The wall sockets, are they 110v or 220v?
It's the infinite cycle of "when we win this next election, they are fucked lol!" then "when we prove they stole that last election, they are fucked lol!"
This has been the one and only narrative in US politics since 2016. Both sides. Over and over.
It never comes true. Yet people still participate. I've long since accepted that maybe the average normie deserves it.
That experiment seems to be more about the size of the object than the distance. Because of we used a miniature boat, I'd lose sight much sooner. If we go even smaller, I cant even see my own finger prints at arm's length. Are they being blocked by the horizon?
So a powerful enough telescope could possibly allow you to see a moon that would appear occluded by the horizon to the naked eye?
What magnitude of distances are we talking about here? How far would another person need to be from me before the horizon blocks my view of them? (Assuming a flat surface with no obstacles between us).
Would a telescope help?
Ok I think I see, so you do agree that a laser beam would indeed hit the moon, it's just that it wouldn't look that way to the person holding the laser. But some other person in some other part of the world who could see the moon at that moment, that person would be able to see the red dot on the moon's surface. Is this correct?
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight
For that to be the case, something must be blocking it. If there is no physical object blocking your line of sight, then it is a clear line of sight. "Horizon" and "perspective" aren't some magical concepts that allow you to sidestep the laws of physics.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works
Yes that's how it works on a curved surface, where the ground itself does in fact "rise" to block your view. On a flat surface, that doesn't work. On a flat surface, parallel lines stay parallel. I'm talking about REAL parallel lines here, not your subjective interpretation of what a parallel line is. In your drawing, the lines only intersect because you drew them that way, i.e. NOT PARALLEL.
You seem to think that framing every contentious point through the eyes of a human observer gives you leeway to ignore mathematical realities. As though they can be violated just because your personal perspective disobeys them. This is akin to a baby who thinks he can't be seen by his parents when he covers his eyes. Take the observer out of your analysis and suddenly your model begins to show some very glaring inconsistencies with reality.
There is no difference between visually vs physically blocking. It's the same thing. Take the laser beam and replace it with a taut rope. A rope forming a straight lone from the top of everest to the moon. Explain how that rope can remain a straight line when the moon dips below the horizon. Forget your perspective, there is no observer here. Just a rope.
In your mind, what is the difference between visually blocking vs physically blocking? How can you simultaneously belive that there exists an uninterrupted line of sight that light can take, but also that something blocks it along that path? That's what you're saying when you tell me that the horizon blocks it: that the light that would have otherwise reached your eyes was blocked by the horizon AKA the ground far away. It's either a clear line of sight or it isn't. It can't be both at the same time.
I have not claimed that the laser hits the ground
Then you accept that it reached the moon. So you accept that nothing blocks is path. So you accept that the moon is visible at all times from atop Everest? The disconnect is that you are trying to cherry pick only some of those things, when in reality they all go together.
I hope you realize that the reason you can't answer that simple yes or no question is because we've hit a logical inconsistency with your model. Usually when people refuse to answer simple questions that logically follow from their beliefs, it's because any answer would be at odds with those beliefs. So they ignore the simple question and just repeat their beliefs with slightly different wording that only tangentially relates to the question.
It's a deflection. And what's worse is the flat earthers' refusal to even acknowledge the obvious absurdity of not being able to answer a simple question like that. Does the laser hit the ground or not? Reality dictates that It's one or the other, yet your belief demands that it be neither.
And we all know that you aren't that dismissive of logical inconsistencies in other parts of your life. It would be impossible to live like that. I KNOW you aren't a retard. Yet for your flat earth beliefs, you happily disregard your deductive reasoning and critical thinking skills, and act like there isn't an enormous elephant in the room.
Problem is that we can all see the elephant. And we know that you see it too, given the deft with which you refuse to acknowledge it. And you know we know. You're basically playing a game of intellectual chicken with the rest of the world, hoping we blink first.
a laser from a top of a mountain, going over the ground, will converge at the horizon
It's not going "over the ground", it's 6.8 degrees. Is that beam going to touch the ground or not?
So the object that blocks my laser from hitting the moon is....the ground? That's what you're saying?
This amounts to an optical illusion. The ground doesn't "rise" to block your line of sight. It appears to rise, when interpreted in a specific narrow manner. But in reality, there is no object blocking your line of sight.
If I'm standing on the peak of Everest holding laser pointer powerful enough to reach the moon...well you're telling me that would be impossible because something that isn't the tallest point on the flat earth reaches up and interrupts the beam. But I'm already standing on the tallest point. Please explain how I can simultaneously be standing on the tallest point but also have my laser beam broken by something taller. Doesn't make sense.
So you're saying that if you're standing at the tallest point of a plane, that some lower part of that plane will somehow "rise" up to block your view?
Why are you now bringing perspective into this? Yes there are dozens of concepts that appear to support the flat earth theory on the surface, but you don't get to jump from one to the other as they each fail under scrutiny.
I know how perspective works. Now tell me what could possibly obstruct your line of sight of the moon from atop Everest.
I'm on mobile now but i did some calculations, i can upload pictures later.
But given those parameters, a person standing anywhere on the south pole (which i understand to be any point in the outer edge of the disc) at sea level, and a moon that is at the opposite side of the disc (~25K miles away from the person) and 3K miles above sea level, the smallest angle possible is about 6.8 degrees, not 0.01.
But that's not necessarily conclusive, we just have to figure out what it would take to obstruct this person's view of the moon in this scenario, since this is the worst case scenario (the furthest a person can be from the moon while still on the flat earth.
So what could block this guy's view of the moon? Well, if he's 6ft tall then any 7ft obstacle could do it, IF right in front of him. In the other extreme, any 3001 mile obstacle could also block his view of the moon, even if said obstacle was at the opposite side of the disc.
So what's the tallest possible obstacle? Mt Everest at 5.5 miles. Doesn't seem like much, and after some math it clearly isn't. Given the scenario above, even mount Everest itself would not be tall enough to block your view of the moon, unless it was within 45 miles of you. In other words, if you are 46 miles away from mt everest, then it won't block your view of the moon, even if the moon was as far away as could be.
Now there could be less tall obstacles than mt everest that could still block your view, provided that they are closer. But still, 45 miles is a very small area. Given these numbers, you could go to any point in the ocean that is 4 miles from any shore, and the moon would always be visible from there (because 45 miles from the shore means Everest is even farther, and you're at sea so there's nothing else out there to obstruct your view). There are hundreds of places that you could visit to test that theory. Thousands.
But even putting all this math aside, I realized that your model would also imply that the moon is always visible from the tallest point on earth. Because there's nothing blocking you. But this is clearly not the case, or at least i don't think you belive that but please tell me if I'm wrong.
Tldr i don't think your model aligns with observable reality.
Give me numbers then. What's the diameter of the flat earth and how far is the moon from the surface? Then we can check if it's even possible to get a 0.01 degree angle, even from edge to edge.
That doesn't change what i said. Yes some folks would see the moon directly above, others would see it off in the distance, but everyone would see it all the time.
But then the moon would be visible from everywhere all the time.
I think they would have been blown away by the rocket landing nearby
Beter get another booster Bam, could have been worse without the jab!