You do realise that putting together lots of words together randomly in a sentence doesn't suddenly make it make any sense? It's quite clear you have no understanding of the word 'perspective'. Disregarding flat earth theory or whatever, your knowledge of human vision is fundamentally gubbins. Surely even a child can realise that we don't have an 'upper' and 'lower' half of vision. Rods and cones are objectively distributed throughout our retina. There is no 'upper' and 'lower' half that converge along the middle. If we did have some mystical converging point based on retinal structure and rod/cone distribution then that 'joining point' of upper and lower half would always be half way down our retina regardless of the angle that we looked at the ocean. ie. whichever way we looked at the ocean we'd always have the ocean joining the sky 'horizon' exactly half way up the view we were looking at. Yes, if i look straight ahead, the horizon would be central with the same content of lower ocean to upper sky. But if i tilted my head down slightly, your theory would suggest I'd still have this ludicrously amusing version of a horizon still being central with half ocean and half sky. WHy is it that when I actually tilt my head down slightly, the horizon moves up in my vision so the sea now takes up 3/4 of my view and the sky 1/4? What's happened to my upper and lower half? Or does the structure of my retina change when i tilt my eyeballs? Also, because I'm sure the theory will be amusing to read... why, if an object goes past the mystical converging point, would the bottom half of the object vanish first? Why doesn't the top half vanish into the sky??? Surely if the very top part of the ocean (that you can see before sky) is disappearing from view because it's simply so far away, a boat on the horizon would simply get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller until it disappears from view. With any viewing device. Naked eye it would disappear. Get a more powerful camera, zoom in and you'd see it again until it got smaller still and disappeared again. Get a telescope, zoom in even more and you'd see it again until it got so small it disappeared from view. Absolutely no reason for it to vanish into the 'bottom' half of your vision.
Presumably you're also confident that with a relatively inexpensive telescope you could drive to the beach in Great Yarmouth in Norfolk, crouch down to sea level, set up your telescope and easily zoom in to see the the Hague coastline (which is only about 150 miles away and easily achievable with a telescope)? And if so, why have you or indeed anyone else not managed to achieve this yet??
Lots of science thrown back by the flat Earth people it's a well founded theory regardless of your side on this. One thing that is apparently difficult for a flat earther to explain is the equinox.
Another thing I noticed. Videos showing a round earth from space are shown and flat earthers have a theory as to why with them pointing the finger at governments and NASA as faking them. Video of a balloon geezer showing no curve and it's ignored and not challenged at all just dismissed. I'm still on the side of round earth but find it interesting that 99% won't consider anything they are told outside of the normal regardless of the argument.
This isn't about accepting things that we are 'being told'. You don't just learn stuff by trusting info from someone else (ie being 'told')... More reliably you should learn whatever stuff you can by doing something yourself. Apart from going into space which barely anyone has done (although any that have are in on the conspiracy I'm sure) almost every other flat vs round proof experiment anyone can do for themselves and does not require you to be 'told' anything by someone else. I don't need to be told that I can't see beyond the horizon and that boats disappear below the sea in the horizon because I can see it for myself. I don't need to be told that a lunar eclipse is a round shadow, I can see it for myself. I don't need to be told that if you look at the horizon on the ocean with increasingly more powerful binoculars and telescopes i won't see any further into the distance, it will just be the same bit of horizon more zoomed in because I can go and do that myself. There's lots of things that flat earthers could do but don't. Why don't they go and look at the ocean horizon with a telescope and realise that you don't get to view any further into the distance? Why hasn't a single flat earther ever gone to the antarctic, done the balloon camera thing and live streamed the ice wall? Why haven't they gone to great Yarmouth laid down on the beach at sea level and used a telescope to try and see a beach in Holland? Schools work hard on instilling youngsters to critically analyse evidence and dismiss that which they deem is guff. Which is why stuff that is guff is immediately dismissed as guff. I consider flat earth. Its outside the normal. And its complete guff. And it scares me that lunatics that genuinely believe in it are allowed to vote and have a say in important matters.
not even hiding augmented reality use https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/2350.html
Great Yarmouth beach to holland beach with a telescope? Can you do it? And if not why not? Looking at the horizon with an optical zoom camera? Can you see further to sea if you do that rather than just zooming into the same patch or sea? And if not why not? Answers please.....
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/2350.html https://unimersiv.com/how-nasa-is-using-virtual-and-augmented-reality-to-train-astronauts-37/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2015/03/11/nasa-odg-augmented-reality-in-space/#
its called atmospheric interference, there are hundreds of pictures that shouldnt exist due to expected curvature
Ive never believed in the Flat earth theory because I've always wondered why no one has fallen off the edges and other obviously silly reasons...but Eddie is putting up a good fight.
