So much exchange and you pretty much missed it entirely.
That is a typo, I meant to write definitively. As in the ability to define something without ambiguity.
So to start with the claim of the flat horizon, indeed. Your view will always be flat as you are capturing but a small slice of what exists. This is easily understood using the example of the diminishing tracks. Basically the same concept. If I put you on a tennis ball, you would be able to tell right away. If I place you on a sphere large enough you would have no idea.
Do you find it hard to believe that no scientist, engineer, surveyor, has ever measured curve?
This is silly, there are a vast number of people in all of the listed fields who have proposed a myriad of methods to estimate curvature based on the inputs at hand.
Worth pointing out, there are also a vast number of people in all the listed fields who refute curvature, why not? what is vast? a few hundred? a few thousand? I honestly have no idea, could be 50/50 just because I am a fair person.
is that it must be more complicated and take into account all variables before you will consider than a change in velocity exists.
I am glad we have reached agreement here, measuring velocity without knowing how to correctly calculate the various other forces with respect to all bodies in question is just too much for us with our measly instrumentation, we fall back to estimations and either accept it, or reject it. Indeed not a valid tool to be used to make proclamations based upon.
You lied about researching flat earth.
I never lied, nor did I suggest I was done, none of what you say here has any merit, this is a work in progress. I am drilling for answers to obtain understanding, the first stages is to rely on the experience of others and collect.
When you talk of my lazy scientific approaches, surely you must realize I am but a keyboard analyst in this perspective, I am not building tools and performing experiments, I am much before that stage. I can lean on what has been done to confer my own start point, which is not yet materialized. So far nothing is of interest to me.
You really didn't even try to process the day light shift.
This is correct, because in the simple image provided there are far too many missing variables for it to be explaining anything to me. It is incorrect, it is an oversimplification of a given understanding that is already well measured over the past 1000 years in many areas of the planet.
You don't know the flat earth model.
Fine, forgive my ignorance on the nomenclature used to identify the pattern of the sun and the moon and its crisscross stuff, there is nothing there but hyperbole and broken theory, I have no need to dig to that depth of something I do not agree with.
it and that was not in the list.
We are still trying to ascertain what convincing points can be used to 'believe' in flat earth, to bring it past being a 'belief'. From there those points are then analyzed and the goal is to find something worth digging into.
So much exchange and you pretty much missed it entirely.
That is a typo, I meant to write definitively. As in the ability to define something without ambiguity.
So to start with the claim of the flat horizon, indeed. Your view will always be flat as you are capturing but a small slice of what exists. This is easily understood using the example of the diminishing tracks. Basically the same concept. If I put you on a tennis ball, you would be able to tell right away. If I place you on a sphere large enough you would have no idea.
This is silly, there are a vast number of people in all of the listed fields who have proposed a myriad of methods to estimate curvature based on the inputs at hand.
Worth pointing out, there are also a vast number of people in all the listed fields who refute curvature, why not? what is vast? a few hundred? a few thousand? I honestly have no idea, could be 50/50 just because I am a fair person.
I am glad we have reached agreement here, measuring velocity without knowing how to correctly calculate the various other forces with respect to all bodies in question is just too much for us with our measly instrumentation, we fall back to estimations and either accept it, or reject it. Indeed not a valid tool to be used to make proclamations based upon.
I never lied, nor did I suggest I was done, none of what you say here has any merit, this is a work in progress. I am drilling for answers to obtain understanding, the first stages is to rely on the experience of others and collect.
When you talk of my lazy scientific approaches, surely you must realize I am but a keyboard analyst in this perspective, I am not building tools and performing experiments, I am much before that stage. I can lean on what has been done to confer my own start point, which is not yet materialized. So far nothing is of interest to me.
This is correct, because in the simple image provided there are far too many missing variables for it to be explaining anything to me. It is incorrect, it is an oversimplification of a given understanding that is already well measured over the past 1000 years in many areas of the planet.
Fine, forgive my ignorance on the nomenclature used to identify the pattern of the sun and the moon and its crisscross stuff, there is nothing there but hyperbole and broken theory, I have no need to dig to that depth of something I do not agree with.
it and that was not in the list.
We are still trying to ascertain what convincing points can be used to 'believe' in flat earth, to bring it past being a 'belief'. From there those points are then analyzed and the goal is to find something worth digging into.