How did you manage to measure the distance in a Arial zoomed in picture with no landmarks?
I don't need to, you do (although the landmarks in the pontchartrain shot are of known height and spacing) . They are your observations.
I already know (from both experience and calculation), that the curvature on the scales in your pictures is not visible. You are free to repeat such calculations at your leisure.
Weren't you ... telling me this photo can't be used as proof of anything due to distortion?
Sort of. I was telling you that science requires measurement, not simply looking at things and then making declaration. I am also telling you that the curvature in the photos has to be distortion because if it were actually the curvature of the earth (as you want it/ are biased to believe it to be) then the world would have to be much smaller than the globe model specifies.
You throw out any evidence that doesn't support your preconceptions, and uphold anything you can twist to support it
You are describing yourself. You want so desperately for these photos to contain the earths curvature that you don't even know (through trivial calculation and observation) why that's not possible. This doesn't have much to do with the shape of the world, but with bias and subjectivity.
In general, in flat earth research - no evidence is discarded - merely interpreted differently than you have been taught. For example, you see the curvature in the photos and declare "that's the curve of the earth", i see that same curvature and know from calculation and experience that it is due to distortion. Nothing is being thrown out.
And of course you have to ignore the MASSIVE amount of observations you can make on your own to confirm the earth is round like so many they could fill a fucking book
You completely misunderstand. Nothing is being ignored. If the world is flat, then every observation in that imaginary book of yours that appears to "confirm the earth is round" is simply interpreted incorrectly.
inventing optical illusions to explain everything
Don't pout and gripe like a child. Instead disagree and criticize the specific claim. Do you think the visible horizon isn't an optical illusion? It recedes away from you as you approach it, just like a rainbow, and for the same reasons. The visible horizon is not a physical place that can be reached, and it is not the edge of the world (regardless of what shape that world is). We were simply mistaught to believe it was.
and redefining the laws of physics with ZERO math to back it up
I am doing no such thing. Math is merely a symbolic language. Describing something in it doesn't automatically make that thing true/correct (just like every other language)!
For discussion (like most all scientists in history) i prefer english but if you would like a mathematical formulation of something i've said instead, i can accommodate you. However the idea that you would accept something said simply because it was written in mathematical symbols is silly, laughable, and untrue. If you don't understand something said in your native tongue, it is unlikely encoding into mathematic symbol will help you. When you don't understand, try asking questions! When you disagree, try disagreeing and providing specific reasoning and criticism for what you disagree with and why!
Pouting, griping, and lobbing baseless insult like a child instead just makes me pity you :(
You do if you want to claim this photo supports a flat earth
You've already forgotten what we were talking about? That's a little sad :(
No one claimed any photo you shared supports a flat earth. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read in order to remember what we were talking about.
Especially after spending an entire day telling me how invalid this photo is as evidence due to distortion
I appreciate that is all you experienced / can remember - but i never said anything of the sort. I never said the photos you shared were invalid, and it didn't take me more than a single comment (a sentence or two, actually) to explain why the photos do not and cannot show the curvature of the earth. The "entire day", continuing into today - has only been to try and help you to understand those few sentences.
Also, you need to measure the distortion too, not just the distance in the photo.
Again, i'm not the one who is confused about the globe model or the extremely subtle (essentially imperceptible) curvature that is described in it and would be (by calculation) visible on such scales.
If the reason for the ostensible curvature is not due to distortion, which i agree is the presumptive/deductive cause, then what on earth do you think causes it? Do you truly believe the world is far tinier than the globe model describes / we're taught? I am having difficulty imagining another option.
I'm not wasting my time on any more novels from you
They are only a waste if you don't read and/or understand them. When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions!
I don't need to, you do (although the landmarks in the pontchartrain shot are of known height and spacing) . They are your observations.
I already know (from both experience and calculation), that the curvature on the scales in your pictures is not visible. You are free to repeat such calculations at your leisure.
Sort of. I was telling you that science requires measurement, not simply looking at things and then making declaration. I am also telling you that the curvature in the photos has to be distortion because if it were actually the curvature of the earth (as you want it/ are biased to believe it to be) then the world would have to be much smaller than the globe model specifies.
You are describing yourself. You want so desperately for these photos to contain the earths curvature that you don't even know (through trivial calculation and observation) why that's not possible. This doesn't have much to do with the shape of the world, but with bias and subjectivity.
In general, in flat earth research - no evidence is discarded - merely interpreted differently than you have been taught. For example, you see the curvature in the photos and declare "that's the curve of the earth", i see that same curvature and know from calculation and experience that it is due to distortion. Nothing is being thrown out.
You completely misunderstand. Nothing is being ignored. If the world is flat, then every observation in that imaginary book of yours that appears to "confirm the earth is round" is simply interpreted incorrectly.
Don't pout and gripe like a child. Instead disagree and criticize the specific claim. Do you think the visible horizon isn't an optical illusion? It recedes away from you as you approach it, just like a rainbow, and for the same reasons. The visible horizon is not a physical place that can be reached, and it is not the edge of the world (regardless of what shape that world is). We were simply mistaught to believe it was.
I am doing no such thing. Math is merely a symbolic language. Describing something in it doesn't automatically make that thing true/correct (just like every other language)!
For discussion (like most all scientists in history) i prefer english but if you would like a mathematical formulation of something i've said instead, i can accommodate you. However the idea that you would accept something said simply because it was written in mathematical symbols is silly, laughable, and untrue. If you don't understand something said in your native tongue, it is unlikely encoding into mathematic symbol will help you. When you don't understand, try asking questions! When you disagree, try disagreeing and providing specific reasoning and criticism for what you disagree with and why!
Pouting, griping, and lobbing baseless insult like a child instead just makes me pity you :(
You've already forgotten what we were talking about? That's a little sad :(
No one claimed any photo you shared supports a flat earth. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read in order to remember what we were talking about.
I appreciate that is all you experienced / can remember - but i never said anything of the sort. I never said the photos you shared were invalid, and it didn't take me more than a single comment (a sentence or two, actually) to explain why the photos do not and cannot show the curvature of the earth. The "entire day", continuing into today - has only been to try and help you to understand those few sentences.
Again, i'm not the one who is confused about the globe model or the extremely subtle (essentially imperceptible) curvature that is described in it and would be (by calculation) visible on such scales.
If the reason for the ostensible curvature is not due to distortion, which i agree is the presumptive/deductive cause, then what on earth do you think causes it? Do you truly believe the world is far tinier than the globe model describes / we're taught? I am having difficulty imagining another option.
They are only a waste if you don't read and/or understand them. When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions!