[Undecided]

I took this photo on holiday recently. If you compare the balcony rail of my hotel room to the surface of the sea, you can see that it curves compared to the straight balcony rail.

Just wondering what you guys think ?

This is using the cameras panoramic function where you move the camera from left to right as it can't fit the whole image in a normal shot.

[Undecided]

Now that I can see the image on the computer screen rather than the mobile screen, I can see that the panoramic function on the phone is distorting the image, especially the lower balcony rail. The following image is an original with no special filters used. You can see the same curvature by comparing the height of the balcony rail below the sea level right at the left hand side of the image, compared to the right hand side, I couldn't fit the whole image in from left to right, so that's why I used the panoramic function in the first place, but the curvature is still visible in this photo.

[Setec Astronomy]

Now that I can see the image on the computer screen rather than the mobile screen, I can see that the panoramic function on the phone is distorting the image
[....]
but the curvature is still visible in this photo.

Rather than your deceptive sense of curvature, use a ruler or a paint program to draw a straight line superimposed over the water level. The railing and water level might not be exactly parallel to one another, but there is no discernable curvature.

[Undecided]

Yes there is, because the right hand half of the photo,shows the water bending back down to the surface of the rail.

You can see this in the first photo, but obviously as it's been tampered with due to the panoramic setting on the camera it can't be used as evidence.

By sitting behind the rail and crouching down to be level with it, I could see that the level of water rose in the middle and fell to the left and right. I couldn't take a photo that showed this as the phone camera can't get the whole image in one shot. That's why I did the panoramic image, but obviously no one's going to believe that one as you can see the distortion clearly.

I'll have a look to see if I can find a single photo of the right hand side, but there were trees in the way, so I'm not sure if I took it this way. It was only after travelling home that I uploaded the photo to the lap top, and once on the computer screen the image distorts with the panoramic setting.

I probably won't be able to repeat the experiment until I'm next at the seaside but maybe others that read this will be able to try and see what results they get.

[Undecided]

Rather than your deceptive sense of curvature,

Not deceptive, I could clearly see the horizon rising in the middle, and falling to the left and right but couldn't fit them in a single photo.

I can't find a single photo of the right hand side of the balcony, I only have the panoramic one. So what I'm saying is that the panoramic photo is an honest representation of what I could see with my eyes, but it has distorted the image slightly so while it is an honest image, I understand that it can't be taken as granted that it's accurate.

This isn't a case that the balcony and the horizon were not exactly parallel as the horizon bent back down to the right hand side and this can be seen in the panoramic image, distortion or not.

[Setec Astronomy]

Far be it from me to argue with someone who is hallucinating.

[Undecided]

Hallucinating ?

I post a couple of honest photos and explain honestly what I saw with my own eyes and I'm hallucinating ?

I expected some comments and discussion, but not this sort of personal abuse. Shame on you.

[Roundy]

That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Ugh, stop trying to eyeball it and just measure it already...



After running it through edge detection to make marking the edge of the horizon and beams less biased:

• The middle beam is pretty straight.
• The bottom beam is curved up about 2 pixels in the middle.
• The horizon is curved up about 1 pixel in the middle.

Inconclusive.

If you want to draw some actual conclusions, you need to first calculate the expected curvature. Then you can compare it to a picture and determine who is right.

[model 29]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

[Undecided]

Ok guys, way too technical for me.

I wasn't posting this as conclusive proof that the world is round, I just took this photo and thought I'd share it with you to see what you thought.

With the naked eye you could see the surface of the sea rising a little in the middle of the view compared to the left and right and I did my best to capture it with a smart phone.

As for the distance to the horizon, there was no way for me to work out my altitude above sea level so there's no point in even trying to do the maths. It would just be guessing.

It's a repeatable experiment that anyone can do while at the coast though. n

[TotesNotReptilian]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

Assuming:
90 degrees horizontal FOV
60 degrees vertical FOV
576 vertical resolution
The horizon is in the middle of the image to avoid optical distortion

The difference in height of the horizon from the middle of the picture to the edge of the picture doesn't even reach 1 pixel until the observer is 65 meters above sea level.

height (meters) -> change in height of horizon (pixels)
10 -> .4
100 -> 1.3
1000 -> 4
10000 -> 13

You have to get up pretty high to see any curvature. For example, this image taken at 6000 m (according to the source), with an iPhone 4 (according to the jpeg metadata).

60.8 degrees by 47.5 degrees FOV
1256 verticle resolution
6000 meters

I calculate that we should expect 10 pixel difference in height in the middle of the horizon if the earth is round. 0 if the earth is flat.




I count 13 pixel difference in height in the middle of the horizon.

Conclusion:
My round earth estimate was a bit low, but pretty close. If the picture was actually taken at 9000 meters instead of 6000 meters, my estimate would have been correct. Maybe they made a bad height estimate?

[rabinoz]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.

What the would be on the Globe is a dip angle to the horizon. From a few feet above sea level this is minuscule.

But early ship's navigators had to allow for it in taking sun or star fixes. An error in angle of one minute of arc can lead to a position error of up to one nautical mile. Yes, practical navigation instructions include this Piloting and navigation.
Funny how all these navigators think the Earth is a Globe.
You would think someone from TFES would let them know they don't have to bother with all this complicated Globe stuff. 

[TotesNotReptilian]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.

No, there is definitely curvature to be seen if you are high enough. The horizon forms a circle around you. If you are exactly in the middle of the circle, it just looks like a straight line. If you are above the circle, then you can see the actual curve of the circle. It's a bit complicated to calculate though.

[rabinoz]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.

No, there is definitely curvature to be seen if you are high enough. The horizon forms a circle around you. If you are exactly in the middle of the circle, it just looks like a straight line. If you are above the circle, then you can see the actual curve of the circle. It's a bit complicated to calculate though.

Yes, if you are high enough, but the the picture I was referring to was taken only a small distance above sea level.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?

Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.

No, there is definitely curvature to be seen if you are high enough. The horizon forms a circle around you. If you are exactly in the middle of the circle, it just looks like a straight line. If you are above the circle, then you can see the actual curve of the circle. It's a bit complicated to calculate though.

Yes, if you are high enough, but the the picture I was referring to was taken only a small distance above sea level.

I'm definitely not high enough for this shit anymore lol

[geckothegeek]

That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.

If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.

The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1)  The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet.  That immediately  disproves  tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in  the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can  see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond  the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.

If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.

The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1)  The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet.  That immediately  disproves  tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in  the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can  see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond  the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.

He could go further, but he's waiting for rabinoz to come up with some more ideas for him.

[geckothegeek]

That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.

If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.

The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1)  The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet.  That immediately  disproves  tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in  the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can  see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond  the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.

He could go further, but he's waiting for rabinoz to come up with some more ideas for him.

I could go on further, but I'm no expert and I would suppose rabinov can come up with more facts than I can think of off hand. LOL
I do admit to the fault that I try to post only facts which I know are true and reasoably accurate.

Tell you what, flat earthers.
I will make a deal with you.
In the future I will post only one "round earth" fact that I can back up with evidence or reference material for every "flat earth" idea that you can do the same to back it up.

Let's start with the horizon.
Your turn.You go first.

If rabinov wants to jump in here, he can take my turn. LOL.

[rabinoz]

That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.

If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.

The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1)  The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet.  That immediately  disproves  tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in  the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can  see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond  the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.

He could go further, but he's waiting for rabinoz to come up with some more ideas for him.

OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.

Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC

Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC

Yes, about 22,236 miles is pretty good![/b]
You may or may not accept it, but that's your problem, not mine.