Brian's apparent willful misunderstanding of rainbows is also maddeningly stupid, yet he is so confident in it. He actually claims to have driven through a rainbow, and its different colors of light, betraying his utter ignorance of how they work.
I don’t think that Brian has a problem understanding and articulating his thoughts. The problem is that he isn’t using the English language. It may sound like it but it’s another language altogether. We should learn this language to be able to converse with flat earthers. I’ve been doing some linguistic research and I’ve discovered that it has a name. It’s official title is Gibberish. Let’s all make an effort to talk Gibberish and perhaps, maybe, possibly in the future, we can understand how the flat earth works and replace our current incorrect scientific theories with the correct form in the Gibberish language. I’ve made a start in daily life. I hope I can find another job soon and I’m sure my wife will return
@@ReinoGoo Ah that's why I couldn't understand a word he was saying. I'm fluent in both Giberish and Total Bull Sh1t, but I've never been able to get the hang of Gliberish.
That inarticulate sound Brian is making is vocalized cognitive dissonance: he believes one thing, but he’s realizing his belief is wrong. He’s core-dumping.
Good one Sly. You could easily convert to 3D models of the boats and sphere with a camera at each stick figure's head and render the camera views to show how it matches reality and also show how it looks in perspective too.
Did you know that according to Brian, he has the math figured out for Flat Earth/Polaris angles. He even disproved general relativity, according to himself.
I already asked him about that on Jose's not too long ago. Of course he's using sinking (upward light path bend) which our atmosphere cannot support stably and is using it to ad hoc "explain" it by using it as a fudge factor to flatten reality. The funny thing is, he chides globe proponents for using refraction to make reality fit, yet he's doing exactly that while standard atmospheric refraction is actually based on repeatable science (gradient-index optics, differential form of Snell's Law). All he needs is a taste of his own medicine. Just complain that he's using a presupposed effect to make the Earth flat while pointing out he's doing exactly what he complains other people are doing.
Brians problem a year ago: He didnt understand that no matter where you are, you look _down_ to see the horizon. Brians problem today: He _still_ doesnt understand that no matter where you are, you look _down_ to see the horizon.
I do get extremely frustrated having to correct globidiots on this matter on an almost daily basis. Surely the aspect of convergence can't escape every single one of you? It's so simple, I even DEMONSTRATED it for you, off-the-cuff, to PROVE that only one line of sight is ever horizontal. This means that despite knowing everything in front of you is beneath you, it still appears to ramp up to the horizon, which is the point of convergence. From here it will create a non see-through obscurity point, which blocks the lower portion of anything large enough to still be seen, beyond that point in the distance. This creates the illusion of it going down, since the further away something gets, the smaller it appears, and the more the bottom gets obscured. So basically, you're believing in optical illusions to confirm a biased and ridiculous belief that water can actually curve in real life. The mentality of a 5 year old!
@@IronHorse1722 _... since the further away something gets, the smaller it appears, and the more the bottom gets obscured._ Why is it that it is only the *bottom* that gets obscured ? You _do_ know that this is expected as things move over the horizon on a globe, dont you ? When things move away from you, they shrink UNIFORMLY, and you have no way to explain this bottom first disappearance. Saying the word 'illusion' doesnt help you. Oh, and as you live in Australia: Could you please explain the southern celestial pole and stars rotating around it ? Other than that; Thanks for the entertaining no content word salad. It is much appreciated.
@@IronHorse1722 All you need is a theodolite app for your phone to demonstrate you’re wrong. At sea level level the theodolite’s crosshairs on the horizon, then climb a hill and point the crosshairs at the horizon. The reader will tell you your viewing angle has dropped. This is expected on a globe but not on a flat plane. Flat Earth debunked and you did it yourself.
Brian seems to understand Orthographic as an environment where all lines are parallel and straight. That is, no points where lines converge like a vanishing point where converging lines reflect the reality of distance. And also a gravitational attractor point where all vertical lines converge at the center of the earth. He wanted you to draw with reality turned off. :)
Brian screams and insults and claims this is not what he meant because he is seeing that that what he claims is impossible is so simple no sane person that has not severe cognitive dissonance would not unterstand it.
In real life, (if he has 2 friends) the three of them could find a round building (of which there are many in the country) and they could stand outside of that building close to the wall, as 2 of them walk in opposite directions around the building and observe what they see. Not difficult. They could even practice seeing the horizon of the building wall since there is no corner, no edge of the wall.
Flerfs brains must be broken. I could image it in my mind even before Sly graphed it. Wasn't that hard.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +6
3:44 "You got a sideways view, I wanna see orthographic!" - What the actual... DAMN! 6:18 Now there's something I need to figure out how to do in SketchUp, that will require some clever trickery... I had a talk with Bev Try Thinking a couple of weeks ago, he also had some problems with drop going from A to B, then the drop back from B to A had to be added to it somehow.
A sideview is rotated 180˚ to an orthographic view: I sideview is sightlines through the same point (like a pin point camera). An orthographic view is parallel sightlines.
I'm pretty sure he's just trying to hammer the concept of a universal "up" direction into a globe model. That seems par for the course for FE proponents.
I do a lot of camera and post production work (3D and and compossetting). Thats how I stumbled upon those flat earthers. Its incredible how much those people talk about stuff they didn't research for even five minutes. I had so much discussions with them where those Idiots tried to tell me that I am the one who has no clue about the things I do for a living. Where does all that self confidence come from? I just don't get it.
You showed Brian exactly what he wanted, and yet, he was unable, more probably unwilling, to grasp it. He was unwilling to accept your demonstration because it shatter his all so precious narrative about the holy wafer earth.
Ortographic means you see the whole thing from the same direction. The flat earth means the opposite: You bend a round earth to a flat plane and see straight down on the earth from all directions. It also means that the earth rotates in all directions.
Orthographic Projection Description: Sly: Please learn it, because you're making yourself look silly. Sly, he's a flatard, how much sillier could he look? He's a flat earther and I can't think of anything much sillier than that.
It may be so that he think orthographic is the same as draw things on a flat line, I have seen many do so to represent distance between objects and called it orthographically even it was shematic.
Well, if you DO provide an ortho view, they say it's just an ortho view that cannot show perspective correctly. If you do it in perspective, it doesn't count because it's not orthographic... And when they ask for ortho and you deliver... well that's just tooooi much. 🤣🤣🤣
Sly, this is great, but can you revisit your third person Orthographic view, if you haven't already, and rotate the view horizontally through 90 degrees so that the boats moving away from one of the stick men (the first observer) reaches the horizon, and then as it goes over the horizon is obscured from the bottom up, as it descends towards the other (second) observer ten miles away? Just like we see in reality. Then using the zoom tool try to bring it back into view as the Flatties would have us believe happens. Then I think We can put the idea of a Flat Earth to bed for good. Brian was starting to swear because he realised you were just about to destroy his pancake, and he had nothing to refute you. Good job Sly!
This is the same as NO screaming at people that orthographic projections don't include the angular size on them while the whole time it is there just not explicitly labeled. If you do label it they just pretend it isn't there. They basically on a side view want to see things get smaller as if it is a normal drawing showing perspective. They really are simply that obtuse.
Nifty. Brain could learn quite a bit from Forrest Gump. He wasn't a smart man but, at least he knew it, which is perfectly fine. Oh wait never mind, a 🐒 accidentally typing Shakespeare is more likely than a flerf learning. 🤣
maybe orthographic is the new buzz in FE land.. Gary Wybenga is claiming such with Polaris and other things.. its like watching a 4yr old trying to explain how things work..
There have been experiments done over water where a camera films a boat go over, beyond, the horizon. But has anyone filmed the same boat, with two cameras simultaneously from opposite shorelines as it does? Or as in this video, if the two husbands recorded the boats leaving. If the clocks in the cameras are calibrated together, the fotage can then be edited together into a split screen, and the vanishing and appearance of the boats from both points of view, seen at the same time. Should be clarifying.
@@AtheistRex I am subscribed with the bell on or I wouldn’t have seen this one. I subscribe to pretty much everything I find remotely interesting incase they piss off the algorithm which makes it hard to spot anything that comes out while I am not paying attention.
Hi Sly Could you make an image or animation of the Sun’s path across the sky, as it would appear from ground level on a flat Earth (small local sun orbiting the North Pole)? It would be nothing like what we observe in reality, of course, and the FEs will go ape.
He probably meant Front View and you were showing Side View, not understanding that they are _both_ Orthographic But, we all know where he's coming from - in this world, the "globe model" is a stationary ball, with a top and a bottom, so anyone right on top will have everything he sees, in any direction, fall away from him .. whereas, anyone _not_ on top will need to look up to see the top. Of course, the _actual_ globe model is to imagine a perfect sphere and realise that anyone, anywhere on that sphere can be considered "on top" so everything falls away from them. Add in a few topological features and _voila_ .. Earth.
Anyway, Brian is always a truly funny opponent in any conversation. He really can’t grasp the simplest concepts and he truly struggles to turn his “thoughts” into words.
The issue is there is plenty of video evidence that the curvature chart doesn’t work..... plus if you simply apply perspective then you will realize perspective causes horizon to form including the apparent horizon
Perspective alone cannot introduce obstructions where none exist. What you're likely thinking of is an angular resolution issue (or the flat Earth catch phrase diffraction limit). The horizon we observe here on Earth is closer than angular resolution limits would imply. Angular resolution (diffraction) is not the cause for the horizon. Try again. Also, drop from a tangent for an observer at zero altitude without refraction (the drop charts you're referring to) have nearly no applicability to optical observations.
@@doofismannfred4778 yes it can.... this is why we see multiple horizons leading up to the apparent horizon.... combined with atmospheric conditions like air moisture and heat many forms of mirages will appear on the horizons..... since the apparent horizon gives us an illusive image to peer at naturally the apparent horizon is part of the optical illusion due to perspective and atmospheric conditions. There are no examples of a boat not being distorted by the atmosphere when viewing the apparent horizon.
@@slysparkane808 The vanishing point is the place where parallel lines appear to come together in the distance. You can see how the parallel lines of the road recede and visually merge to create a single vanishing point on the horizon. A scene can have a limitless number of vanishing points. The ground plane is the horizontal surface below the horizon. It could be land or water. The ground plane is level. If it were sloped or hilly, the vanishing point-created by the path’s parallel lines-may not rest on the horizon and may appear as if it’s on an inclined plane.
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy Great.. so if the distance to the horizon is where everything meets.. then how do the Sun and the moon hit it and get cut off by it without reducing in size like a road or railroad track? and then once that happens.. Stars, which are even further.. have not disappeared.
Wait, you’re debating whether dots moving proves reality. Okay, as you move the boats you are changing the angle of perspective voiding your proof because no one is peering downward to see any objects disappear past the horizon
His demonstration literally shows both observers having their eye lines drop downward as their respective boats move away. You are literally disagreeing with geometry right now.
@@doofismannfred4778 no, his demonstration is geometry on a computer program. That is not reality, it’s a computer program.... y’all dead asleep, facts!
Let me go ahead and point out how poorly you're doing in those other threads compared to a "keyboard warrior." What makes you think a live debate would go in your favor?
@@doofismannfred4778 because I always win live debates. I come with truth and you come with what you can copy from the scientists..... I even put Craig in his place and all he could do was deny it every time I proved him wrong. In order to get the image of earth and the horizon that we all see the surface of earth has to be flat....
@@slysparkane808 what helped me realize this the most was you guys thinking reality is as it appears and when its not. Even a glass of water can distort the true shape and size of an object while you all claim objects are where they appear when peering through billions of gallons of water in the atmosphere
Brian Leake asked for an orthographic view. Sly obliged. You're literally complaining about someone doing something they were asked to do, genius. More importantly, this demonstrates how each observer can see each boat "dropping" as it moves away from them. It's not a difficult concept. It is also backed by reality insomuch as reciprocal zenith angle measurements establish that the direction of down for multiple locations are not parallel with one another. That's reality. Disagreeing with reality is why flat Earth is a joke in a dark corner of the internet.
@@seymoresaymore north is based on the northern star and northern pole(pull). Come to think of it, you’re right.... there is no northern point on a spherical object....... ouch! Let that sink in for a little while. In a few sentences you just disproved your model.
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy *"zenith is based on earth being a flat surface."* Lying will get you nowhere. All zenith means is opposite to down (plumb). Your lie doesn't get you out of the fact that zenith isn't parallel to another location's zenith.
Clearly orthographic view doesn't show whatever problem that Brian has imagined.
I guess the issue only arises in flerfographic view.
PE(O)BDKABM
Problem exists (only) between Dunning Kruger and Big Mouth.
brian- b b b but the dot in the middle changes everything.
Me- Sure it does [unrolls anti-flerf high pressure water hose].
Amazing how quick he gets angry. Complete lack of control.
When FE believer gets confused they get angry.
How do you know Brian says something silly: he opens his mouth.
Brian's apparent willful misunderstanding of rainbows is also maddeningly stupid, yet he is so confident in it.
He actually claims to have driven through a rainbow, and its different colors of light, betraying his utter ignorance of how they work.
Did he find the pot of gold?
@@TruthNerds Well, he found pot at some point of his life, that much is for sure.
Great work Sly. Brian is consistent at being wrong,rude and stupid.
I don’t think that Brian has a problem understanding and articulating his thoughts. The problem is that he isn’t using the English language. It may sound like it but it’s another language altogether.
We should learn this language to be able to converse with flat earthers.
I’ve been doing some linguistic research and I’ve discovered that it has a name. It’s official title is Gibberish.
Let’s all make an effort to talk Gibberish and perhaps, maybe, possibly in the future, we can understand how the flat earth works and replace our current incorrect scientific theories with the correct form in the Gibberish language.
I’ve made a start in daily life.
I hope I can find another job soon and I’m sure my wife will return
I think he is fluent in giberish.
Eh, i mistyped: Gliberish.
@@ReinoGoo Ah that's why I couldn't understand a word he was saying. I'm fluent in both Giberish and Total Bull Sh1t, but I've never been able to get the hang of Gliberish.
That inarticulate sound Brian is making is vocalized cognitive dissonance: he believes one thing, but he’s realizing his belief is wrong. He’s core-dumping.
Lmao! Another Flat Earther that thinks they know what they're talking about. Great video, mate!
You made a mistake. Flat earthers don't think, they believe and follow a narrative.
This model could answer so many of Brian’s questions. He just needs to shut up and pay attention.
But if he shuts up and pays attention, he will find out (and everyone else will have it confirmed) that he is wrong. And he cant have that
Good one Sly. You could easily convert to 3D models of the boats and sphere with a camera at each stick figure's head and render the camera views to show how it matches reality and also show how it looks in perspective too.
Did you know that according to Brian, he has the math figured out for Flat Earth/Polaris angles. He even disproved general relativity, according to himself.
I already asked him about that on Jose's not too long ago. Of course he's using sinking (upward light path bend) which our atmosphere cannot support stably and is using it to ad hoc "explain" it by using it as a fudge factor to flatten reality. The funny thing is, he chides globe proponents for using refraction to make reality fit, yet he's doing exactly that while standard atmospheric refraction is actually based on repeatable science (gradient-index optics, differential form of Snell's Law). All he needs is a taste of his own medicine. Just complain that he's using a presupposed effect to make the Earth flat while pointing out he's doing exactly what he complains other people are doing.
This whole model is far to sophisticated for someone like Brian to understand.
And as an added bonus you can see where the cone of sight for each intersects with the surface cutting off the view of the bottoms of the boats.
I’m embarrassed for Brian.
Brians problem a year ago: He didnt understand that no matter where you are, you look _down_ to see the horizon.
Brians problem today: He _still_ doesnt understand that no matter where you are, you look _down_ to see the horizon.
I do get extremely frustrated having to correct globidiots on this matter on an almost daily basis. Surely the aspect of convergence can't escape every single one of you? It's so simple, I even DEMONSTRATED it for you, off-the-cuff, to PROVE that only one line of sight is ever horizontal. This means that despite knowing everything in front of you is beneath you, it still appears to ramp up to the horizon, which is the point of convergence. From here it will create a non see-through obscurity point, which blocks the lower portion of anything large enough to still be seen, beyond that point in the distance. This creates the illusion of it going down, since the further away something gets, the smaller it appears, and the more the bottom gets obscured. So basically, you're believing in optical illusions to confirm a biased and ridiculous belief that water can actually curve in real life. The mentality of a 5 year old!
@@IronHorse1722 wordsalad much
@@IronHorse1722 _... since the further away something gets, the smaller it appears, and the more the bottom gets obscured._
Why is it that it is only the *bottom* that gets obscured ? You _do_ know that this is expected as things move over the horizon on a globe, dont you ?
When things move away from you, they shrink UNIFORMLY, and you have no way to explain this bottom first disappearance. Saying the word 'illusion' doesnt help you.
Oh, and as you live in Australia: Could you please explain the southern celestial pole and stars rotating around it ?
Other than that; Thanks for the entertaining no content word salad. It is much appreciated.
@@IronHorse1722
All you need is a theodolite app for your phone to demonstrate you’re wrong.
At sea level level the theodolite’s crosshairs on the horizon, then climb a hill and point the crosshairs at the horizon. The reader will tell you your viewing angle has dropped. This is expected on a globe but not on a flat plane.
Flat Earth debunked and you did it yourself.
@@Jerre27 there ain't enough ranch dressing in the world for that
Brian seems to understand Orthographic as an environment where all lines are parallel and straight. That is, no points where lines converge like a vanishing point where converging lines reflect the reality of distance. And also a gravitational attractor point where all vertical lines converge at the center of the earth.
He wanted you to draw with reality turned off. :)
I think Brian realized mid argument and tantrum he said the wrong thing, he couldn't let Sly have the W so he just doubled down on the stupid.
If getting angry at other people for your own stupidity were a sport, Brian would be the undefeated champion.
He'd probably still balls it up though.
Well done Sly! Your modelling skills are fantastic.
Simple and clear. The new challenge from Brian for you will be to repeat it with side view instead of orthographic 🤣🤣
Brian screams and insults and claims this is not what he meant because he is seeing that that what he claims is impossible is so simple no sane person that has not severe cognitive dissonance would not unterstand it.
In real life, (if he has 2 friends) the three of them could find a round building (of which there are many in the country) and they could stand outside of that building close to the wall, as 2 of them walk in opposite directions around the building and observe what they see.
Not difficult.
They could even practice seeing the horizon of the building wall since there is no corner, no edge of the wall.
NONE of them have friends. Because if they did they would do the Eratosthenes observation and confirm for themselves the shape of the earth.
@@ComradeJehannum
A round building takes no travel and they only need to stay friends for a few minutes.
@@mballer Even that is impossible.
Next Brian will claim the colour of the boat is important because of some stupid reason. 😐
If Brain Leak would breath now and then, he wouldn't be so out of breath and could maybe comprehend something too.
When he insisted on "side view" , you should have just inverted the colours :)
Flerfs brains must be broken. I could image it in my mind even before Sly graphed it. Wasn't that hard.
3:44 "You got a sideways view, I wanna see orthographic!" - What the actual... DAMN!
6:18 Now there's something I need to figure out how to do in SketchUp, that will require some clever trickery...
I had a talk with Bev Try Thinking a couple of weeks ago, he also had some problems with drop going from A to B, then the drop back from B to A had to be added to it somehow.
Let me guess: he drew a zigzag pattern.
Leake's leaky brain cannot possibly comprehend the simplicity of this.
A sideview is rotated 180˚ to an orthographic view:
I sideview is sightlines through the same point (like a pin point camera).
An orthographic view is parallel sightlines.
Technically an orthographic view is a perspective view, just one from an infinite distance.
Math and physics, flerf Kryptonite that gets them every time.
I'm pretty sure he's just trying to hammer the concept of a universal "up" direction into a globe model. That seems par for the course for FE proponents.
Brian was learning how wrong he is from your demonstration. You can tell because he had to increase his rage to counteract his learning
Good to see you making videos again.
Brian is orthographic....2D and no depth!
I'm thinking he was getting Orthographic confused with Isometric view.
I do a lot of camera and post production work (3D and and compossetting). Thats how I stumbled upon those flat earthers. Its incredible how much those people talk about stuff they didn't research for even five minutes. I had so much discussions with them where those Idiots tried to tell me that I am the one who has no clue about the things I do for a living. Where does all that self confidence come from? I just don't get it.
I find the same thing when I try to explain basic surveying observations. They claim I'm wrong, but are unable to explain how I'm wrong.
You showed Brian exactly what he wanted, and yet, he was unable, more probably unwilling, to grasp it.
He was unwilling to accept your demonstration because it shatter his all so precious narrative about the holy wafer earth.
But you didn't include magnetic deviation in your orthographic view! Flat earth, PROVEN!!
Oh, wait... Never mind.
Ortographic means you see the whole thing from the same direction.
The flat earth means the opposite: You bend a round earth to a flat plane and see straight down on the earth from all directions.
It also means that the earth rotates in all directions.
Because with all horizons in the same plane must the sky rotate in all directions - at different places on the flat globe.
Orthographic Projection Description:
Sly: Please learn it, because you're making yourself look silly.
Sly, he's a flatard, how much sillier could he look? He's a flat earther and I can't think of anything much sillier than that.
It may be so that he think orthographic is the same as draw things on a flat line, I have seen many do so to represent distance between objects and called it orthographically even it was shematic.
Well, if you DO provide an ortho view, they say it's just an ortho view that cannot show perspective correctly. If you do it in perspective, it doesn't count because it's not orthographic...
And when they ask for ortho and you deliver... well that's just tooooi much.
🤣🤣🤣
Sly, this is great, but can you revisit your third person Orthographic view, if you haven't already, and rotate the view horizontally through 90 degrees so that the boats moving away from one of the stick men (the first observer) reaches the horizon, and then as it goes over the horizon is obscured from the bottom up, as it descends towards the other (second) observer ten miles away? Just like we see in reality. Then using the zoom tool try to bring it back into view as the Flatties would have us believe happens. Then I think We can put the idea of a Flat Earth to bed for good.
Brian was starting to swear because he realised you were just about to destroy his pancake, and he had nothing to refute you. Good job Sly!
Quaint, FE:s usually have little problem with projecting, so why the difficulty with orthographic?
This is the same as NO screaming at people that orthographic projections don't include the angular size on them while the whole time it is there just not explicitly labeled. If you do label it they just pretend it isn't there. They basically on a side view want to see things get smaller as if it is a normal drawing showing perspective.
They really are simply that obtuse.
Brain Leak strikes again.
Nifty. Brain could learn quite a bit from Forrest Gump. He wasn't a smart man but, at least he knew it, which is perfectly fine. Oh wait never mind, a 🐒 accidentally typing Shakespeare is more likely than a flerf learning. 🤣
maybe orthographic is the new buzz in FE land.. Gary Wybenga is claiming such with Polaris and other things..
its like watching a 4yr old trying to explain how things work..
Brian leake. The gift that keeps on giving.😂 Thank you Sly.
flers simply cannot orthographic
You should find something more challenging, Sly. But thanks for the upload
Brian.. more like Brainfart.
There have been experiments done over water where a camera films a boat go over, beyond, the horizon. But has anyone filmed the
same boat, with two cameras simultaneously from opposite shorelines as it does? Or as in this video, if the two husbands recorded
the boats leaving. If the clocks in the cameras are calibrated together, the fotage can then be edited together into a split screen, and
the vanishing and appearance of the boats from both points of view, seen at the same time. Should be clarifying.
actually planning on doing that this summer.
Why do they always have the same ear cancer audio quality?
They spent all their money on a P1000, so the only mic they could afford was a Potato1000
What did you do to annoy the algorithm? I don’t get recommended your stuff anymore.
Maybe you should subscribe?
@@AtheistRex I am subscribed with the bell on or I wouldn’t have seen this one. I subscribe to pretty much everything I find remotely interesting incase they piss off the algorithm which makes it hard to spot anything that comes out while I am not paying attention.
@@glenecollins try unsubbing then re-subbing, and then hitting the bell and click all
Well.. according to YT.. technically I am an FE channel
Hi Sly
Could you make an image or animation of the Sun’s path across the sky, as it would appear from ground level on a flat Earth (small local sun orbiting the North Pole)? It would be nothing like what we observe in reality, of course, and the FEs will go ape.
I did that on my very first video :)
th-cam.com/video/BH7RI4N2koA/w-d-xo.html
He probably meant Front View and you were showing Side View, not understanding that they are _both_ Orthographic
But, we all know where he's coming from - in this world, the "globe model" is a stationary ball, with a top and a bottom, so anyone right on top will have everything he sees, in any direction, fall away from him .. whereas, anyone _not_ on top will need to look up to see the top.
Of course, the _actual_ globe model is to imagine a perfect sphere and realise that anyone, anywhere on that sphere can be considered "on top" so everything falls away from them. Add in a few topological features and _voila_ .. Earth.
Holy shit 🤣😂🤣😂
My turn to make the most useful comment ever: first.
I swear both of our comments were showing the same amount of min
Anyway, Brian is always a truly funny opponent in any conversation. He really can’t grasp the simplest concepts and he truly struggles to turn his “thoughts” into words.
@@angrydoggy9170 It's amazing, how did you print out actual sarcastic air quotes?!? =o)
Well done sir. 🥇
The algorithm thanks you.
The issue is there is plenty of video evidence that the curvature chart doesn’t work..... plus if you simply apply perspective then you will realize perspective causes horizon to form including the apparent horizon
Perspective alone cannot introduce obstructions where none exist. What you're likely thinking of is an angular resolution issue (or the flat Earth catch phrase diffraction limit). The horizon we observe here on Earth is closer than angular resolution limits would imply. Angular resolution (diffraction) is not the cause for the horizon. Try again.
Also, drop from a tangent for an observer at zero altitude without refraction (the drop charts you're referring to) have nearly no applicability to optical observations.
@@doofismannfred4778 yes it can.... this is why we see multiple horizons leading up to the apparent horizon.... combined with atmospheric conditions like air moisture and heat many forms of mirages will appear on the horizons..... since the apparent horizon gives us an illusive image to peer at naturally the apparent horizon is part of the optical illusion due to perspective and atmospheric conditions. There are no examples of a boat not being distorted by the atmosphere when viewing the apparent horizon.
How does perspective "cause the horizon to form"?
@@slysparkane808 The vanishing point is the place where parallel lines appear to come together in the distance. You can see how the parallel lines of the road recede and visually merge to create a single vanishing point on the horizon. A scene can have a limitless number of vanishing points.
The ground plane is the horizontal surface below the horizon. It could be land or water. The ground plane is level. If it were sloped or hilly, the vanishing point-created by the path’s parallel lines-may not rest on the horizon and may appear as if it’s on an inclined plane.
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy Great.. so if the distance to the horizon is where everything meets.. then how do the Sun and the moon hit it and get cut off by it without reducing in size like a road or railroad track? and then once that happens.. Stars, which are even further.. have not disappeared.
Wait, you’re debating whether dots moving proves reality. Okay, as you move the boats you are changing the angle of perspective voiding your proof because no one is peering downward to see any objects disappear past the horizon
His demonstration literally shows both observers having their eye lines drop downward as their respective boats move away. You are literally disagreeing with geometry right now.
@@doofismannfred4778 no, his demonstration is geometry on a computer program. That is not reality, it’s a computer program.... y’all dead asleep, facts!
Does perspective cause an object to appear lower with increasing distance even when the observer is at the same elevation as the object?
@@Otherj3839 not always. Research Fata Morgana and you will see why!
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy Not always? It never does.
I would gladly debate you live
I mean, it'd be helpful if you could demonstrate you have your own valid points to bring to the discussion.
Let me go ahead and point out how poorly you're doing in those other threads compared to a "keyboard warrior." What makes you think a live debate would go in your favor?
"I would gladly debate you live"
Sure, no problem.. when you have published your own tests or experiments that you think proves FE..
@@doofismannfred4778 because I always win live debates. I come with truth and you come with what you can copy from the scientists..... I even put Craig in his place and all he could do was deny it every time I proved him wrong. In order to get the image of earth and the horizon that we all see the surface of earth has to be flat....
@@slysparkane808 what helped me realize this the most was you guys thinking reality is as it appears and when its not. Even a glass of water can distort the true shape and size of an object while you all claim objects are where they appear when peering through billions of gallons of water in the atmosphere
Yeah, again, the model you made is not reality. Its a computer program. I have a 1000 questions about your edited and chopped debate.
Brian Leake asked for an orthographic view. Sly obliged. You're literally complaining about someone doing something they were asked to do, genius.
More importantly, this demonstrates how each observer can see each boat "dropping" as it moves away from them. It's not a difficult concept. It is also backed by reality insomuch as reciprocal zenith angle measurements establish that the direction of down for multiple locations are not parallel with one another. That's reality. Disagreeing with reality is why flat Earth is a joke in a dark corner of the internet.
@@doofismannfred4778 zenith is based on earth being a flat surface..... 🥶 take another look genius
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy _"zenith is based on earth being a flat surface"_
So please point out where the top of a baseball is.
@@seymoresaymore north is based on the northern star and northern pole(pull). Come to think of it, you’re right.... there is no northern point on a spherical object....... ouch! Let that sink in for a little while. In a few sentences you just disproved your model.
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy *"zenith is based on earth being a flat surface."* Lying will get you nowhere. All zenith means is opposite to down (plumb). Your lie doesn't get you out of the fact that zenith isn't parallel to another location's zenith.