I don't think that you actually understand any of the words you use there
Lol.
but please show me the calculations and distances involved.
Calculations are what we contrive AFTER we measure first. If you want to calculate, make some measurements of the same star in the same position (multiple nights, obviously) from different known distances/locations to it and extrapolate from there. You will see that it does exactly as i said; as you recede the star will lower in azimuth until it converges with the horizon and you can’t see it anymore. Do you honestly doubt that?
How far away from the constellation of Orion am I on the Northern Hemisphere and how far on the Southern and what exactly is the cut-off distance beyond which it isn't visible anymore?
I’m sure those answers are available to you if you want to go find them. It’s pretty standard astronomy stuff - go look it up if you’re interested! It doesn’t have much to do with what you asked though - that will just tell you how far you’ll have to travel to “restore” the stars you can’t see anymore.
I am talking about why you can’t see them anymore (they’re too far away), which is a different matter than how far you need to travel to restore them.
The light from stars travels billions of light years
I don’t believe such things, but even if it were true - it wouldn’t change what i said or the demonstrable reality of it. No matter how far away the light source is - as you recede from it (or it from you) it will appear to converge with the horizon and eventually no longer be visible.
only to be blocked
You misunderstand, that is your view. You are the one who believes that the light is blocked by the “curve of the earth”.
In my view, the receding light is first apparently converged with the visible horizon (perspective / angular resolution), and ultimately refracted, convexly towards the surface, by the density gradient in our air.
Makes total sense.
It does when you understand it. However, making sense doesn’t make it (or anything) correct. Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibility.
In my view, the receding light is first apparently converged with the visible horizon (perspective / angular resolution), and ultimately refracted, convexly towards the surface, by the density gradient in our air.
Publish your research, show your empirical evidence and then have it reviewed by your peers. Once you do, you will be proven right and become the most famous person in the world.
Think of all the brave innovators who challenged the church and old-school ways that came before you. Copernicus, Galileo, at al, now YOU have an opportunity to be that person. Show the world your evidence and facts so everyone can once and for know how they have all been manipulated.
I “published” the conclusions of my research to you - just now...
Besides, what i’ve said is demonstrably observable for all to see. What better “publishment” can there be but trivially observable reality?
All objects, and the light from them - wether reflected or self luminescent - do as i describe when receding.
show your empirical evidence and then have it reviewed by your peers
Again, there is no better empirical evidence than trivially observable reality. Go out and “review” my evidence for yourself. Science is about replication (validation), not the publishing racket.
Once you do, you will be proven right and become the most famous person in the world.
Lol. You massively overestimate peoples interest in such things. Virtually no one cares friend, because they are too busy slaving away to “earn” a crust.
Think of all the brave innovators who challenged the church and old-school ways that came before you
I like historical fiction as well, but it is important to remember that they are just stories.
so everyone can once and for know how they have all been manipulated.
No one requires to be “manipulated” in order to be wrong and to likewise be taught, from childhood, wrong things and repeat them. That happens naturally, without any intervention/manipulation.
What are you waiting for?
That is a good question to ask yourself. I am not waiting. I’m here sharing my views and conclusions. You are the one who won’t/can’t bother to validate them. As I said, most people don’t care about such things :(
Flat Earthers are unable to actually substantiate their idiotic fantasies
There aren’t really any “flat earthers”. There are just products and/or agents of the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
As for “idiotic fantasies”, all i did was answer your question - plainly. I know you are more comfortable believing there is no available answer but the one you were trained to repeat - but this is essentially never the case.
Try to address the content of my statements, instead of resorting to vapid and self degrading ad hominem. Viciously attack the thought, if you are capable, but never the thinker - as the latter only demonstrates your incompetence to do the former.
Lol. That’s not for lack of trying! When you don’t understand something, the best first step is to ask questions! Instead you resorted to ad hominem, which is not a good/intelligent way to discuss, learn, or teach anything :(
I too can string some fancy sounding words together randomly,
Clearly you didn’t understand what i said. Ask questions!
Name the distances.
As i said, there are many charts of such things. Look them up if you are interested! They have nothing to do with the question you asked, or the answer i gave.
Lol.
Calculations are what we contrive AFTER we measure first. If you want to calculate, make some measurements of the same star in the same position (multiple nights, obviously) from different known distances/locations to it and extrapolate from there. You will see that it does exactly as i said; as you recede the star will lower in azimuth until it converges with the horizon and you can’t see it anymore. Do you honestly doubt that?
I’m sure those answers are available to you if you want to go find them. It’s pretty standard astronomy stuff - go look it up if you’re interested! It doesn’t have much to do with what you asked though - that will just tell you how far you’ll have to travel to “restore” the stars you can’t see anymore.
I am talking about why you can’t see them anymore (they’re too far away), which is a different matter than how far you need to travel to restore them.
The light from stars travels billions of light years only to be blocked by someone travelling to the other side of a flat earth. Makes total sense.
I don’t believe such things, but even if it were true - it wouldn’t change what i said or the demonstrable reality of it. No matter how far away the light source is - as you recede from it (or it from you) it will appear to converge with the horizon and eventually no longer be visible.
You misunderstand, that is your view. You are the one who believes that the light is blocked by the “curve of the earth”.
In my view, the receding light is first apparently converged with the visible horizon (perspective / angular resolution), and ultimately refracted, convexly towards the surface, by the density gradient in our air.
It does when you understand it. However, making sense doesn’t make it (or anything) correct. Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibility.
Publish your research, show your empirical evidence and then have it reviewed by your peers. Once you do, you will be proven right and become the most famous person in the world.
Think of all the brave innovators who challenged the church and old-school ways that came before you. Copernicus, Galileo, at al, now YOU have an opportunity to be that person. Show the world your evidence and facts so everyone can once and for know how they have all been manipulated.
What are you waiting for?
I “published” the conclusions of my research to you - just now...
Besides, what i’ve said is demonstrably observable for all to see. What better “publishment” can there be but trivially observable reality?
All objects, and the light from them - wether reflected or self luminescent - do as i describe when receding.
Again, there is no better empirical evidence than trivially observable reality. Go out and “review” my evidence for yourself. Science is about replication (validation), not the publishing racket.
Lol. You massively overestimate peoples interest in such things. Virtually no one cares friend, because they are too busy slaving away to “earn” a crust.
I like historical fiction as well, but it is important to remember that they are just stories.
No one requires to be “manipulated” in order to be wrong and to likewise be taught, from childhood, wrong things and repeat them. That happens naturally, without any intervention/manipulation.
That is a good question to ask yourself. I am not waiting. I’m here sharing my views and conclusions. You are the one who won’t/can’t bother to validate them. As I said, most people don’t care about such things :(
As usual, Flat Earthers are unable to actually substantiate their idiotic fantasies
There aren’t really any “flat earthers”. There are just products and/or agents of the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
As for “idiotic fantasies”, all i did was answer your question - plainly. I know you are more comfortable believing there is no available answer but the one you were trained to repeat - but this is essentially never the case.
Try to address the content of my statements, instead of resorting to vapid and self degrading ad hominem. Viciously attack the thought, if you are capable, but never the thinker - as the latter only demonstrates your incompetence to do the former.
What content? You throw down some words that explain nothing. You have no content.
I too can string some fancy sounding words together randomly, that doesn't mean I have provided an argument.
Name the distances.
They’re called words.
Lol. That’s not for lack of trying! When you don’t understand something, the best first step is to ask questions! Instead you resorted to ad hominem, which is not a good/intelligent way to discuss, learn, or teach anything :(
Clearly you didn’t understand what i said. Ask questions!
As i said, there are many charts of such things. Look them up if you are interested! They have nothing to do with the question you asked, or the answer i gave.