction and doing a really bad job, so much so that the bunch of machine learning Uni students responsible never bothered shutting it down. If not, then yes, it's gotta be the gold standard of trolling.
Select to expand quotefangman said..FormulaNova said..
At some point I am sure all of us must think 'he is surely taking the piss. No one can think that, can they?'
I once thought there was proto chat bot that was learning interaction and doing a really bad job, so much so that the bunch of machine learning Uni students responsible never bothered shutting it down. If not, then yes, it's gotta be the gold standard of trolling.
I just don't know where to start. I think sometimes you forget about observations in everyday life and how they seem to align with principles you have learned of and this just builds up more information about how things in the real world work. Which is pretty much the way science has progressed since forever.
Lately I have been doing a bit of painting. When I stir the can of paint using a drill, somehow the paint not in the middle starts mixing as well. It's incredible. It's almost like how an atmosphere would behave around a planet. I don't know what to make of this and have resigned myself to the belief that it is the work of the devil.
Select to expand quotefangman said..FormulaNova said..
Lately I have been doing a bit of painting. When I stir the can of paint using a drill, somehow the paint not in the middle starts mixing as well. It's incredible. It's almost like how an atmosphere would behave around a planet. I don't know what to make of this and have resigned myself to the belief that it is the work of the devil.
Painting itself be the work of the devil. Especially ceilings. (apologies to Michelangelo)
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
If you do experiments that show the horizon is not a straight edge but that it actually curves, then you should believe the earth is spherical.
Nobody is saying the horizon doesn't look straight at ground level. You need oddles of elevation to actually see the curve.
WHAT everybody is saying is that a ruler that is level should point to something at the same height across a few kilometres of water.
Select to expand quotefangman said..fangman said..FormulaNova said..
Lately I have been doing a bit of painting. When I stir the can of paint using a drill, somehow the paint not in the middle starts mixing as well. It's incredible. It's almost like how an atmosphere would behave around a planet. I don't know what to make of this and have resigned myself to the belief that it is the work of the devil.
Painting itself be the work of the devil. Especially ceilings. (apologies to Michelangelo)
Ahmen to that! I would rather frame up a wall and clad it than paint it. That is hard work.
