Yes indeed, horizon and perspective, and variation of angular size. Interesting that the heliocentrist is now using flat earth type style arguments by appealing to optics/seeing is believing while the flat earther offers science and logic. I actually think these videos were intended as flat earth "proofs".

In the first ship video you have a nice example of a boat being brought into view that would be asserted to be behind the curve, which destroys the notion that the horizon is the top of a sphere, if this were the case we would not be able to view the boat at all. But, and this is where you havent read/comprehended the previous post properly, the camera does not eliminate the effect of perspective, it just extends the vanishing point/horizon. The boat will still disappear as its angular size reduces. Also failure to account for miraging effects, instead just assert that boats disappear bottom up.
Re the double sunset, again yes, the effect of perspective does obviously explain the observation with a higher vantage point.

Not by "my logic", by the application of the scientific method which allows for a hypothesis to be proven or disproven which is precisely the point being argued against by weasels like you. Under certain conditions of course you can prove sunlight kills plants. But this is nothing but weaseling trolling, probably unintentionally at this point as this just seems to be your natural posting state eg. arguing s*** like "water doesn't boil at 100 degrees".

Your problem is failure to read the many citations I have offered on what an experiment is. This is the downfall of many a heliocentric zealot. You don't understand what an experiment is which is why you cannot wrap your head around the importance of control variables and identification of the independent and dependent variables.

No matter how long the flat hallway is, and how much perspective shows the floor rising, and how blurry the door at the end of the hall appears with an inadequate zoom lens, you will still see the full door from bottom to top at the vanishing point. No part of the full door is ever obscured by the rising floor nor by the falling ceiling nor by the sides of the hallway sqeezing in. The unobscured full door just appears smaller and smaller.

When the bottom of the buildings are obscured by the horizon you will not pull them into view with a better zoom lens. If you can prove otherwise you can win a Nobel prize. You are challenged to do so.


PairTheBoard

Another word salad cop out.

It’s really my fault for coming back here to point and laugh at you. I know this is a weird power thing for you and you have endless capacity for pseudo intellectual word spew, but part of me can’t help myself. I think it has to do with the dire state willful, proud ignorance such as yours has created in our country. I feel like it needs to be pushed back on, even when it’s useless.



This really sums up your intellectual leaks. You should be deeply concerned you can’t wrap your mind around the concept of how we maintain an atmosphere without a container. Second, we’re not stationary in space- this is basic knowledge.

Quick question: did you go to a private religious school as a child? A public school in the Deep South.?

LOL. Clearly, you're not actually reading things that are written.

Admitting lack of familiarity with terms followed by a strong assertion that you know exactly what you're talking about isn't actually humility. Humility is something quite deeper. And intellectual humility has so far been shown to be beyond your grasp.

At the vanishing point, the point where things vanish you can see an entire door? The vanishing point can be manipulated back and forth. You can look out over water and see nothing at the horizon but you can zoom in and bring objects into focus, ie "bringing boats back from over the horizon". This has been demonstrated thousands of times on YT. With clear calm conditions ie no miraging or waves you can resolve entire buildings etc.



18 miles from an observer height of 7 feet, 145 feet should be obscured according to ball religion yet most of the lighthouse and buildings are clearly in view.

This would require doing something, instead of just word play. No chance he ever would do this.

Your level of understanding is pre optic lenses. Shocking, really. You must see things you consider magic on a daily basis.

Er, no, it was you who stated I was correct

Leaves so much out... Which consists in your view of not stating that

1) you can have valid logic yet false conclusions (wow that is insightful we had no idea)
2) causation isn't quite binary because there may be unknown factors (amazing)
3) an experiment might fail to give a conclusive result (astonishing)

Oh yes and spelling. Forgive me for imagining you had further detail.

The following is what you have admitted is correct and subsequently trying to obscure for some reason

Amazing reads.

Masterful response. I am pwned

Can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the q. Telling.

All this proves is that objects at such a distance as to be too small for the resolution of the camera will show up when made larger by zooming in.

You cannot "pull in" the bottom of the buildings with a zoom in the example Masque showed. I think you know this. If you really believed in what you are saying it would be easy for you to set up a camera at the camera location of Masque's first picture above and do a before and after zoom. It would really prove your assertion and be such a shock to science you would become famous. But you don't really believe in all this nonsense you're trolling, do you?


PairTheBoard

Not a private school
Not a religious school
Not in the deep south
Not even in the US

So the objects are too small to see but most definitely they are this side of the horizon which is in your view the leading edge of a sphere? Despite the absolutely devastating fact that according to your presupposed earth radius those buildings should be concealed behind 145 feet of water regardless of how powerful a camera you have?

If you can pull back nearly (save for choppy weather and miraging) the entire buildings from obscurity in this video then you will absolutely be able to resolve the Chicago skyline with the right conditions.

What's actually funny here is that this argument has already been had in fairly high profile. The entire skyline was viewed



The reason give for this devastating demonstration against curvature was "superior mirage"

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of...igan-shoreline

So give the guy who took that photo a nobel prize? Nah just whistle past it and make up some guff about miraging.

How sad you’ve wasted an education that’s likely better than you could get here

Correct words and correct concepts are two very different things. The words are correct. Your interpretation of the words are not. Nor are the conclusions you are reaching correct. The chart left a lot to be desired insofar as teaching ideas relative to inductive and deductive reasoning is concerned.

Deductive logic reaches necessary truths relative to specific assumptions. Science is not a process of obtaining necessary truths. But you don't understand this because you don't really understand scientific reasoning.

Your sunlight example is inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. You're going from specific (this plant) to general (all plants similar to this one). You don't seem to have understood that the specific-to-general reasoning that you're doing is exactly inductive reasoning. The reasoning you put forward isn't actually "valid" from the point of view of formal logic precisely because they aren't necessary truths.

But I don't expect you to know or understand these things because you've only just discovered inductive and deductive reasoning. So that you might have any fluency whatsoever with the concepts is unrealistic. And the reasoning you've demonstrated shows you don't know what you're talking about. But we won't let evidence get in the way of our little game now, will we?

Define the scientific method please.

Nope, this is you attacking a straw man. How is allowing, as I have done above, for the validity of 2 contradictory hypotheses "sunlight causes grass to grow" and "sunlight causes grass to die" a general theory? It is you in your creation of a straw man (as a natural consequence of being a permanent troll) asserting that I have proposed a general principle from a specific result. I said nothing of the sort. Quote me if you think otherwise. Where do I argue that because sunlight caused a plant to grow this is always going to be the case? What I actually said was UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS - you know those imperative controls that you fail to have in any of your pseudo ball proving "experiments"?

This is self confessed troll Aaron W in a rare attempt to claim he is here to "educate" despite misrepresenting my argument and failing to support his own with a single citation (he knows not what one is).

https://www.thoughtco.com/deductive-...soning-3026549

The hypothesis "sunlight causes grass to grow" or indeed "sunlight causes grass to die" is general and can be tested for its validity giving a BINARY result.

Ie VALID or INVALID. PROVEN or DISPROVEN.

https://theydiffer.com/difference-be...ive-reasoning/

Which is the salient point you are desperately trying to obfuscate. Derives from your fundamental misunderstanding that science determines CAUSE and EFFECT relationships which invalidates the claim that your spinning ball religion is based on science.

Are you applying this theory to any grass beyond the grass that is directly involved in your experiment?

Valid/invalid deductive logic is not the same as scientifically proven or disproven. You get mathematical proof or disproof.

Firstly let's define terms which have been obscured in this exchange.

Hypothesis:
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations.

Theory:
A scientific theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

"sunlight causes grass to grow" is an example of a hypothesis, ie cause - sunlight, effect - growth. This is testable.

Photosynthesis is a scientifically validated theory ie proven through repeated experiments. An experiment is a hypothesis test, ie a validation/invalidation of presumed cause. This is not compatible with any conception of inductive reasoning (likelihood essentially) either you or my own research has suggested. It is a one or a zero, confirm or refute. That multiple and on going hypotheses are required to form an all encompassing theory is not surprising given the nature of researching the natural world and millions of species etc.

https://www.studymode.com/essays/Pho...ry-747851.html

Are you saying you disagree with the above statement?

And you get scientific proof/disproof.

Proof
synonyms:
evidence · verification · corroboration · authenti cation · confirmation · certification · validation · attestation · demonstration · substantiation ·  witness · testament · documentation · facts · data  · testimony · ammunition

An experiment is a procedure carried out to support, refute, or validate a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

So, we are testing, in a SPECIFIC situation a GENERAL principle which confirms/refutes/proves/disproves/validates/invalidates

No, it's not clear what copy/pasting a dictionary definition is a response to.

Here:
A positive experimental result is consistent with the hypothesis. But the hypothesis is not proven true. There can always be an unknown element that could falsify our hypothesis.

But a negative experimental result, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis, makes the hypothesis falsified (proven false).

Proof is found in mathematics / deductive logic etc, the truth is guaranteed. Induction cannot guarantee truth, but consistency. Check out the Wiki page on falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsif...ty?wprov=sfla1)


Note... lay people often do use the word proof in a colloquial way (when they just mean evidence, say). It's inaccurate, but if you're not sufficiently familiar with logic then that would explain the misunderstanding.



Just do a search for cold moonlight and you'll find plenty of flat Earther's pretending to do scientific experiments.


PS Referring to Richard Feinman as an appeal to authority: an appeal to authority is not fallacious if the appeal is to a relevant authority. A fallacious appeal to authority is when someone appeals to someone who is an authority in an irrelevant field.

e.g.
Eric Dubay, the renowned yoga teacher, says stretching is beneficial prior to exercise (reasonable appeal to authority)

vs.

Eric Dubay, the renowned yoga teacher, says the world is flat. (fallacious appeal to authority).

Finally: validity refers to the form of a logical argument. Soundness refers to the accuracy of the components.

If A is true, then B is true.
A is true.
Therefore B is true.

This is modus ponens. It is a logical valid argument structure. But the components (A and B) also have to be sound as well as being a valid structure. If both valid and sound, this is a proof - truth is guaranteed.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet
It is raining.
Therefore the ground is wet.

is valid and sound.

If it rains, then it will be Friday.
It is raining.
Therefore it is Friday.

is valid but not sound.

If it rains, then the ground will be wet
The ground is wet.
Therefore it is raining.

is not valid (it's a fallacy called affirming the consequent).

Notice how you didn't actually answer the straight-forward question that I asked.

Also, the use of "validated" here is not the same as "valid" when applied to logic. Perhaps if you actually understood the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, you might have recognized that.

Falsify means disprove.

If the alternative hypothesis is proven then the null is falsified.
If the null is proven then the alternative is falsified.

We prove, and disprove, with an experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

Validate means....? PROVE.
Refute means...? DISPROVE.

Confirmation means...? PROVE
Ruling out means...? DISPROVE

Verification means...? PROVE.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...AppendixE.html

This is an equivocation fallacy. You are assuming a mathematical context of the word proof when there is no such context. We are talking science here, experiment and experimental evidence ie proof.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/proof

Round here it's the flat earthers who tend to know more about experiments. But it's good to have a heliocentrist/insert preferred label who appreciates the importance of them.

You have a citation to support this? An appeal to authority is by definition fallacious. There is nothing reasonable about it. Dubay could be a feckwit yoga guy as well.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

I see. Like this:

If gravity, then microphone drops
Microphone drops, therefore gravity.

That scallywag de grasse tyson takin us for fools.
A good friend by the name of masque de Z, PhD, tried to pass this off as scientific proof of earth rotation:

If earth spins, then foucault pendulum rotates
Foucault pendulum rotates, therefore earth spins

Can you believe that?

Careful now.

Here is Aaron's comment that you called a fallacious appeal to authority:

Here's what you apparently missed from the same article you linked:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the*appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an*error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism"