Test for Earth curvature:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Explain your 'atmospheric convergence at the horizon'. Why would you not be able to see the RM's with a telescope even if they are not in view of eyeballs?

Also, here is a piece explaining why the moon photo you think "OBVIOUSLY fake'' is not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/07/13/why-nasas-new-photos-of-the-moon-look-super-fake-even-though-theyre-not/?tid=a_inl

Also, there is this: one year of photo's by ISS astronauts
Notice at 1:34. the moon shadow of a lunar eclipse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/time-lapse-video-taken-from-space-captures-entire-year-on-earth/

Originally posted by sonhouse
Explain your 'atmospheric convergence at the horizon'. Why would you not be able to see the RM's with a telescope even if they are not in view of eyeballs?

On any horizontal plane exists a vanishing point where distant objects appear to converge with the line where the expanse above the plane appears to meet the expanse of the plane itself, as the two become indistinguishable.
This point can be extended with the use of visual aids such as binoculars or a telescopes, but even these eventually fail on account of the density of the atmosphere.
You wouldn't expect to see very far under water--- even very clear water--- nor would you expect that ability to be much improved with binoculars or a telescope... on account of the density of the water prohibiting the range.
The same is true of the atmosphere closest to the surface of the earth: it is far more dense than anything above it.
Any object which is lost by the naked eye in that convergence along the vanishing point can be brought back into view with visual aids--- but only for so long in terms of distance, as eventually even those aids will be rendered useless in 'seeing' through the density.
Remove that same object from the surface and lift it into the expanse above, and the object will come back into view... because it is not longer 'hidden' behind the density of the atmosphere.

This is really weird. Not the Webb site, not the video, but something else. Try visiting this link and tell me what happens.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/06/the-earth-is-so-flat-its-embarrassing-nasa-wants-this-video-banned-3371352.html

Originally posted by josephw
This is really weird. Not the Webb site, not the video, but something else. Try visiting this link and tell me what happens.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/06/the-earth-is-so-flat-its-embarrassing-nasa-wants-this-video-banned-3371352.html

It goes to the website.
What was supposed to happen?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It goes to the website.
What was supposed to happen?

It blanked out on my iPad and went to my home screen. Couldn't play the video. I'll try again.

Same thing. The Webb site appears for a few moments, then the screen goes blank and up pops my home screen. Maybe something about the Webb page that's not compatable with the iPad.

Originally posted by josephw
Same thing. The Webb site appears for a few moments, then the screen goes blank and up pops my home screen. Maybe something about the Webb page that's not compatable with the iPad.

Possible.
He's got a ton of attachment ads on it.
Desktop loads just fine, however.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Possible.
He's got a ton of attachment ads on it.
Desktop loads just fine, however.

I'll go to my desktop when I get home. Is the video any good?

Originally posted by josephw
I'll go to my desktop when I get home. Is the video any good?

His videos aren't completely horrible, just light on content while heavy on hyperbole.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On any horizontal plane exists a vanishing point where distant objects appear to converge with the line where the expanse above the plane appears to meet the expanse of the plane itself, as the two become indistinguishable.
This point can be extended with the use of visual aids such as binoculars or a telescopes, but even these eventually fail on account ...[text shortened]... l come back into view... because it is not longer 'hidden' behind the density of the atmosphere.

You are as full of shyte as a christmas pony. NOTHING vanishes, its a simple system, things get smaller but with a telescope you can see almost anything. The Hubble has what we could call 8000 power. Remember my circles? I don't know the exact distance from Chicago to the RM's but give it a thousand miles.

That is a circle of 2000 miles. That represents a circumference of about 33 million feet with Chicago in the center and RM's on the edge somewhere, doesn't matter which direction.

You remember the resolution of the eye, 1 minute, or 60 arc seconds, that cuts the circle into 21,600 and that resolves something about 1500 feet wide or tall or both. Those mountains are WAY taller than that, say 5 times or more.

They would NOT disappear, they would be clearly visible with eyeballs much less telescopes.

Do the math. Your so-called reasoning is about as far wrong as you can get. But of course you HAVE to think that way, since you are so deeply programmed by your flatass buddies.

A telescope 1/10th the power of the Hubble would resolve 1/2 arc second and so split a circle into 2.4 million parts and in a 33 million foot circle, that would give a resolution of about 13 feet, so you could see a BUS and you would see every mountain in view and every house not hidden by trees assuming there were no clouds between Chicago and RM's.

So prove me wrong, do your best number job, you will need it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are as full of shyte as a christmas pony. NOTHING vanishes, its a simple system, things get smaller but with a telescope you can see almost anything. The Hubble has what we could call 8000 power. Remember my circles? I don't know the exact distance from Chicago to the RM's but give it a thousand miles.

That is a circle of 2000 miles. That represents ...[text shortened]... ouds between Chicago and RM's.

So prove me wrong, do your best number job, you will need it.

Not too tough, old man.
How far can you see in water?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not too tough, old man.
How far can you see in water?

We are not talking about seeing underwater, yet another stupid deflection. "Not too tough" you say but all I see are words. Back it up if you can with something more than 'you are wrong'.

With your logic, we shouldn't even be able to see the moon.

Yet from the top of a high mountain like Mt. Everest, you can see quite clearly 200 miles or more before the horizon kicks in. Your perspective argument would preclude seeing anything at that distance.

You think a bogus argument like that wins out but all it does is confirm how un-educated you really are.

Originally posted by sonhouse
We are not talking about seeing underwater, yet another stupid deflection. "Not too tough" you say but all I see are words. Back it up if you can with something more than 'you are wrong'.

With your logic, we shouldn't even be able to see the moon.

Yet from the top of a high mountain like Mt. Everest, you can see quite clearly 200 miles or more befor ...[text shortened]... k a bogus argument like that wins out but all it does is confirm how un-educated you really are.

We are not talking about seeing underwater, yet another stupid deflection.
Why can you only see so far under water, and why don't visual aids increase the view?
It's applicable to the issue.

With your logic, we shouldn't even be able to see the moon.
That has already been addressed.

Yet from the top of a high mountain like Mt. Everest, you can see quite clearly 200 miles or more before the horizon kicks in.
Take a look at any picture from that mountain's peak.
You will not see gradually declining mountain tops; you will see gradually receding mountain tops... as far as the eye can see, the mountain TOPS.
You are able to see those mountains whose peaks are between Everest and the eventual horizon but which are otherwise significantly shorter in height, but in the furthest distance, where the sky meets the earth, at the observer's eye level... mountain TOPS.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]We are not talking about seeing underwater, yet another stupid deflection.
Why can you only see so far under water, and why don't visual aids increase the view?
It's applicable to the issue.

With your logic, we shouldn't even be able to see the moon.
That has already been addressed.

Yet from the top of a high mountain like Mt. Eve ...[text shortened]... furthest distance, where the sky meets the earth, at the observer's eye level... mountain TOPS.

You are still saying nothing but words. If you have a telescope on top of Mt. Everest you would be able to see clearly 200+ miles away. Same with a flat Earth, HUMANS could see unaided the RM's from Chicago and they can't because of the horizon not because they just recede into the distance to zero or whatever crap you are trying to parrot from your flatassers.

You can't see through water because of the dissolved solids but you can see very far if the water was say, DI water which is 100% pure water or as close as you can get.

It's too bad my thought experiment can't be done with present technology because it would show the surface of the ocean high in the center of the laser path but lasers can't go more than 100 meters or so and still be detected and that is because of dissolved solids and nothing more.

So the other way is to shoot the laser over the surface of the ocean and 20 km away you will see the ocean at such and such a height above the level of where the laser beam starts and ends, in the center of where the laser beam travels, the ocean would be about 100 inches higher. But you can't depend on just one measurement because the atmosphere deflects laser light and any light coming from anything so you have to repeat that experiment and find different values from hour to hour and day to day and so need to average the numbers over a long period of time to peg the curvature.

Of course to you that is nonsense due to your pervasive brainwashing by your flatasser buddies. You can't believe your own eyes anymore.

Oh yeah, I do remember you saying you see a town across the lake but that is not because Earth is flat and you know it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are still saying nothing but words. If you have a telescope on top of Mt. Everest you would be able to see clearly 200+ miles away. Same with a flat Earth, HUMANS could see unaided the RM's from Chicago and they can't because of the horizon not because they just recede into the distance to zero or whatever crap you are trying to parrot from your flatas ...[text shortened]... you saying you see a town across the lake but that is not because Earth is flat and you know it.

I read your response three times to ensure I hadn't missed anything.
Nope, I hadn't.
You failed to answer the question
Well, kinda.
You can't see very far in water because of DENSITY.
Visual aids cannot extend that range because of DENSITY.
Now lift your head out of the water.
Now you can see a long, long ways!
Visual aids allow you to see even further.
But, just as happens under water, DENSITY limits how far you can see... with or without visual aids.
DENSITY limits the range.
The DENSITY at or near the surface of the earth is exponentially greater than what is present even a few hundred feet off the surface --- let alone miles and miles off the surface.
Wrap you mind around this: the DENSITY closer to the surface is so significantly greater than that which is above the surface... even the moon and the sun's appearance is seriously altered the closer their positions are to the surface of the earth (sun/moon rise/set).