The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Venus on September 10, 2016, 03:03:48 PM
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would be in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would be in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.
I've seen so many photos of horizons both here and on YouTube ... with the claim "Looks flat to me ... no curvature there"
I just can't understand how anyone would expect to see the earth curve from left to right in a photo of the horizon.
It's just completely illogical to think it would curve downwards from one side to the other.
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
If it curved from left to right then we would be living on a cylinder ... but of course if you rotated yourself 180 degrees the horizon would then appear straight and curve away from you.
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
-
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
Yes, and no.
Flat Earthers will never face up to simple little things that might pierce their comfort zone.
-
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
Yes, and no.
Flat Earthers will never face up to simple little things that might pierce their comfort zone.
What I would really like to see would be a flat earther who could honestly say that he had ever been to sea or stood on the shore and looked out to sea (on a clear day) in the first place.
And if he had if he could honestly say that he couldn't see the horizon but could honestly say that all he could see was "an indistinct blur......et cetera, et cetera, and so forth."
Tom Bishop, are you out there ? ???
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would be in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.
I've seen so many photos of horizons both here and on YouTube ... with the claim "Looks flat to me ... no curvature there"
I just can't understand how anyone would expect to see the earth curve from left to right in a photo of the horizon.
It's just completely illogical to think it would curve downwards from one side to the other.
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
If it curved from left to right then we would be living on a cylinder ... but of course if you rotated yourself 180 degrees the horizon would then appear straight and curve away from you.
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
Just to correct you. If you stood as a very small person on a ball maybe the size of a house you would see curves all round you not just on front of you. The whole ball curves away from you in all directions no matter where you stand on it. Take a tennis ball in your hand and put a little black spot on it anywhere. Now move the ball so the spot is at the top (north) of the ball. And note how it curves away from that spot in every direction including 'down the sides'; not just 'ahead' of you like you suggest happens on the sea shore.
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would be in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.
I've seen so many photos of horizons both here and on YouTube ... with the claim "Looks flat to me ... no curvature there"
I just can't understand how anyone would expect to see the earth curve from left to right in a photo of the horizon.
It's just completely illogical to think it would curve downwards from one side to the other.
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
If it curved from left to right then we would be living on a cylinder ... but of course if you rotated yourself 180 degrees the horizon would then appear straight and curve away from you.
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
Just to correct you. If you stood as a very small person on a ball maybe the size of a house you would see curves all round you not just on front of you. The whole ball curves away from you in all directions no matter where you stand on it. Take a tennis ball in your hand and put a little black spot on it anywhere. Now move the ball so the spot is at the top (north) of the ball. And note how it curves away from that spot in every direction including 'sown the sides'; not just 'ahead' of you like you suggest happens on the sea shore.
I think that what the Op might also be framing up or challenging is the notion that "if it looks flat than it must be flat." The size of the Earth is so large that using "it looks flat, therefore it must be flat" as a rationale way to make a confident conclusion about the shape of the Earth is likely misleading.
The online example I have seen is that if one were shrunk down to be the size of an atom and placed onto say the surface of a basketball or a football, to that small observer the shape might look flat to them; when in reality the shape is actually a sphere.
-
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there ???
Yes, and no.
Flat Earthers will never face up to simple little things that might pierce their comfort zone.
But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.
-
But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.
Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze. Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.
So, the OP's question was to flat earthers. Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat. On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature. In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.
Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is. What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?
-
But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.
Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze. Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.
So, the OP's question was to flat earthers. Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat. On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature. In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.
Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is. What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?
If you are in the middle of the Pacific, it will mean no difference.
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
-
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
Why wouldn't it if the earth is flat?
Water finds its level is the common FE mantra. Obviously there will be waves and so on, but why wouldn't it be roughly level on a FE?
-
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
Why wouldn't it if the earth is flat?
Water finds its level is the common FE mantra. Obviously there will be waves and so on, but why wouldn't it be roughly level on a FE?
Waves, swells, and numerous other things, which you mention.
Just like the ground is wavy, dippy, and other imperfections.
-
If you are in the middle of the Pacific, it will mean no difference.
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
Maybe you simply did not understand the question. I'm not under any impression. I know from experience exactly how it looks in the middle of the pacific ocean having been there. Albeit it was in a large boat, but nonetheless, it looks as flat as piss on a platter.
But you folks claim the earth is flat because it looks flat, right? You see no curvature.
So, the question is, what would you (or any other flat earther) need to see to be convinced the earth is a sphere rather than flat?
Basically I think we are trying to get our heads around why you would expect to see any curvature looking out over a twelve million, seven hundred and forty thousand meter diameter planet.
-
But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.
Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze. Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.
So, the OP's question was to flat earthers. Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat. On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature. In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.
Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is. What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.
And the reason this couldnt be done on a flat earth?
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
And moving on to your second point if you know of such a person who lay in a boat staring towards the sky at every single star for 24 non-stop hours and mentally noting their continuous shift in positions exactly then I should like to meet this person. And you say that this gives an indication that the surface we are on is rotating - had you not given any consideration to the fact that it could be the stars that are rotating and not the earth?
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.
What exactly is it that you 'start observing'...presumably with your sextant?
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.
What exactly is it that you 'start observing'...presumably with your sextant?
Look up how to use a sextant. There's endless documentation as to how sextant sightings and subsequent navigations are performed. And it's not 'my' sextant, sextants have been around for 250+ years.
-
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Well, your answer does not answer the question I asked, but I'll answer you. I maintain you could never determine the shape of the earth (one way or the other) by such an observation. The Earth is just too big for that. So not seeing a curvature by looking out over the sea would convince me of nothing because that is exactly what I expect to see on either a mostly flat Earth or one that is a sphere of 41,804,460 feet in diameter.
However, that is all flat earthers have. That you don't see any curvature. The point is, you cannot expect to see any curvature whether the Earth is flat or not because if it is spherical it is just too big to be able to see a curvature
Given that and that you seem to agree with me, why do you think the Earth is flat?
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
Of course curves have a distinct line. Look at a snooker/pool ball; it curves away to the "horizon", which is a distinct line. Sit in your car and look over the hood. Distinct line.
And of course there are an infinite number of distinct lines, that's the point. The visible horizon is unique to the observer. If I am standing 1 metre behind you on a boat, your horizon is one metre further away than mine.
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'.
What are you talking about? "Curves don't have distinct lines" is a meaningless sentence. And in what sense do curves "fade away"?
Look at any spherical object. You can see the edge of it, can't you? A clear line. The edge isn't all fuzzy. I happen to have a globe in the house so I took this photo:
(https://i.ibb.co/Cwkn1jd/Globe-Horizon.jpg)
Is that a clear enough line for you? And if you zoom in to a portion of this image then even at this scale the horizon starts to flatten out:
(https://i.ibb.co/fr2QPkh/Globe-Horizon2.jpg)
That's what the horizon is. Why would that happen on a FE? What presents you seeing further than the distinct horizon on a FE? It isn't visibility, you can see distant landmasses beyond the horizon, you just can't see the bottom of them. The only exception to that is on a foggy day when visibility is poor, in that case you don't see a clear horizon line, the sea just fades out. But what would cause the clear horizon line on a FE? What is hiding the rest of the sea?
And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level.
Correct. Which is exactly what we observe. The higher you ascend the further you can see. You ever looked out a airplane window? You can see a horizon much further away than when you're on the beach. I took these photos with the same globe as above, raising the camera to simulate going up in altitude.
(https://i.ibb.co/vxbvb59/Globe-Horizon3.jpg)
Note how the label "Russia" can be clearly seen in the bottom of the 3 photos but is hidden behind the curve in the top photo from a "lower" altitude.
Note out the word "Mountains" (upside down) is further from the horizon as you ascend.
You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
The distinct line isn't a physical thing, it's simply the limit of how far you can see on the globe earth, and the reason for it is the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude, because you can see further over the curve. This diagram illustrates the principle:
(https://i.ibb.co/jbX19Xs/Horizon2.jpg)
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
As the others have said, the line you see is merely the tangent of your sight line and the globe. Yes, that does mean that the horizon appears in a different place for different observer heights. If the distance to the horizon is less than the meteorological visibility, then you will see a distinct horizon line. If it’s not, then you won’t see one - it will be blurry or completely indistinct, which is what you would see every day on a flat earth. The fact that you don’t see this should be a major clue that the earth isn’t flat.
And moving on to your second point if you know of such a person who lay in a boat staring towards the sky at every single star for 24 non-stop hours and mentally noting their continuous shift in positions exactly then I should like to meet this person. And you say that this gives an indication that the surface we are on is rotating - had you not given any consideration to the fact that it could be the stars that are rotating and not the earth?
Well, you don’t need to do this - simple photography lets you do it very clearly, or you can just note the azimuth and elevation of a few obvious stars and see the pattern. Either way, they rotate in a neat circular pattern, every 24 hours.
So then you might reasonably ask ‘couldn’t the stars be moving around the earth?’ - a perfectly valid line of enquiry. But there are several ways we know this is not the case:
- if the stars are rotating around the earth, why does the neutral point at the centre of rotation vary linearly with our latitude, and why do the stars disappear below the horizon during part of the their rotation? If I’m in Scotland and you’re in Africa, why can I see stars that are below the horizon for you? The wiki invoked ‘bendy light’ at this point. Aside from being an incomplete explanation, if it were the case that light was bending in the vertical plane, as asserted, then the neat circular pattern that we observe would not happen, as the paths would be distorted by the EA.
- why the exact 24 hour period of rotation, precisely the same as the apparent periodicity of the sun, when the sun is clearly ‘moving’ in a different manner and at a closer range than the stars?
A rotating spherical earth explains all of these things perfectly. We can even measure the rotation using gyroscopes, both mechanical and laser. It all lines up.
-
In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.
Very good observation Simon. It's not supposed to.
The question is actually quite simple. Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem. You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right? The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"
The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature. Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat? What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter? If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet. Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?
I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?
Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:
- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.
Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!
Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?
I mean, jesus...your pronouncement here comes across as is if it is uttered on Mt. Sinai!
You are making a claim about the only possible conclusive state of a particular set of circumstances that would exist in a world you absolutely, vehemently deny is possible.
Pardon me, but I call bs. You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.
- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.
Again, with the grand pronouncements of rotation. The crap above us moving, not the other way around. And yeah, the sun, moon, and stars, all occupy different levels of the firmament. the decouple is the only thing you got right.
-
Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!
OK.
The distance to the horizon, from an average height standing on the sea shore, is less than 3 miles.
As you look out to sea you can observe about 3 miles of sea then there's a sharp line, on a clear day, and above that line you can see the sky.
Why can't you see any more sea? If the earth is flat then what's stopping you? It isn't visibility. We know that because if there are distant land-masses or ships which are further than the horizon then you can see them, you just can't see the top of them.
On a globe this makes sense, the earth curves away from you. That's why you can't see any more sea. It's why you can't see the bottom of distant ships of land-masses, they're hidden by the earth's curve. And it's why the distance to the horizon increases with increasing altitude, that allows you to see further over the curve:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kb1CbJs/Horizon.jpg)
But the bottom of those two diagrams shows the FE claim, that the sea is flat. If that's so then why is there a horizon? The person has a clear line of sight to the rest of the sea, why can't they see it? What causes a sharp horizon line on a FE?
Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?
Water is the clearest way to see this as it's unusual for 3 or more miles of land to be flat. And by flat I mean "following the contour of the earth". The sea is flat in as much as while there are waves and swells, on a calm day these are relatively small. The sea doesn't have hills and valleys. But the sea does follow the contour of the earth, and the horizon observations I mentioned above are evidence of that.
You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.
Well, it's more that we know the something doesn't exist because observations of the horizon indicate that it can't.
We know that on a beach we can only see about 3 miles of sea. The only reasons I can think of why we wouldn't be able to see more are:
a) Visibility prevents you seeing further
b) The rest of the sea is occluded by something.
We know that option A isn't true - you can see part of objects further than the horizon. That leaves option B. So what's occluding the rest of the sea on a FE? On a RE it's the curve of the earth itself, what's your explanation? Unless there's another reason I haven't considered?
Note that on a foggy day when visibility IS less than the distance to the horizon then you don't see a sharp horizon line
(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)
That's what I'd expect to see were the earth flat. At some point visibility would stop you seeing more sea, but that wouldn't be a clear sharp line, more of a fading out as gradually you can see things less clearly. If you have an explanation for a sharp horizon line on a FE then feel free to present it.
-
Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!
I did explain it.
Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?
Well, the original question proposed a boat in the middle of the ocean. Is the water perfectly flat...that would help, or we need the boat to be substantially bigger than the waves, otherwise we'd just be looking at waves, and not the horizon several miles away. I don't think that's particularly contentious, regardless of your views on the earth's shape, is it?
I mean, jesus...your pronouncement here comes across as is if it is uttered on Mt. Sinai!
Note really sure where you're going with this one.
You are making a claim about the only possible conclusive state of a particular set of circumstances that would exist in a world you absolutely, vehemently deny is possible.
Conclusive...no, but we can exclude the possibility that the world is flat from the simple existence of a clear horizon. If the visibility is, say 20km, and world is 10s of thousands of km across, then there cannot be a clear horizon all around us if the world is flat. And yet there is, so the earth cannot be flat.
Pardon me, but I call bs. You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.
Again, not really clear what you're on about here. Shout BS if you like, but you would help your argument if you actually engaged with the science, instead of just decrying what I'm saying.
Again, with the grand pronouncements of rotation. The crap above us moving, not the other way around. And yeah, the sun, moon, and stars, all occupy different levels of the firmament. the decouple is the only thing you got right.
Again, if the 'crap around us' is moving, and the earth is flat, why does stuff disappear below the horizon during its circular journey? Why can I see something in Scotland that is below the horizon for you in Africa? Why is the centre of rotation different in the northern hemisphere to the southern one? Why can you only see one of the two centres of rotation at any one time, why not both? Surely if the earth was flat, and things were rotating above us, there would be only one centre of rotation?
-
What causes a sharp horizon line on a FE?
I contest your assertion that the horizon would be "sharp" in either model. In fact, you already submitted your own photographs of how blurry a sphere's "horizon" really is.
In essence, you gave us these images of a poorly-defined edge that gradually fades away while bluntly asserting that they are in fact well-defined and sharp:
(https://i.ibb.co/vxbvb59/Globe-Horizon3.jpg)
This is problematic, because:
- Your assertion contradicts the photographic evidence you produced. [If your assertion is true, then your photographs are "wrong"]
- This is despite a flaw in your experiment which should skew it in your favour - you were able to entirely ignore atmospheric effects due to your experiment's small scale. These would make the real horizon even blurrier.
- Your assertion directly contradicts the RE model. [If your assertion is true, then RE is an impossibility]
In short, you have now joined the echelons of RE'ers who, in their desperation to defend their favourite model at all costs, gallop away from the orthodoxy and start making RE up on the spot. Although I completely support your personal exploration of the Earth's shape*, I think you need a more structured approach. Nonetheless, this is the closest you've come to Zeteticism, and that effort ought to be noted. The next step would be not presupposing your outcome - if you follow a similar approach, but without declaring that it must support your favourite shape, you'll start making some real progress.
* - I know this sentence may come across as sarcastic. I promise it isn't.
-
Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!
I did explain it.
Thinking you did and actually doing it are two different things.
Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?
Well, the original question proposed a boat in the middle of the ocean. Is the water perfectly flat...that would help, or we need the boat to be substantially bigger than the waves, otherwise we'd just be looking at waves, and not the horizon several miles away. I don't think that's particularly contentious, regardless of your views on the earth's shape, is it?
That you do not understand the water actually needs to be perfectly flat to meet the criteria of your claim, not mine, is a huge clue your claim is totally bogus.
I mean, jesus...your pronouncement here comes across as if it is uttered on Mt. Sinai!
Note really sure where you're going with this one.
See below.
You are making a claim about the only possible conclusive state of a particular set of circumstances that would exist in a world you absolutely, vehemently deny is possible.
Conclusive...no, but we can exclude the possibility that the world is flat from the simple existence of a clear horizon. If the visibility is, say 20km, and world is 10s of thousands of km across, then there cannot be a clear horizon all around us if the world is flat. And yet there is, so the earth cannot be flat.
Repeating the claim you originally made does not help you here. Kindly explain how or why someone should believe you when you try to tell others that a sharp horizon would be absolutely impossible on the very real flat earth plane when you absolutely reject the concept to begin with. You are telling me for instance, there could not possibly be any pictures of a sharp horizon taken, for instance in Kansas...totally ridiculous. The rest of the conditions you wish to interject here are just more smoke, having been caught with the matches already. No one should trust you or any other RE'er to be objective on the physical nature of the flat earth plane. All of you need to twist words and jump through multiple hoops on a consistent basis. You cannot possibly relate the nature of the true picture of what you deny.
Pardon me, but I call bs. You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.
Again, not really clear what you're on about here. Shout BS if you like, but you would help your argument if you actually engaged with the science, instead of just decrying what I'm saying.
I am on science. You are not.
Again, with the grand pronouncements of rotation. The crap above us moving, not the other way around. And yeah, the sun, moon, and stars, all occupy different levels of the firmament. the decouple is the only thing you got right.
Again, if the 'crap around us' is moving, and the earth is flat, why does stuff disappear below the horizon during its circular journey? Why can I see something in Scotland that is below the horizon for you in Africa? Why is the centre of rotation different in the northern hemisphere to the southern one? Why can you only see one of the two centres of rotation at any one time, why not both? Surely if the earth was flat, and things were rotating above us, there would be only one centre of rotation?
Everything above us, even planes if it were possible to view them to the full extent, would merge into the horizon. The human eye can only see so far.
-
Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!
OK.
The distance to the horizon, from an average height standing on the sea shore, is less than 3 miles.
As you look out to sea you can observe about 3 miles of sea then there's a sharp line, on a clear day, and above that line you can see the sky.
Why can't you see any more sea? If the earth is flat then what's stopping you? It isn't visibility. We know that because if there are distant land-masses or ships which are further than the horizon then you can see them, you just can't see the top of them.
On a globe this makes sense, the earth curves away from you. That's why you can't see any more sea. It's why you can't see the bottom of distant ships of land-masses, they're hidden by the earth's curve. And it's why the distance to the horizon increases with increasing altitude, that allows you to see further over the curve:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kb1CbJs/Horizon.jpg)
But the bottom of those two diagrams shows the FE claim, that the sea is flat. If that's so then why is there a horizon? The person has a clear line of sight to the rest of the sea, why can't they see it? What causes a sharp horizon line on a FE?
All of your explanation assumes facts, such as consistency of atmoplanar conditions are consistent through the entirety of the viewing area.
Impossible, especially over water.
Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?
Water is the clearest way to see this as it's unusual for 3 or more miles of land to be flat. And by flat I mean "following the contour of the earth". The sea is flat in as much as while there are waves and swells, on a calm day these are relatively small. The sea doesn't have hills and valleys. But the sea does follow the contour of the earth, and the horizon observations I mentioned above are evidence of that.
You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.
Well, it's more that we know the something doesn't exist because observations of the horizon indicate that it can't.
We know that on a beach we can only see about 3 miles of sea. The only reasons I can think of why we wouldn't be able to see more are:
a) Visibility prevents you seeing further
b) The rest of the sea is occluded by something.
We know that option A isn't true - you can see part of objects further than the horizon. That leaves option B. So what's occluding the rest of the sea on a FE? On a RE it's the curve of the earth itself, what's your explanation? Unless there's another reason I haven't considered?
Note that on a foggy day when visibility IS less than the distance to the horizon then you don't see a sharp horizon line
(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)
That's what I'd expect to see were the earth flat. At some point visibility would stop you seeing more sea, but that wouldn't be a clear sharp line, more of a fading out as gradually you can see things less clearly. If you have an explanation for a sharp horizon line on a FE then feel free to present it.
Again, no one needs to pay attention to the expectations of an RE'er concerning what a flat earth would look like. You deny it so vehemently one can rest assured you have spent ZERO TIME in conjecture regarding its appearance.
Me on the other hand look out and know that's what I am looking at every day of my life.
-
In essence, you gave us these images of a poorly-defined edge that gradually fades away while bluntly asserting that they are in fact well-defined and sharp:
I think that has rather more to do with the fact that his camera is clearly focussing at a point nearer than the horizon than it does with the shape of the earth. If we were to take a similar shot with the focus at the 'horizon' it would be a lot crisper.
Aside from that, what do you think causes a visible horizon? If the edge of the earth is many thousands of miles away, what exactly are we looking at when we see the horizon?
-
That you do not understand the water actually needs to be perfectly flat to meet the criteria of your claim, not mine, is a huge clue your claim is totally bogus.
No, not perfectly flat - as AATW explains, it just needs to be calm enough that the waves don't block your sightline to the horizon. That might be because it's very calm indeed and you are low down, or because there is some swell but you are high up in a large vessel. Either way, you'll see the horizon, met visibility permitting.
Repeating the claim you originally made does not help you here. Kindly explain how or why someone should believe you when you try to tell others that a sharp horizon would be absolutely impossible on the very real flat earth plane when you absolutely reject the concept to begin with.
That's a very back-to-front way of approaching this. I reject the concept of a flat earth because the evidence does not support it, not the other way around. There's lots of reasons for that - we are focussing on one small part of the evidence here. We are simply asking ourselves what we would see if we out at sea in a boat, and the earth was flat. The fact we can see a horizon on clear days is hugely important - it tells us something. Do you have a mechanism for explaining the existence of a horizon in FE?
You are telling me for instance, there could not possibly be any pictures of a sharp horizon taken, for instance in Kansas...totally ridiculous.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You get a good clear horizon in all sorts of places with extensive flat land...the original thought piece was about the sea, so that's where we went. The sea is useful because it eliminates complications like hills and valleys etc, but if you were talking about salt flats, or somewhere like that with many miles of flat terrain, the argument would be the same - why do you get a horizon if the earth is flat? Why can't you see beyond a few miles?
The rest of the conditions you wish to interject here are just more smoke, having been caught with the matches already. No one should trust you or any other RE'er to be objective on the physical nature of the flat earth plane. All of you need to twist words and jump through multiple hoops on a consistent basis. You cannot possibly the true picture of what you deny.
That's just ad hom garbage.
Everything above us, even planes if it were possible to view them to the full extent, would merge into the horizon. The human eye can only see so far.
Here is your major misunderstanding. The human eye isn't limited by distance. You can see big things far away, and small things up close. Your eyes ability to see things is an angular resolution problem - distance is only half the equation. Consider the stars - we discussed how they rotate in circles earlier. If they are dropping to the horizon because of their distance from you, why are they moving around in a circle? They can't be any further or closer at the top or bottom, or they would be moving in elliptical path. Is it not more likely that they are moving in a circle, but something...the horizon...is obscuring your view of them for part of that circular journey? The same thing is true for large things on earth - we can often see large objects beyond the horizon, partially obscured by it - large boats, distant hills, tall buildings etc...so the horizon can't be an eyesight / distance thing - we can see beyond it.
-
If we were to take a similar shot with the focus at the 'horizon' it would be a lot crisper.
Yes, he could have taken better photos. It would be difficult, and he'd have to actively work around many inconveniences, but it's possible. That's why I included my comment about the crucial flaw of scale - the bypasses you suggest wouldn't work in the Earth's case.
Aside from that, what do you think causes a visible horizon? If the edge of the earth is many thousands of miles away, what exactly are we looking at when we see the horizon?
Please familiarise yourself with basic FET before attempting to debate it.
-
Please familiarise yourself with basic FET before attempting to debate it.
Well aware of the various ideas espoused in the wiki. I’m just asking what you personally believe to be the case.
-
The human eye isn't limited by distance. You can see big things far away, and small things up close.
^ Here
Your eyes ability to see things is an angular resolution problem - distance is only half the equation.
All in one post...
Amazing!!!
-
The human eye isn't limited by distance. You can see big things far away, and small things up close.
^ Here
Your eyes ability to see things is an angular resolution problem - distance is only half the equation.
All in one post...
Amazing!!!
Which part of that don’t you understand?
-
I contest your assertion that the horizon would be "sharp" in either model. In fact, you already submitted your own photographs of how blurry a sphere's "horizon" really is.
Sigh...
Tbh, when I posted the pictures I did notice they weren't that well focussed. I think my stupid phone focused on the foreground.
I just hoped no-one would notice, I should have known better...
And OK, in real life you're right, there are atmospheric effects and waves which mean it might not be 100% sharp. But the point is according to the RE model you're looking at the edge of something. And the edges of somethings are generally pretty well defined. I mean, I can see houses out the window. I can see where the rooves ends and beyond that I just see the sky, a roof doesn't just fade gradually into the sky. The sea is, famously, not solid, but a body of liquid on a calm day has a flat enough surface to approximate a solid. I would urge you not to be pedantic about the word "flat" here, I'm talking on a scale of a few miles square where any curvature is negligible.
There's no issue with visibility on a clear day. You can see distant landmarks beyond the horizon. I think you're being a bit pedantic about the word sharp. OK, the horizon might not be 100% sharp but can we agree that there's a pretty obvious difference between these two images:
(https://i.ibb.co/sjq0nrD/Horizon.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)
In the first it's a clear day, you can see a fairly clear, sharp horizon line. In the second it's a foggy day, the visibility is less than the distance to the horizon and the result is there is no sharp horizon line, it's more of a fading out. The latter is what I would imagine one would see on a FE. My reasoning being that on a RE it makes sense that as the sea curves away from you, you're not able to see any more sea, that's why you get the well defined boundary between sea and sky. Some other explanation is required on a FE. I'll repost this diagram:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kb1CbJs/Horizon.jpg)
In the bottom image I've drawn an arbitrary horizon to match the one at the top RE diagram. But what is stopping you seeing further? If you're looking out on, say, the Atlantic, there's thousands more miles of sea, why can you only see the first few miles? This does all presuppose light travels in roughly straight lines of course (and yes, I know refraction is a thing, but that generally allows one to see further than expected). You may invoke EA I guess, but there has to be some explanation. A RE model quite neatly explains why you only see a few miles out to sea before observing a clear horizon line, and it explains why that horizon distance increases with altitude as does the angle dip to the horizon.
Nonetheless, this is the closest you've come to Zeteticism, and that effort ought to be noted. The next step would be not presupposing your outcome - if you follow a similar approach, but without declaring that it must support your favourite shape, you'll start making some real progress.
I'd suggest the method of starting with a hypothesis and devising an experiment to test it has served humanity pretty well. You may disagree, but most of our advances in technology and engineering over the past couple of centuries have been based on us having good working models of reality. The thing I don't understand about Zeteticism is on your Wiki it says:
For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed to testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment.
Well ok...but what's the experiment? Let's say we make an observation of the horizon without presupposing the shape of the earth. OK, so what's the conclusion?
It could be that the earth curves away from us, that would explain that observation.
It could be that the sea actually just ends after a few miles.
It could be that the earth is flat but some effect like EA bends the light and that prevents us seeing further.
Any of these interpretations are possible, so how does that experiment help us?
You might fairly reasonably say that's not the right experiement, in which case what is? Any experiment has some underlying assumptions and could be interpreted multiple ways.
-
All of your explanation assumes facts, such as consistency of atmoplanar conditions are consistent through the entirety of the viewing area.
Any conclusion has to be built on certain underlying assumptions. My assumptions are that visibility on a clear day is greater than the distance to the horizon - I believe that can be easily justified, as I've said you can see distant landmarks beyond the horizon. And I've assumed light travels in roughly straight lines, refraction is a thing and does affect results somewhat, but it doesn't allow you to see indefinitely.
Me on the other hand look out and know that's what I am looking at every day of my life.
OK. So what observations have you made and what conclusions have you drawn.
Why do you believe there is a clear horizon line on a FE when you look out to sea (on a clear day)
-
I think you're being a bit pedantic about the word sharp. OK, the horizon might not be 100% sharp but can we agree that there's a pretty obvious difference between these two images
We agree that there is a clear difference between the two images. However, the counterargument is not "pedantic" - you are asserting, as fact, something that would be impossible on RET, and which does not occur in reality. When it turns out that you're patently wrong, you dismiss it as obviously joking pedantry.
But the point is according to the RE model you're looking at the edge of something.
This is strictly incorrect. That's the whole issue.
But what is stopping you seeing further?
Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon). Less often, in particularly good conditions, atmospheric conditions result in a very blurry vanishing point - this is much closer to the true horizon.
I'd suggest the method of starting with a hypothesis and devising an experiment to test it has served humanity pretty well.
Yes - if you change what I said to make no sense, you'll find it easy to respond to. You'll also find that your response will be extremely unconvincing to most people. So, for those at the back of the room:
Your problem is that you're not testing hypotheses - that would be science, which may be a slightly flawed prototype of Zeteticism, but it's largely servicable. What you're doing is deciding your conclusion and then tilting at windmills until you find something that you think confirms it.
-
However, the counterargument is not "pedantic" - you are asserting, as fact, something that would be impossible on RET, and which does not occur in reality.
Are you claiming that this does not show a clear, sharp horizon line?
(https://i.ibb.co/sjq0nrD/Horizon.jpg)
I'd suggest the line between sea and sky is pretty clear. As for sharp, it's certainly not a gradual fade between sea and sky like in the foggy day image.
This is strictly incorrect. That's the whole issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I was being a little poetic, but if the earth is a globe then the horizon is simply a line along its surface, isn't that an edge?
What would you call it?
Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon"
I would claim that the picture above shows a sharp horizon. There's a clear line between the sea and sky.
I took that photo, and I did so when going down a hill on my way to the beach. Point being, I was reasonably high up, way above the level of any waves.
If you're looking down on the waves then you're looking over the top of them. That means on a flat plane the waves can't be blocking the sea further away than them.
Another diagram I did when I was explaining why waves can't produce the sinking ship effect IF your viewer height is higher than the waves:
(https://i.ibb.co/nDmsNSt/waves.jpg)
As you're looking downwards over the top of the waves you'll always have a clear line of sight to the sea even if the sea continues perfectly flat after that last wave rather than stopping at the building. Your hypothesis could makes sense if you're very close to sea level and there are waves higher than your viewer height. Once you're up a few meters I don't see how that would work.
Less often, in particularly good conditions, atmospheric conditions result in a very blurry vanishing point - this is much closer to the true horizon.
I'm interested by what you mean by vanishing point and true horizon. The first is a theoretical thing. I mean, obviously there are limits of optical resolution but that doesn't apply when there are thousands of miles of sea. And because of refraction there's a difference between geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. I'm not clear what you mean by the "true" horizon.
Your problem is that you're not testing hypotheses - that would be science, which may be a slightly flawed prototype of Zeteticism, but it's largely servicable. What you're doing is deciding your conclusion and then tilting at windmills until you find something that you think confirms it.
I'm claiming that these observations:
1) A sharp horizon line on a clear day
2) The distance to the horizon and angle of dip to the horizon increasing with altitude.
Can be explained well on a globe earth. I'm not suggesting they're the only explanations, but unless these observations are in dispute they need some FE explanation.
You seem to dispute the first of those observations. I don't know how to resolve that.
And, again, in Zeteticism you say you "devise an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth". What's the experiment?
I mean, there's the Bedford Level Experiment I guess, but the results of that are hotly disputed and it makes assumptions about how light moves.
Any experiment relies on certain assumptions of course, but that means the results are only as good as those assumptions.
-
Are you claiming that this does not show a clear, sharp horizon line?
Of course. If I was claiming otherwise, we could rule RET out straight away.
the horizon is simply a line along its surface
This continues to be strictly incorrect.
isn't that an edge?
No.
What would you call it?
I wouldn't rename the horizon - we generally name things for a reason. It helps facilitate meaningful conversation, and avoids silly blunders like your "sharp horizon".
I would claim that the picture above shows a sharp horizon
Yes, this continues to be the problem with your argument.
I was explaining why waves can't produce the sinking ship effect
We are not currently talking about the Sinking Ship Effect. We're talking about your attempts at redefining the horizon under RET.
I'm interested by what you mean by vanishing point and true horizon. The first is a theoretical thing.
I am saddened to hear that things you have personally witnessed and photographed are "theoretical" to you. I won't waste time on that, since you're "obviously joking".
I'm not clear what you mean by the "true" horizon.
Have you considered Googling it? It's three sentences deep on the Wikipedia page for "Horizon". It would be a good idea to understand the basic concepts you're trying to discuss before you declare all of RET to be incorrect.
I'm claiming that these observations:
1) A sharp horizon line on a clear day
An impossibility which you repeatedly illustrated not happening.
2) The distance to the horizon and angle of dip to the horizon increasing with altitude.
Which never approaches the distance of the true horizon...
Can be explained well on a globe earth.
They can't be explained well on a globe Earth. In fact, they directly contradict RET. This would be groundbreaking stuff, except you haven't made these observations - you simply claimed them while presenting evidence to the opposite.
I'm not suggesting they're the only explanations, but unless these observations are in dispute they need some FE explanation.
They are in dispute - with your own evidence.
You seem to dispute the first of those observations. I don't know how to resolve that.
Well, you could stick to observable facts. Alternatively, I can start demanding that you explain why the air is upside-down on RET. After all, this nEeDs some explanation.
And, again, in Zeteticism you say you "devise an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth". What's the experiment?
I mean, there's the Bedford Level Experiment I guess, but the results of that are hotly disputed and it makes assumptions about how light moves.
Any experiment relies on certain assumptions of course, but that means the results are only as good as those assumptions.
What the fuck are you talking about, AATW? The problem with your approach is not that you start with assumptions. The problem is that you presuppose (not assume) the outcome, and that you tailor your reasoning to reach that presupposed outcome.
-
Are you claiming that this does not show a clear, sharp horizon line?
Of course.
Well, then everything else that follows is rather irrelevant, isn't it? In what way is that not a clear, sharp horizon? And if you were claiming otherwise...ie you were claiming it did show a clear line, how would that 'rule out RET'?
-
Well, then everything else that follows is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
Indeed. You won't be able to defend RET by blundering middle-school-level knowledge. If you could catch up and get back on track, we can abandon this "sharp horizon" nonsense and maybe start discussing something relevant.
In what way is that not a clear, sharp horizon?
I don't understand the question. It's not sharp or clear "in the way" that it is blurry and gradual. This is not a complex statement, so there's not much to elaborate on.
And if you were claiming otherwise...ie you were claiming it did show a clear line, how would that 'rule out RET'?
Basic optics and geometry. If you were to observe a sharp, true horizon, this would necessitate several factors:
- The atmolayer would have to be effectively absent.
- The Earth would have to have an edge.
These factors do not hold under RET, so if you were able to observe a sharp horizon, you would disprove RET. Proof by contradiction.
Which, of course, is a moot point, because you will never observe a sharp horizon, nor will you ever observe the true horizon under either model.
I'm think I'm starting to understand y'all's objections to science and Zeteticism. It would be pretty hard to methodically inquire into the world around you if you got stumped by every little fact. GUH-WHAAAA? What is this true horizon of which you speak?! Oh my goodness, what ever is the difference between a gradient and a sharp border?! HUUUH?! But this looks sooooo sharp to my naked eye when viewed on a tiny screen.
-
Indeed. You won't be able to defend RET by blundering middle-school-level knowledge. If you could catch up and get back on track, we can abandon this "sharp horizon" nonsense and maybe start discussing something relevant.
Well, it is essentially sharp. You’re disagreeing on what you’re calling sharp. RE (and, I supposed, FE) doesn’t suggest a mathematically perfect divide between ocean and sky for various reasons. I would look at that picture and call it sharp horizon and agree it is “sharp” by the same reasoning that a knife is sharp. Yes, it is sharp - but if I look at it under a microscope I could call it a dull edge.
Just feels like straying from the premise.
-
Well, it is essentially sharp. You’re disagreeing on what you’re calling sharp. RE (and, I supposed, FE) doesn’t suggest a mathematically perfect divide between ocean and sky for various reasons. I would look at that picture and call it sharp horizon and agree it is “sharp” by the same reasoning that a knife is sharp. Yes, it is sharp - but if I look at it under a microscope I could call it a dull edge.
Just feels like straying from the premise.
Right. Yeah, that's roughly the level of hand-waving I was expecting here. "Well, y'know, it isn't sharp, but it's sharp."
Words have meanings for a reason. In this case, the dispute at hand is whether there is a gradient to the horizon. AATW claims, in no uncertain terms (despite your attempt at muddying the subject) that the absence of one would disprove FET. He backs this up with diagrams, which clearly show that, in his view, the horizon in RET would be a mathematically perfect divide. His side-view illustrates a point intersection.
(https://i.imgur.com/BSSvCEl.jpg)
He is correct - this would disprove FET. What he misses is that the absence of one would also disprove RET, and reality itself. This is not the time to say "Well, okay, but what if we make the word mean something else? Something less restrictive, maybe?".
Now, you are also correct, in the most useless way possible - these claims are ludicrous as currently presented. That's exactly my contention. Of course, if you examine the photographs, you'll arrive at some "eh-maybe-sharp-ish-but-not-actually-sharp" conclusion. You chose the words "essentially sharp". But the moment you accept that anti-definition, you lose your comparative argument. The horizon is "uhhh-kinda-sorta-sharp-but-not-really" in both models. So you're left with two options: doubling down on the horizon actually being sharp and posting photos of it not being so, or realising that there isn't anything here that would distinguish FE from RE. You'll be hard-pressed to find a third option that's internally consistent.
Finally, the question isn't what "RE" suggests - we are humans having a conversation, not nebulous concepts in a philosophical vacuum. AATW is not an orthodox RE'er, and he regularly disagrees with RE doctrine. He usually doesn't realise when he's doing it, but that's pretty normal when you accept a self-contradictory worldview.
-
Do you live within reach of the coast, Pete?
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
Of course curves have a distinct line. Look at a snooker/pool ball; it curves away to the "horizon", which is a distinct line. Sit in your car and look over the hood. Distinct line.
And of course there are an infinite number of distinct lines, that's the point. The visible horizon is unique to the observer. If I am standing 1 metre behind you on a boat, your horizon is one metre further away than mine.
Exactly - these are almost imaginary lines they are not physical ones that are there all the time - they are ther when we appear a certain distance and angle from them.
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'.
What are you talking about? "Curves don't have distinct lines" is a meaningless sentence. And in what sense do curves "fade away"?
Look at any spherical object. You can see the edge of it, can't you? A clear line. The edge isn't all fuzzy. I happen to have a globe in the house so I took this photo:
(https://i.ibb.co/Cwkn1jd/Globe-Horizon.jpg)
Is that a clear enough line for you? And if you zoom in to a portion of this image then even at this scale the horizon starts to flatten out:
(https://i.ibb.co/fr2QPkh/Globe-Horizon2.jpg)
That's what the horizon is. Why would that happen on a FE? What presents you seeing further than the distinct horizon on a FE? It isn't visibility, you can see distant landmasses beyond the horizon, you just can't see the bottom of them. The only exception to that is on a foggy day when visibility is poor, in that case you don't see a clear horizon line, the sea just fades out. But what would cause the clear horizon line on a FE? What is hiding the rest of the sea?
And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level.
Correct. Which is exactly what we observe. The higher you ascend the further you can see. You ever looked out a airplane window? You can see a horizon much further away than when you're on the beach. I took these photos with the same globe as above, raising the camera to simulate going up in altitude.
(https://i.ibb.co/vxbvb59/Globe-Horizon3.jpg)
Note how the label "Russia" can be clearly seen in the bottom of the 3 photos but is hidden behind the curve in the top photo from a "lower" altitude.
Note out the word "Mountains" (upside down) is further from the horizon as you ascend.
You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
The distinct line isn't a physical thing, it's simply the limit of how far you can see on the globe earth, and the reason for it is the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude, because you can see further over the curve. This diagram illustrates the principle:
(https://i.ibb.co/jbX19Xs/Horizon2.jpg)
Sorry to spoil the show but they look fuzzy to me. As for the one that looks like its been created with a thick black highlighter well...
And as for these lines. Are they a given depth/size? If there's a definite physical line it must have some dimensions to represent its 'boldness' for example.
The fact they look fuzzy as they obviously do to most people suggests that there's more beyond them. Only the bias of a global earth theorist will see a solid back line that could even represent a 'boom' across the horizon.
-
So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
As the others have said, the line you see is merely the tangent of your sight line and the globe. Yes, that does mean that the horizon appears in a different place for different observer heights. If the distance to the horizon is less than the meteorological visibility, then you will see a distinct horizon line. If it’s not, then you won’t see one - it will be blurry or completely indistinct, which is what you would see every day on a flat earth. The fact that you don’t see this should be a major clue that the earth isn’t flat.
And moving on to your second point if you know of such a person who lay in a boat staring towards the sky at every single star for 24 non-stop hours and mentally noting their continuous shift in positions exactly then I should like to meet this person. And you say that this gives an indication that the surface we are on is rotating - had you not given any consideration to the fact that it could be the stars that are rotating and not the earth?
Well, you don’t need to do this - simple photography lets you do it very clearly, or you can just note the azimuth and elevation of a few obvious stars and see the pattern. Either way, they rotate in a neat circular pattern, every 24 hours.
So then you might reasonably ask ‘couldn’t the stars be moving around the earth?’ - a perfectly valid line of enquiry. But there are several ways we know this is not the case:
- if the stars are rotating around the earth, why does the neutral point at the centre of rotation vary linearly with our latitude, and why do the stars disappear below the horizon during part of the their rotation? If I’m in Scotland and you’re in Africa, why can I see stars that are below the horizon for you? The wiki invoked ‘bendy light’ at this point. Aside from being an incomplete explanation, if it were the case that light was bending in the vertical plane, as asserted, then the neat circular pattern that we observe would not happen, as the paths would be distorted by the EA.
- why the exact 24 hour period of rotation, precisely the same as the apparent periodicity of the sun, when the sun is clearly ‘moving’ in a different manner and at a closer range than the stars?
A rotating spherical earth explains all of these things perfectly. We can even measure the rotation using gyroscopes, both mechanical and laser. It all lines up.
If you have ever seen a time lapse photo of the stars with the resultant image showing them as if they are circling the earth then that would suggest they are moving and not the earth otherwise they would not look like complete circles as the earth would be turning away or toward then not circling beneath them. The only way to replicate that effect is at one of the poles.
-
Right. Yeah, that's roughly the level of hand-waving I was expecting here. "Well, y'know, it isn't sharp, but it's sharp."
As secretagent says, when someone says a knife is sharp no-one is going to get an electron microscope out, note the bumps at that level and say "well akchooalley...".
Put any of the pictures I've posted through an edge detection algorithm and it's going to show you a clear horizon line unless you make it so sensitive then it literally only detects a line if the two adjacent pixels are completely different. Compare and contrast with the foggy day image where you're not going to get an edge. You've already conceded there's a difference and that's the point I have been making.
AATW claims, in no uncertain terms (despite your attempt at muddying the subject) that the absence of one would disprove FET. He backs this up with diagrams, which clearly show that, in his view, the horizon in RET would be a mathematically perfect divide. His side-view illustrates a point intersection.
This is all accurate. But I do also recognise that we live in reality, not a mathematically perfect world. My diagram shows the situation, but of course in reality the sea isn't perfectly flat, there are some atmospheric effects. I'm using the word sharp to contrast the horizon on a clear day with a foggy day where the sea just fades out.
He is correct - this would disprove FET. What he misses is that the absence of one would also disprove RET, and reality itself. This is not the time to say "Well, okay, but what if we make the word mean something else? Something less restrictive, maybe?".
What you're doing is like responding to FE people who say "the horizon is flat, checkmate globetards!" with this image
(https://i.ibb.co/yhM6PwY/Sunken-Ship.jpg)
And saying "Aha! Look! That's not perfectly flat, there are bumps". That doesn't "help facilitate meaningful conversation". We all know what they mean by flat. Come on dude, this is just pointless pedantry. The contrast I am making is the horizon one sees on a clear day with the lack of one on a misty day. The issue with the latter is visibility. And on a FE where you've got thousands of miles of flat sea stretching in front of you visibility would always be an issue. You wouldn't have a horizon a few miles away beyond which you only see the sky. I think we agree it isn't visibility, you claimed it was "waves, usually" and ignored the part of my previous post where I explained why that can't be true if you're at any altitude more than a few meters.
-
Aside from that, what do you think causes a visible horizon? If the edge of the earth is many thousands of miles away, what exactly are we looking at when we see the horizon?
Please familiarise yourself with basic FET before attempting to debate it.
Whilst the others are addressing your frankly bizarre response to the horizon picture stuff, I’ll draw attention to the fact that you didn’t respond to my question above. All you did was indicate that the question was too basic for you to grace with an answer. However, as you well know, the source you would offer for this ‘basic FET’ information is both incomplete and contradictory. It contains a range of views on what the horizon is or might be, and they can’t all be true at the same time. So asking you what you think isn’t me lazily trying to get you to describe the wiki to me, it is rather me trying to understand precisely what it is that you think. If you are a bendy light proponent, for example, then you are taking a completely different view to the things-lower-as-they-get-more-distant / modified vanishing point / limits of human vision etc stuff.
Hiding behind a ‘do your research’ line does your argument no favours - you just look like you’re ducking the question. So, again, what exactly do you think is going on at the horizon? What exactly are we looking at?
-
Aside from that, what do you think causes a visible horizon? If the edge of the earth is many thousands of miles away, what exactly are we looking at when we see the horizon?
Please familiarise yourself with basic FET before attempting to debate it.
Whilst the others are addressing your frankly bizarre response to the horizon picture stuff, I’ll draw attention to the fact that you didn’t respond to my question above. All you did was indicate that the question was too basic for you to grace with an answer. However, as you well know, the source you would offer for this ‘basic FET’ information is both incomplete and contradictory. It contains a range of views on what the horizon is or might be, and they can’t all be true at the same time. So asking you what you think isn’t me lazily trying to get you to describe the wiki to me, it is rather me trying to understand precisely what it is that you think. If you are a bendy light proponent, for example, then you are taking a completely different view to the things-lower-as-they-get-more-distant / modified vanishing point / limits of human vision etc stuff.
Hiding behind a ‘do your research’ line does your argument no favours - you just look like you’re ducking the question. So, again, what exactly do you think is going on at the horizon? What exactly are we looking at?
I believe Pete is not hiding behind a "do your research," line.
Indeed, I believe you continue to exhibit all the characteristics of person having zero clue concerning FET (or RET) for that matter.
As I stated before, you deny FE so much, there is no possible way you could ever describe what it looks like.
-
[
I believe Pete is not hiding behind a "do your research," line.
Indeed, I believe you continue to exhibit all the characteristics of person having zero clue concerning FET (or RET) for that matter.
As I stated before, you deny FE so much, there is no possible way you could ever describe what it looks like.
You’re of course welcome to believe whatever you want. The fact is that I asked him a straight question, which he refused to answer. What is also a matter of fact is that the various ideas around horizons offered up in the wiki cannot all be true simultaneously. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask somebody what they think is going on, as the matter is clearly not internally settled in the FE community, much like the many maps that are offered up.
Maybe you’d like to answer?
-
As secretagent says, when someone says a knife is sharp no-one is going to get an electron microscope out, note the bumps at that level and say "well akchooalley...".
And I already explained why this desperate defence is non-applicable here. Why waste your time restating it instead of addressing the issue?
an edge detection algorithm
lmao
You've already conceded there's a difference and that's the point I have been making.
There is a difference - it's just not the difference you need for your argument to work.
But I do also recognise that we live in reality, not a mathematically perfect world.
That's progress. Baby steps. Now, revise your argument to match reality.
The issue here is that the moment you remove the supposed perfection, and introduce the fact that the visible horizon is not the true horizon, your argument no longer differentiates FE from RE.
What you're doing is like responding to FE people who say "the horizon is flat, checkmate globetards!" with this image
I am doing nothing of the sort, and I am asking (no longer politely) that you stop putting words in my mouth. Address what I said, not what you made up during your last deliberation on the shitter.
All you did was indicate that the question was too basic for you to grace with an answer.
This is patently dishonest. For the reference of those watching at home, here is my answer:
"It's not sharp or clear "in the way" that it is blurry and gradual. This is not a complex statement, so there's not much to elaborate on."
Even though I remarked that this is not a complex statement, I made my best effort to clarify it for you. I also explained why it's difficult to work with your question as-is. If you'd like to dig deeper, you're welcome to ask more meaningful follow-up questions. However, if your preference is to lie about what I said and insist that I somehow refused to answer you, please understand that I won't be wasting more time on you.
-
All you did was indicate that the question was too basic for you to grace with an answer.
This is patently dishonest. For the reference of those watching at home, here is my answer:
"It's not sharp or clear "in the way" that it is blurry and gradual. This is not a complex statement, so there's not much to elaborate on."
Even though I remarked that this is not a complex statement, I made my best effort to clarify it for you. I also explained why it's difficult to work with your question as-is. If you'd like to dig deeper, you're welcome to ask more meaningful follow-up questions. However, if your preference is to lie about what I said and insist that I somehow refused to answer you, please understand that I won't be wasting more time on you.
Sorry Pete, but that's not the reply to my question - I think you've muddled up which conversation was which. I said:
I think that has rather more to do with the fact that his camera is clearly focussing at a point nearer than the horizon than it does with the shape of the earth. If we were to take a similar shot with the focus at the 'horizon' it would be a lot crisper.
Aside from that, what do you think causes a visible horizon? If the edge of the earth is many thousands of miles away, what exactly are we looking at when we see the horizon?
This was your reply:
Please familiarise yourself with basic FET before attempting to debate it.
Let's at least agree on what the disagreement is.
-
There is a difference - it's just not the difference you need for your argument to work.
My argument is that there is a difference between the observation of a horizon when visibility is less than the distance to said horizon and when visibility is greater than that distance.
When visibility is greater than the distance to the horizon you see a distinct horizon line. And yes, yes, it's not a perfect straight line. When you zoom in you can see waves and ripples. And it's not perfectly clear as it would be if we didn't have an atmosphere, there's a bit of atmospheric haze. Refraction is also a thing and that can make the apparent horizon different from the geometric one. So yes, all those things exist. But none of that changes the basic argument or observation. Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.
On a foggy day when visibility is less than the distance to the horizon it's completely different. You can't see the horizon, the sea just fades out. There's no clear line between the sea and sky.
And the reason for all this, according to RET, is that the horizon is a physical thing. The earth is a globe, so the sea curves away from the observer. The horizon line is the furthest you can see over that curve as per my diagram. With FE why would there even be a horizon line? There's a thousand miles of flat sea in front of you, why can you only see the first few miles? You could invoke waves if you're close to sea level, if you're up a hill as I was when I took that other photo above, then that explanation doesn't work. You're higher than the level of the waves and thus able to see over them, yet there's still a clear horizon line - visibility permitting.
My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image. The visibility would always be lower than the amount of sea which should be visible, so the sea would fade out gradually. The whole reason for the clear distinction between sea and sky on a RE is that the sea curves away from you, preventing you from seeing more sea. On a FE that reason doesn't exist.
-
I think you've muddled up which conversation was which.
Well, that's not quite right either. You asked multiple questions, and then expressed that you were unhappy with my reply to "your question" - seemingly leaving me to just guess which one you might mean. I responded to two of your posts: one, in which you asked a singular question, and which I criticised; and one, in which you asked multiple questions that indicated you hadn't done your reading - for which I provided you with a quick reminder of the rules and ignored the matter further.
I hope you can see why when you complained about "the question", the more recent post with a singular question seemed more intuitive than an older one with multiple questions, and one which you know better than to waste our time with.
Now, I admit I didn't pay much attention to your follow-ups, in which you repeatedly re-asked the questions after I told you not to even do it once. So, a more forceful reminder: read up on the basics before posting here again; do not spam the debate forums with complains that you failed to read the Wiki. This is a prerequisite to you using this forum.
My argument is that there is a difference between the observation of a horizon when visibility is less than the distance to said horizon and when visibility is greater than that distance.
Quite. The difference is that one of these occurs in reality.
When visibility is greater than the distance to the horizon you see a distinct horizon line. And yes, yes, it's not a perfect straight line.
No, sorry, that's not it at all. Again, this is you just arguing with RET. Under RE assumptions you will never, in your lived experience, end up in a scenario where the true horizon is clearly visible as a distinct line. The only question is whether the gradient is steep and pronounced, or not-so-steep.
And it's not perfectly clear as it would be if we didn't have an atmosphere, there's a bit of atmospheric haze. Refraction is also a thing and that can make the apparent horizon different from the geometric one. So yes, all those things exist. But none of that changes the basic argument or observation.
Indeed - your argument fails much sooner than that. All these factors just make it more obvious and readily experienced.
Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.
This incorrect. The limits of your perception are none of my concern - you can assist yourself with tooling if you need to. You have yet to post a single photo in which there is no gradual fade between the sea and the sky, except for ones in which the visual obstruction occurs much closer than the location of the true horizon.
And the reason for all this, according to RET, is that the horizon is a physical thing. The earth is a globe, so the sea curves away from the observer. The horizon line is the furthest you can see over that curve as per my diagram.
You're still wrong about this, no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy. You're mistaking the true horizon for something that you can actually see on Earth. You are right that in theory, on a perfect sphere with no atmospheric conditions, you would be able to perceive the true horizon, and it would be pretty close to a sharp line. However, you also concede that we do not live on a perfect sphere with no atmospheric conditions. What you see is not the true horizon - it's much closer to you than this hypothetical limit.
With FE why would there even be a horizon line?
For the same reason as RE; as long as we're not talking about the hypothetical true horizon, but rather the real intersection of the sea and sky that you can see, and which you provided a photograph of.
My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image.
This is misguided. You seem to think that these are two different scenarios. They aren't - they're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, to two different extents.
The visibility would always be lower than the amount of sea which should be visible, so the sea would fade out gradually.
It does - as you helpfully supported with photographs.
The whole reason for the clear distinction between sea and sky on a RE is that the sea curves away from you, preventing you from seeing more sea.
You keep trying to provide reasons for a distinction which doesn't exist. I can't force you to learn about how RET works, but you're really not gonna do a good job of either defending or disputing it when you're so misguided about its basic properties.
-
Right. Yeah, that's roughly the level of hand-waving I was expecting here. "Well, y'know, it isn't sharp, but it's sharp."
As secretagent says, when someone says a knife is sharp no-one is going to get an electron microscope out, note the bumps at that level and say "well akchooalley...".
Put any of the pictures I've posted through an edge detection algorithm and it's going to show you a clear horizon line unless you make it so sensitive then it literally only detects a line if the two adjacent pixels are completely different. Compare and contrast with the foggy day image where you're not going to get an edge. You've already conceded there's a difference and that's the point I have been making.
AATW claims, in no uncertain terms (despite your attempt at muddying the subject) that the absence of one would disprove FET. He backs this up with diagrams, which clearly show that, in his view, the horizon in RET would be a mathematically perfect divide. His side-view illustrates a point intersection.
This is all accurate. But I do also recognise that we live in reality, not a mathematically perfect world. My diagram shows the situation, but of course in reality the sea isn't perfectly flat, there are some atmospheric effects. I'm using the word sharp to contrast the horizon on a clear day with a foggy day where the sea just fades out.
He is correct - this would disprove FET. What he misses is that the absence of one would also disprove RET, and reality itself. This is not the time to say "Well, okay, but what if we make the word mean something else? Something less restrictive, maybe?".
What you're doing is like responding to FE people who say "the horizon is flat, checkmate globetards!" with this image
(https://i.ibb.co/yhM6PwY/Sunken-Ship.jpg)
And saying "Aha! Look! That's not perfectly flat, there are bumps". That doesn't "help facilitate meaningful conversation". We all know what they mean by flat. Come on dude, this is just pointless pedantry. The contrast I am making is the horizon one sees on a clear day with the lack of one on a misty day. The issue with the latter is visibility. And on a FE where you've got thousands of miles of flat sea stretching in front of you visibility would always be an issue. You wouldn't have a horizon a few miles away beyond which you only see the sky. I think we agree it isn't visibility, you claimed it was "waves, usually" and ignored the part of my previous post where I explained why that can't be true if you're at any altitude more than a few meters.
Am guessing you didnt take that pic but you are accepting it as face value. Its one of the most faked images I have seen - cant you see that? Or does your indoctrinated mind not allow you to? In fact the more I look at it the more my sides split.
Its too close up to be real. If the photographer was that close there wouldnt be a curve. Its a joke. Theres plenty others like this but ask anyone who has tried to film 'over the horizon' how difficult it is.
-
I spent the first 18 years of my life in Plymouth, UK, and would often see exactly that type of image with my own eyes through my binoculars. Especially Royal Navy vessels, and those of other nations, manoeuvering for Flag Officer Sea Training exercises just offshore. Anyone used to living by the coast and ship-watching would recognise that picture. I can take similar pictures of the Eddystone lighthouse too, approximately 12 miles offshore from Plymouth. It has stump next to it, the remnants of the previous lighthouse (Smeaton's Tower) that now stands on the promanade on Plymouth Hoe, and depending on one's height above sea level, the stump is either visible or not. It's a great test.
Seeing a 'crisp' or 'sharp', or whatever other words anyone wants to use, horizon is not unusual from such a location.
-
Am guessing you didnt take that pic but you are accepting it as face value. Its one of the most faked images I have seen - cant you see that? Or does your indoctrinated mind not allow you to? In fact the more I look at it the more my sides split.
Its too close up to be real. If the photographer was that close there wouldnt be a curve. Its a joke. Theres plenty others like this but ask anyone who has tried to film 'over the horizon' how difficult it is.
I couldn't tell you whether it's fake or real, I didn't take it. But what makes you sure it's fake? I don't understand "Its too close up to be real." Couldn't the photographer have used a zoom lens?
-
Under RE assumptions you will never, in your lived experience, end up in a scenario where the true horizon is clearly visible as a distinct line.
This is simultaneously true and irrelevant.
In RE when looking out to sea you can only see the first few miles of the sea and the reason for that is because it curves away from you. At some point it's that curve which prevents you from seeing more sea, as per my diagram.
Now, the things we've talked about do change the observation from the one you'd get on a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere. Of course they do.
Refraction means you can often see a bit further over the curve than you would be able to if we had no atmosphere.
The sea isn't perfectly flat, so waves mean the line isn't perfectly straight.
Atmospheric haze makes the line not perfectly sharp.
All these things are true, but they're all irrelevant. You are generally not looking at the true or geometric horizon, but that is irrelevant.
You are still looking at a physical line, these effects simply change the distance, straightness and clarity of that line.
Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.
This incorrect. The limits of your perception are none of my concern - you can assist yourself with tooling if you need to.
I have. Your response was, and I quote, "lmao". But my tooling is pretty clear where the horizon line is in that picture just like it's clear where the edges of the sails are:
(https://i.ibb.co/9cQqD4k/horizonedge.jpg)
If you have ideas for other tooling I could use then I'm open to suggestions.
You have yet to post a single photo in which there is no gradual fade between the sea and the sky
My perception and edge detection tool beg to differ on the word "gradual".
Again, the observations aren't going to match the mathematically perfectly model because we don't live in one.
With FE why would there even be a horizon line?
For the same reason as RE
This cannot possibly be true. You know what the RE reason is, the FE reason can't be the same because in FE you have a thousand miles of sea stretching out in front of you.
But you can only see the first few miles, then suddenly it's just sky. I'm struggling to believe that you wouldn't know where to draw a line between sea and sky in any of those images except in the foggy day image. Because in that one you can't see as far as the physical horizon.
My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image.
This is misguided. You seem to think that these are two different scenarios. They aren't - they're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, to two different extents.
This is simply incorrect. In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.
In all the other pictures the line is clear because you're looking at a physical thing. I mean, it's clear to my perception and my tooling. I don't know how to resolve that disagreement other than maybe for you to use some other tooling and show the results. Otherwise we're going to spend all week going "nuh uh", "is too" ad nauseum.
-
I have. Your response was, and I quote, "lmao".
*sigh* Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory. I ran your post through a Portuguese-to-Russian translator, and the results were gibberish. Therefore, your post is gibberish. Science!
Or, in simpler terms: lmao.
If you have ideas for other tooling I could use then I'm open to suggestions.
If you want to assess a colour gradient, I'd start with a colour picker. You'll also want to make sure you choose relevant photographs. You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277318#msg277318), but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them as part of your "hAhA cHeCkMaTe" zinger (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277393#msg277393). This kind of lack of consistency and discipline is another factor that fucks with the quality of your results.
My perception and edge detection tool beg to differ on the word "gradual".
Your perception contradicts RET. Your choice of tool follows your flawed anti-scientific approach of choosing whatever will reinforce your hypothesis, regardless of validity, rather than test it. Ultimately, it is this approach that prevents you from making a good argument here.
Again, the observations aren't going to match the mathematically perfectly model because we don't live in one.
Irrelevant.
This cannot possibly be true.
On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it, which is why you're stuck with self-contradictory alternatives.
You know what the RE reason is
Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.
But you can only see the first few miles, then suddenly it's just sky.
It is not sudden. It's gradual.
I'm struggling to believe that you wouldn't know where to draw a line between sea and sky in any of those images
Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.
In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.
This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.
In all the other pictures the line is clear because you're looking at a physical thing.
Oh my god, you're so close to a Eureka moment there, but you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.
I don't know how to resolve that disagreement other than maybe for you to use some other tooling and show the results. Otherwise we're going to spend all week going "nuh uh", "is too" ad nauseum.
The only possible resolutions here are that you discard your biased method of presupposing the outcome and actively seeking out anything that sounds like it might prove it, or we both get bored and walk away. I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.
-
Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory.
You claimed that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". I'd suggest an edge detection tool is a pretty good test of that assertion.
What's a colour picker going to do other than tell me that the line isn't mathematically perfect? Of course it isn't. But it's not a gradual fade either. Those aren't the only two possibilities. The line between sea and sky is very clear. That line IS the horizon, which I'm defining the way the dictionary does "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet".
You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them
No. The contrast between the two images is obvious and stands. The 3rd image is in addition, not instead of the original comparison. There's no switcheroo, it's additional evidence. It's a further response to the claim that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". The 3rd image shows that even if you zoom in you still see a very clear distinction between sea and sky, there's no gradual fade between the two. Now, at that scale you see the details of the waves, you see the line isn't perfectly straight. Yes of course there's a difference between reality and a mathematically perfect model. But when visibility allows you see a clear distinction between sea and sky. And the reason for that, according to RE, is because the rest of the sea is hidden by the curve of the earth.
Your perception contradicts RET.
You keep saying that. Can you explain why?
On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it
I rejected it because in the two models the geometry of the sea is different. That surely means there will be different observations.
Now, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the difference would be as pronounced as I initially imagined, but I don't believe on a FE you'd get the clear line when you zoom in on a horizon which you do in reality.
You know what the RE reason is
Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.
OK, well I've told you what I think. You tell me what you think. Then maybe we can make some progress.
Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.
I'm citing pictures which show a clear line between sea and sky. All you're doing is looking at 4 fingers and repeatedly saying you see 5. I don't know how to help you with that, the rest of us are all seeing 4. And you keep repeating it too without citing anything at all.
In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.
This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.
No. There are 3 scenarios.
A foggy day, a mathematically perfect horizon and reality:
(https://i.ibb.co/Ypx57Qy/Horizon-Comparison.jpg)
There IS a difference between a mathematically perfect horizon and reality, but that's not the same difference as between the reality on a clear day and the reality on a foggy day.
The first difference does change the observation from a perfectly sharp line to an imperfect one, but the line is still very clear.
The second difference is between a horizon you can see and one you can't.
The horizon line you see on a clear day is a physical thing. More sea is out there but it's hidden by the curve of the earth, that's why there's a limit in how much sea you can...see. Ugh. Sorry, terrible English. On a clear day you can see the horizon, that's why there's a clear line. On a foggy day you can't see as far as the horizon, that's why the sea just fades out. Here's a picture of a line of trees I took on a foggy day and again on a clear one. Let's say that left most tree is the horizon where I've drawn the line.
Even on a clear day you might not be able to see the tree perfectly, that's the difference between mathematical model and reality. But on a foggy day you can't even see the tree. That's the difference:
(https://i.ibb.co/kGRm80b/horizonfog.jpg)
Now, on a FE you're right, you'd never be able to see a clear horizon because there's thousands of miles of sea in front of you. On a RE you would be able to see one. And you can.
you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.
I'm not ignoring you, I'm responding to you. I just happen to believe you are incorrect.
I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.
Well, you can tell me what you think I'm getting wrong about it and correct me.
-
Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory.
You claimed that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". I'd suggest an edge detection tool is a pretty good test of that assertion.
What's a colour picker going to do other than tell me that the line isn't mathematically perfect? Of course it isn't. But it's not a gradual fade either. Those aren't the only two possibilities. The line between sea and sky is very clear. That line IS the horizon, which I'm defining the way the dictionary does "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet".
You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them
No. The contrast between the two images is obvious and stands. The 3rd image is in addition, not instead of the original comparison. There's no switcheroo, it's additional evidence. It's a further response to the claim that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". The 3rd image shows that even if you zoom in you still see a very clear distinction between sea and sky, there's no gradual fade between the two. Now, at that scale you see the details of the waves, you see the line isn't perfectly straight. Yes of course there's a difference between reality and a mathematically perfect model. But when visibility allows you see a clear distinction between sea and sky. And the reason for that, according to RE, is because the rest of the sea is hidden by the curve of the earth.
Your perception contradicts RET.
You keep saying that. Can you explain why?
On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it
I rejected it because in the two models the geometry of the sea is different. That surely means there will be different observations.
Now, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the difference would be as pronounced as I initially imagined, but I don't believe on a FE you'd get the clear line when you zoom in on a horizon which you do in reality.
You know what the RE reason is
Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.
OK, well I've told you what I think. You tell me what you think. Then maybe we can make some progress.
Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.
I'm citing pictures which show a clear line between sea and sky. All you're doing is looking at 4 fingers and repeatedly saying you see 5. I don't know how to help you with that, the rest of us are all seeing 4. And you keep repeating it too without citing anything at all.
In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.
This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.
No. There are 3 scenarios.
A foggy day, a mathematically perfect horizon and reality:
(https://i.ibb.co/Ypx57Qy/Horizon-Comparison.jpg)
There IS a difference between a mathematically perfect horizon and reality, but that's not the same difference as between the reality on a clear day and the reality on a foggy day.
The first difference does change the observation from a perfectly sharp line to an imperfect one, but the line is still very clear.
The second difference is between a horizon you can see and one you can't.
The horizon line you see on a clear day is a physical thing. More sea is out there but it's hidden by the curve of the earth, that's why there's a limit in how much sea you can...see. Ugh. Sorry, terrible English. On a clear day you can see the horizon, that's why there's a clear line. On a foggy day you can't see as far as the horizon, that's why the sea just fades out. Here's a picture of a line of trees I took on a foggy day and again on a clear one. Let's say that left most tree is the horizon where I've drawn the line.
Even on a clear day you might not be able to see the tree perfectly, that's the difference between mathematical model and reality. But on a foggy day you can't even see the tree. That's the difference:
(https://i.ibb.co/kGRm80b/horizonfog.jpg)
Now, on a FE you're right, you'd never be able to see a clear horizon because there's thousands of miles of sea in front of you. On a RE you would be able to see one. And you can.
you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.
I'm not ignoring you, I'm responding to you. I just happen to believe you are incorrect.
I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.
Well, you can tell me what you think I'm getting wrong about it and correct me.
You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'. And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?
-
You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'. And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?
Yes, its like the horizontal line is being viewed tangentially. That's because you are viewing it tangentially.
No, that is not correct. Why would it be a blur? As far as the horizon, it is visible. Beyond the horizon it is not visible. Look at a pool ball. Look over the hood of your car. I'm not going to draw a diagram or show you a photo, because that introduces the idea that the line has thickness, or a row of pixels; it doesn't. Its a line. Or a demarcation, if you will.
Above it; atmosphere and space.
Below it: pool ball, car hood, Earth, or whatever.
-
The line between sea and sky is very clear.
This is just not true at all.
-
Yes it is. It is very often a clear, definite line.
Do you live near the coast?
-
The line between sea and sky is very clear.
This is just not true at all.
Are you suggesting that in the photos I've posted, or just looking out to sea on a clear day, you wouldn't know where the line between sea and sky is?
-
Yes it is. It is very often a clear, definite line.
Do you live near the coast?
The line between sea and sky is very clear.
This is just not true at all.
Are you suggesting that in the photos I've posted, or just looking out to sea on a clear day, you wouldn't know where the line between sea and sky is?
Exactly.
Often times it is readily apparent the color shades of water on the surface and the color shades of sky above are so indistinguishable from each other or the reflectivity of the water or sky is so mirror-like, one can never be sure where sky ends and water meet.
It is ludicrous for anyone to claim the color shading of the water or sky (or the reflectivity of the water or sky) at a point over three miles distant from their location is very distinct and different.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
-
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
Is high-altitude footage of the earth “looking flat” good enough conditions, though?
-
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
Is high-altitude footage of the earth “looking flat” good enough conditions, though?
Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.
How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.
-
Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.
How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.
On a clear day, you can see it by eye, by telescope or binoculars. More importantly, and what really pops the bubble of your theory, is that the "imperceptible" point has been used for centuries by mariners to determine the elevation of celestial objects in order to navigate.
-
Regardless of how far you can see, it doesn't change what I wrote.
How far away the perceived point where "water and sky meet," cannot be precisely determined because you are truly unaware which is which.
On a clear day, you can see it by eye, by telescope or binoculars. More importantly, and what really pops the bubble of your theory, is that the "imperceptible" point has been used for centuries by mariners to determine the elevation of celestial objects in order to navigate.
The "imperceptible," point is simply a level means and is actually just "close enough." Amazingly, it relies on the point to be a flat figure.
So, thanks for joining the club! Welcome!
FE Wins!
-
So, thanks for joining the club! Welcome!
FE Wins!
I believe you misunderstood.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
Luckily, you don’t have to use the naked eye. I posted a picture above which was zoomed in. The division between sea and sky is very clear and at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.
-
at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.
Which is how you know you're not looking at the horizon. You already know this - you were explicitly told it and, even though you chose not to address it, even in passing, you assured me that you didn't ignore it. In other words - you've read it, and you have no response.
Stop trying to recycle arguments you already know are critically flawed - it makes you look dishonest, even though you're obviously totally just joking.
-
You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'. And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?
Yes, its like the horizontal line is being viewed tangentially. That's because you are viewing it tangentially.
No, that is not correct. Why would it be a blur? As far as the horizon, it is visible. Beyond the horizon it is not visible. Look at a pool ball. Look over the hood of your car. I'm not going to draw a diagram or show you a photo, because that introduces the idea that the line has thickness, or a row of pixels; it doesn't. Its a line. Or a demarcation, if you will.
Above it; atmosphere and space.
Below it: pool ball, car hood, Earth, or whatever.
If you agree its a tangent then you will accept tangents are infinite. there is no definite point of contact from the line of sight of the curve. Try drawing a line at a tangent to a circle on a piece of paper. the point of contact cannot technically be located as it is only so much as the minutest 'touch'. This is why there can be no definite line for the horizon. What you see is an amalgamation of the pre-curve-the curve and with light refraction the post-curve.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
Luckily, you don’t have to use the naked eye. I posted a picture above which was zoomed in. The division between sea and sky is very clear and at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
-
If you agree its a tangent then you will accept tangents are infinite. there is no definite point of contact from the line of sight of the curve. Try drawing a line at a tangent to a circle on a piece of paper. the point of contact cannot technically be located as it is only so much as the minutest 'touch'. This is why there can be no definite line for the horizon. What you see is an amalgamation of the pre-curve-the curve and with light refraction the post-curve.
You're missing the point; its exactly because its an infinitely precise point, and you are trying to represent it with finite terms. The reason you can't draw it (and the reason I haven't tried to) is the limitations of pen and paper. The moment you try to draw it, you are introducing thickness, which it does not have, so your diagram is always going to be a false representation.
Do you have access to technical drawing software? Draw a tangent to an arc. Now zoom in. Zoom in again. You can zoom in to infinity, to the limits of the software, making your "arc" and "tangent" thinner and thinner. Your pixels are representing millimeters on an arc the size of Earth.
-
at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.
Which is how you know you're not looking at the horizon. You already know this - you were explicitly told it
Well, you claimed it but I don't really understand that claim. The horizon is the line between sea and sky. And the reason for that line in RE is that the sea curves away for you. That's what stops you seeing more sea. But why would that line be perfectly straight? We've already talked about the mathematical perfection and the real world.
I don't understand why you think this distinction matters.
Stop trying to recycle arguments you already know are critically flawed
How about your start explaining why you believe the arguments to be flawed. Then maybe we can have a more sensible conversation.
-
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.
Do you live near the coast, SimonC?
-
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
If we're getting to this level of detail, its a median line between the peaks and troughs. The volume of water present above the median is equal to the volume absent below the line. The position of the median is a function of gravity, the shape of the Earth, and the volume of water on the Earth. Waves are principally a localised topical effect of wind; past, and present.
@Gonzo; by my count that's 3 individuals who have failed to respond to your question. Its difficult to respond to someone's opinion on a phenomenon (in this case the maritime horizon), when we don't know whether they are actually in a position to observe it directly. (Or, indeed, if they've ever observed it directly).
-
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?
Come on here claiming a sharp line, then asks "why does it have to be a flat line?"
Come back when you figure it out.
-
I don't really understand that claim.
I'm glad you finally admit that. It's an improvement on your previous suggestion that the claim, which you don't understand (and which you likely haven't read), is wrong. Baby steps.
The horizon is the line between sea and sky.
Words have meanings. You can't just reinvent the horizon and expect others to accept it. Or, if you can, then I demand the same privilege. Beware, though, I'm gonna pick something real silly for my definition.
How about your start explaining why you believe the arguments to be flawed. Then maybe we can have a more sensible conversation.
I did. And then I pointed out when it seemed like you ignored it. Instead of no longer ignoring it, you just told me you aren't ignoring it. So, since you're tooooootally not ignoring it, but you're also not responding to it, we're left with very few sane options.
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?
-
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?
'You can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon' You as in 'I'?
I can't. I have seen images of ships allegedly half over the horizon which have been fabricated. I have seen video footage of ships at what appears to be a great distance but there is nothing to suggest they are over the curve.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.
Do you live near the coast, SimonC?
Just because someone has done something for a number of years does not mean they have been doing it right. Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. My heating engineer had been using an old saw to cut coper pipe since he was an apprentice. He had no idea that modern day pipe cutters had been invented and carried on blissfully with his 'rough' and time-consuming jointing method.
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon. But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.
-
I can't. I have seen images of ships allegedly half over the horizon which have been fabricated. I have seen video footage of ships at what appears to be a great distance but there is nothing to suggest they are over the curve.
This is so frustrating that it hardly seems worth pursuing. Its all "images" this, and "video" that; have you ever actually seen a marine horizon with your eyeballs? With ships on it?
And of course you can't see a line. There isn't a line with thickness, that's the point. What you are supposed to be observing is the edge of one entity, and the start of another. Look at the edge of your phone, or monitor. Is there a line? Can you supply an image of it?
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?
Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.
Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?
Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.
Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.
And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?
As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea... Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.
-
...at times...
Yes, "at times". What exactly is the issue here? Isn't it really simple? Sometimes where the sky meets the land/water, whatever, that meeting point, the visual delineation between the two, is crisp, sharp as a tack. Other times, it's not. Mystery solved?
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?
Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.
Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.
And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?
You have no way of knowing what situations are present at the moment of observation, given you are three miles away.
As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea... Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.
They are at their point, and you are at yours. They are looking at what things look like up close, not from three miles away. Things look different.
-
...at times...
Yes, "at times". What exactly is the issue here? Isn't it really simple? Sometimes where the sky meets the land/water, whatever, that meeting point, the visual delineation between the two, is crisp, sharp as a tack. Other times, it's not. Mystery solved?
No, it isn't.
I described precisely why.
markjo wants to believe the color gradients of water appear the same when directly observed at that point and from three miles away.
They do not.
-
Now we're getting somewhere.
Clear day, Observer A views the horizon 3 miles away. Observer B is 3 miles from Observer A, on his horizon. Neither can see the conditions.
-
Now we're getting somewhere.
Clear day, Observer A views the horizon 3 miles away. Observer B is 3 miles from Observer A, on his horizon. Neither can see the conditions.
Either you:
Just don't understand what I wrote; or,
Clearly understood and just rephrased it on purpose to represent something I claimed absolutely nowhere in the thread.
-
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon.
But I've shown examples and I've used an edge detection tool which demonstrates that the distinction between sea and sky is clear.
Pete has claimed that it's the wrong tool, his suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense. No-one is claiming we live in a mathematically perfect world where the line would be perfect, but the distinction is clear enough.
But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.
I showed a zoomed in picture which shows a detail of the horizon. At that scale you can see there are bumps of the waves, as you would expect. And you can see the top of a distant ship which is beyond and below the horizon. But the distinction between sea and sky is perfectly clear. You called the picture fake without providing any evidence. I also showed a video of ship disappearing below the horizon and emerging from it. Your quibble there was the timelapse stopped following one ship, which was almost completely sunken and started following another which was also mostly sunken and followed it as it came towards the camera and emerged from below the horizon. Your complaint was that the video didn't follow it as it sunk all the way, which is spurious. Why did it sink at all in your opinion?
You're free to make your own observations of course and present them.
-
But I've shown examples and I've used an edge detection tool which demonstrates that the distinction between sea and sky is clear.
No, it does not. If your methodology demonstrates something that's false, you should seriously question your methodology. But sure, let's poke at it some more.
Using "an edge detection tool" (you didn't clarify what tool, how you set it up, or what it actually did - because you don't know any of these things) can produce the following results on a familiar image (this will of course not be an exhaustive list, just a sample):
Option 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/cfeLMAE.png)
Option 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ai4Wd2M.png)
Option 3:
(https://i.imgur.com/QbtRXS7.png)
Option 4:
(https://i.imgur.com/7e4O3Aw.png)
Option 5:
(https://i.imgur.com/0JSEz9R.png)
Option 6:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4fj15F.png)
All of these images were generated using fairly standard edge-detection algorithms, with fairly typical parameters. So, which one of them is "double-plus-good real"? Is it option 3, because it shows what you consider "obvious"? Or option 2 because it's the opposite of what you'd expect? Ooh, ooh, maybe it's option 5, which so beautifully identified the actual edge of your use of the gradient tool. You didn't even bother to place it in the middle when you produced your picture, you just wanted it to "look right".
Or maybe, just maybe, throwing a tool you don't understand at a problem is not the right solution here, especially when the tool was never designed to find what you're trying to find? Just a thought.
You might also notice that, even between different applications that did find an edge in """reality""", they found it in different places. Egads, your methodology, which was supposed to show us that locating the horizon is easy, results in... multiple possible locations of the horizon. Crazy how nature do that.
Pete has claimed that it's the wrong tool, his suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense.
You're very generous to yourself. Please try not to mix up you not understanding something with it making no sense. There are resources available out there to help you understand. This includes me - you can ask me questions instead of [checks notes...] screaming "FAAAAAAKE!" and running away.
No-one is claiming we live in a mathematically perfect world where the line would be perfect, but the distinction is clear enough.
I agree - the distinction is that your "foggy day" and "reality" (oh, why did you have to name it so...) sections show a gradient, and the "mathematical model" one does not.
Oh, wait, that's not the "clear distinction" you wanted. Huh.
-
And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?
You have no way of knowing what situations are present at the moment of observation, given you are three miles away.
As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea... Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.
They are at their point, and you are at yours. They are looking at what things look like up close, not from three miles away. Things look different.
The conditions across the three or more miles (depending on your elevation) across the sea determines what kind of view of the horizon you will get. If you can see a nice, crisp distinction between the water and the sky (horizon), then there is a pretty good chance that the conditions across those three or more miles are pretty favorable for such observations. However, if you have any questions about the conditions between the your position and the three or more miles in question, then you should have a trusted associate get in a boat and go out three or more miles and report the conditions along the way. Again, if the conditions are favorable along the way, then there's a pretty good chance that the view from the boat will be pretty much the same as the view from the shore. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
-
And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?
You have no way of knowing what situations are present at the moment of observation, given you are three miles away.
As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea... Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.
They are at their point, and you are at yours. They are looking at what things look like up close, not from three miles away. Things look different.
The conditions across the three or more miles (depending on your elevation) across the sea determines what kind of view of the horizon you will get. If you can see a nice, crisp distinction between the water and the sky (horizon), then there is a pretty good chance that the conditions across those three or more miles are pretty favorable for such observations. However, if you have any questions about the conditions between the your position and the three or more miles in question, then you should have a trusted associate get in a boat and go out three or more miles and report the conditions along the way. Again, if the conditions are favorable along the way, then there's a pretty good chance that the view from the boat will be pretty much the same as the view from the shore. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
There is no clear distinction between the water and the sky.
You can never be sure of which is which from three miles away.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
Please stop making such obviously false statements.
-
There is no clear distinction between the water and the sky.
You can never be sure of which is which from three miles away.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
It's hard to understand or believe because it's obviously wrong. If you can't see where the water ends and the sky begins in this photo, then I'm not sure how much more clear the distinction needs to be to satisfy you.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/horizon-blue-ocean-water-sky-blue-ocean-water-horizon-175031146.jpg)
I'm also not quite sure why you're hung up on three miles. Depending on your elevation, the horizon is often far more than three miles away.
-
There is no clear distinction between the water and the sky.
You can never be sure of which is which from three miles away.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
It's hard to understand or believe because it's obviously wrong. If you can't see where the water ends and the sky begins in this photo, then I'm not sure how much more clear the distinction needs to be to satisfy you.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/horizon-blue-ocean-water-sky-blue-ocean-water-horizon-175031146.jpg)
You are sadly wrong if you think the photo you present depicts a clear distinction, but it doesn't. Go ahead and point it out.
I'm also not quite sure why you're hung up on three miles. Depending on your elevation, the horizon is often far more than three miles away.
I didn't introduce three miles into the discussion. RE adherents did.
Not hung up on it at all, as I have no way of telling how far I can see out over open water if my eyes are just over 6 feet above the level where water meets the shore.
-
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/horizon-blue-ocean-water-sky-blue-ocean-water-horizon-175031146.jpg)
You are sadly wrong if you think the photo you present depicts a clear distinction, but it doesn't. Go ahead and point it out.
Ummm.... The dark blue area in the bottom half of the picture is the sea and the light blue area in the top half is the sky. To my eyes, there is a pretty clear and distinct change from dark blue to light blue in the middle.
-
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/horizon-blue-ocean-water-sky-blue-ocean-water-horizon-175031146.jpg)
You are sadly wrong if you think the photo you present depicts a clear distinction, but it doesn't. Go ahead and point it out.
Ummm.... The dark blue area in the bottom half of the picture is the sea and the light blue area in the top half is the sky. To my eyes, there is a pretty clear and distinct change from dark blue to light blue in the middle.
Ummm...the light blue under the clouds...what is that...water or sky...how do you know for sure...
-
Ummm.... The dark blue area in the bottom half of the picture is the sea and the light blue area in the top half is the sky. To my eyes, there is a pretty clear and distinct change from dark blue to light blue in the middle.
And that, my dear friend, is why we don't measure these things by looking at low-resolution pictures with the naked eye. Even in your cherry-picked example, there's a clear gradient, which you could measure, if you were interested in not being a complete waste of oxygen.
-
If your methodology demonstrates something that's false
You keep claiming this, but haven't explained why you believe it to be false.
Using "an edge detection tool" (you didn't clarify what tool, how you set it up, or what it actually did - because you don't know any of these things) can produce the following results on a familiar image
Yes. Of course you can produce different results by setting the sensitivity to different levels. I used the one in Paint.NET. I can't remember exactly what sensitivity level I set it to, I can find out if you really care.
I did an image processing course as part of my degree by the way and while that was some time ago I do remember writing a simple edge detection algorithm. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in this, but I know the basics of how they work. I'm not as ignorant about all this as you suppose. And yes, of course if you set the tool too sensitive then it won't detect the horizon line. And OK, I did set it at a level which detects the line. You got me. BUT, I don't believe that was fudging the results. In the image which shows the results of the edge detection tool the edges of the sails show as weaker lines than the horizon line. I mean...sails have edges, right? Obviously in real life objects don't have thick black outlines around them. No edge is going to be mathematically perfect. And therefore no edge detection algorithm set to detect only perfect edges is going to detect them. And that's the reason your suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense. That would work in showing the difference between two pixels which delineate a perfectly clear edge, but those don't exist in the real world.
A clear line between sea and sky, or sail and sky, or any two objects, can exist without it being mathematically perfect or being a gradual fade between one and the other. Those aren't the only two options.
the distinction is that your "foggy day" and "reality" (oh, why did you have to name it so...) sections show a gradient, and the "mathematical model" one does not.
Oh, wait, that's not the "clear distinction" you wanted. Huh.
It's not about what I want, it's about reality. There's a difference between mathematical perfection and reality.
But there is also a difference (a different difference, if you will) between observations on a foggy day when you can't see as far as the horizon, and observations on a clear day when you can.
-
You keep claiming this, but haven't explained why you believe it to be false
Of course I did. You're just a little preoccupied repeatedly declaring your supremacy, even when it defies RET. Let me know if you ever choose to break that cycle. It might not turn you to FE, but maybe it'll make you a semi-servicable denizen of the 21st century.
Yes. Of course you can produce different results by setting the sensitivity to different levels.
Ah. But that's not what I did, and you already know that's not what I did. I pre-empted your reaction and informed you that I didn't mess with the parameters, and that I certainly didn't take them outside of reasonable defaults. Of course, you're also not a moron, so you know some of the outcomes I showed you couldn't be possible by just adjusting "sensitivity" (not that you know what that means in the context of the algorithm you chose, because you don't know what algorithm you chose, but the intuition is there).
I used the one in Paint.NET. I can't remember exactly what sensitivity level I set it to, I can find out if you really care.
Oh, I don't care. I know what you did. It's you who doesn't. But let me spoil your fun a little further - it's not just finding out what value you picked for "sensitivity" that you need to move your argument forward. You need to find out what "sensitivity" is; what the algorithm you chose does.
Before you start thinking about Zeteticism, it would be prudent for you to at least understand basic science. Plugging data into programs you don't understand and hoping they'll support your preconceived notions just ain't it.
I did an image processing course as part of my degree by the way
I'm sorry, and there really is no nice way of saying this, but - I hope you don't expect me to be impressed. I spent most of my professional life teaching undergraduates, and I have a very low opinion of the system. You might as well tell me you've been potty trained. I don't disbelieve you, but I'm not immediately swept off my feet.
I do remember writing a simple edge detection algorithm. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in this, but I know the basics of how they work. I'm not as ignorant about all this as you suppose.
And yet you keep referring to them as if there was only one. That's why I showed you the outputs of multiple edge detection algorithms, without straying away from their reasonable parameters (again, plural). I don't just say you don't know how they work for the hell of it, nor do I do it to insult you. It's just that every message you send shows that you have no idea what you're taking about, beyond maybe a couple hours of a C++ lab.
And OK, I did set it at a level which detects the line. You got me.
I didn't "get you". In fact, I assumed you didn't touch the sliders. The fact that you did simply means that I underestimated how much you meddled with a sound methodology.
BUT, I don't believe that was fudging the results. In the image which shows the results of the edge detection tool the edges of the sails show as weaker lines than the horizon line. I mean...sails have edges, right?
Another example of you showing you don't know what you're talking about. For your algorithm of choice, a thicker line would imply less confidence in edge detection. But you thought the opposite. You're just slamming data into a program you don't understand, and confidently declaring your conclusions from outputs the meaning of which you don't understand.
And that's the reason your suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense. That would work in showing the difference between two pixels which delineate a perfectly clear edge, but those don't exist in the real world.
That's because you are, fundamentally, anti-scientific. You want to find an edge. You therefore reject any method that will not find one. But I didn't tell you to look for an edge - I told you to look for a gradient. And measuring colours of adjacent pixels is a very reliable way of identifying a colour gradient - they either do smoothly change from one colour to another, or they don't. There are caveats here, of course - some of the examples shown in these thread are hilariously JPEG-crushed - but let's learn how to crawl before running a marathon, eh?
Once again, I encourage you to do science. Don't sit here farting our declarations of how wrong I am - you didn't even understand what I'm saying, you're quire a few steps away from being able to analyse whether I'm right or not. If you have questions about I propose, try the radical approach of asking them.
It's not about what I want, it's about reality.
I passionately agree. I'll be ready for you whenever you'd like to discuss reality, rather than chasing results you want.
-
You keep claiming this, but haven't explained why you believe it to be false
Of course I did.
OK, well I did find a post which wasn't a reply to me so I guess that's why I missed it.
Basically your claim is that the horizon can't be sharp because we have an atmosphere. You also said something about in RET the earth not having an edge but I don't really understand that bit. If we were on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere then the horizon would be a line - actually a circle around you - which would be the limit you could see. The radius of that circle would be determined by your viewer height. You wouldn't be able to see further than that because of the ground curving away from you. Now obviously we don't live on this mathematically perfect world, but that's still what the horizon is.
Another example of you showing you don't know what you're talking about. For your algorithm of choice, a thicker line would imply less confidence in edge detection.
Can you explain that? It's the "Strength" slider I adjusted. The higher I set that the more and thicker lines it shows as edges. As I turn it lower those lines get fewer and thinner. If you turn it all the way down then you don't get any edges at all. So how would thicker lines imply less confidence?
That's because you are, fundamentally, anti-scientific. You want to find an edge.
I don't "want" anything. In all the pictures I've posted the horizon simply looks very clear to me. An edge detection tool is a reasonable way of verifying that. You dispute that of course, but that dispute seems to revolve around the line being a perfect edge. That isn't the RE claim.
I didn't tell you to look for an edge - I told you to look for a gradient. And measuring colours of adjacent pixels is a very reliable way of identifying a colour gradient - they either do smoothly change from one colour to another, or they don't.
And what would that demonstrate? That there is no mathematical perfect edge? OK. Granted. And nor would I expect there to be. I took this photo, its of the edge of a wall as it turns a corner, beyond it looks through a window into a dark hallway, so there's a clear distinction between the wall and the view beyond it. The top below is part of the picture, the lower part is a portion of the top, zoomed in:
(https://i.ibb.co/q0DnCmD/door.jpg)
So...I guess my wall doesn't have an edge then. Except of course it bloody does. Whether it's JPEG compression or lack of sharpness in the image or whatever, the picture doesn't show a perfect edge. That doesn't mean the wall doesn't have an edge which an edge detection algorithm would find.
Having thought about this some more, I have come to the conclusion that the observation of the horizon wouldn't be as different as I supposed if we did live on a FE. I think that the line would be a little less clear on a FE but it's an impossible experiment to run to find out. There are of course other clues about the horizon and in particular the observations of objects beyond it which are better differentiators between the two models.
-
Basically your claim is that the horizon can't be sharp because we have an atmosphere.
No.
I repeat my invitation: if there is something you don't understand, you can try the radical approach of asking questions.
Can you explain that? It's the "Strength" slider I adjusted. The higher I set that the more and thicker lines it shows as edges. As I turn it lower those lines get fewer and thinner. If you turn it all the way down then you don't get any edges at all. So how would thicker lines imply less confidence?
Sure! Although you're correct that adjusting the "strength" slider would result in thicker lines, that's not related to what I'm saying. Within the same run of the same algorithm, a thicker line implies a more poorly defined edge. You can see that in action in several of my examples from earlier:
(https://i.imgur.com/0JSEz9R.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Ai4Wd2M.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QbtRXS7.png)
Ignore the "foggy day" portion (it's useless for oh-so-many reasons), but compare the """reality""" portion to the "mathematical model". See how the gradient translates to a visibly thicker line than the sharp delineation? (Or, in one case, see how the line isn't there at all for the "mathematical model"?). Although each example uses a different algorithm, the underlying reasons for this can be grouped together. In layman's terms - we know for sure that there's a boundary between two colours somewhere in """reality""" - but determining where it is is exactly is challenging, and hugely depends on how you define it. Thicker line, less obvious edge.
And what would that demonstrate? That there is no mathematical perfect edge?
Nah. You're really fixated on this "it's either mathematically perfect, or it's not there at all" thing. It's not helping your argument.
Now, I reckon you forgot what we're talking about by now, so let me offer a quick reminder. It was your position that a sharp edge would be proof of RE, and that a gradient horizon would be indicative of FE. My position is that this is not the case - you should be expecting a gradient in both models, and therefore your argument is a waste of time. We are now stuck on you simultaneously rejecting that there is a gradient to the horizon, while repeatedly stating "well, okay, it's not mathematically perfect, but duuuuuh". In reality, there are no ifs or buts about it. Take your favourite photo of the horizon (n.b., not a wave that's less than a mile away from the photographer) and inspect the colours. They will gradually fade away, as is expected of RE and FE alike.
So...I guess my wall doesn't have an edge then. Except of course it bloody does. Whether it's JPEG compression or lack of sharpness in the image or whatever, the picture doesn't show a perfect edge.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuurgh. Are you sure you took a course on image processing? I'm getting suspcious here. You're not looking at JPEG compression or "lack of sharpness in the image". You're looking at interpolation (probably bicubic) - if you wanted to preserve the colour gradients, you should have used nearest-neighbour.
Here's a perfect black-and-white image, followed by a small portion of the same image, but enlarged with bicubic interpolation:
(https://i.imgur.com/eFNOjzb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hO3mpqb.png)
You keep slamming your head against tools you don't know the first thing about. That's not how you science.
Here's what happens if you enlarge your door/wall photo with the right tool for the job.
(https://i.imgur.com/PtHQwpT.png)
Gosh, look at that! There's hardly any gradient at all! And it would have been sharper if the initial image wasn't of arse quality. Of course, you could have just used a colour picker like I told you to aeons ago, but whit kan a man dae?
-
Instead of it being about whether the horizon line is crisp or a gradient, isn't it more about the horizon line, fuzzy or not, and where it is in our field of view? As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level whereas GE contends that it dips below eye-level with altitude...
(https://i.imgur.com/LnIHj4W.png)
-
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
If we're getting to this level of detail, its a median line between the peaks and troughs. The volume of water present above the median is equal to the volume absent below the line. The position of the median is a function of gravity, the shape of the Earth, and the volume of water on the Earth. Waves are principally a localised topical effect of wind; past, and present.
@Gonzo; by my count that's 3 individuals who have failed to respond to your question. Its difficult to respond to someone's opinion on a phenomenon (in this case the maritime horizon), when we don't know whether they are actually in a position to observe it directly. (Or, indeed, if they've ever observed it directly).
Quite.
It’s rather a habit of some people.
I haven’t posted recently as I’m on holiday in the Isle of Skye, Scotland, I’m staying in a cottage literally a few metres from the sea. On clear days I can see a very obvious clear delineation between sea and sky.
-
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.
Do you live near the coast, SimonC?
Just because someone has done something for a number of years does not mean they have been doing it right. Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. My heating engineer had been using an old saw to cut coper pipe since he was an apprentice. He had no idea that modern day pipe cutters had been invented and carried on blissfully with his 'rough' and time-consuming jointing method.
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon. But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.
Not doing it right?
I’m looking at the horizon and can see a clear delineation of the sea and sky. It’s quite simple. I’m doing it right now, as I type. It’s not thin, it’s the boundary between sea and sky, as you look out.
If you hold two pieces of paper of different colours and overlap one on top of the other, there’s not a thin, invisible line separating them, it’s where the extent one of piece of paper stops, and the other continues behind, and therefore becomes visible. One large body is in front of another large body. On days of poor weather, where the visibility is low, the clear delineation is not there, the sea appears to gradually disappear into the mist.
How you often looked out to sea? Are you saying you never see a clear delineation between sea and sky?
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
Perhaps it's also because of the dip.
-
Perhaps it's also because of the dip.
Perhaps; but that would directly contradict your compatriots' position that the opposite is happening because of the dip. That's pretty much the sad state this thread has been reduced to.
-
Perhaps it's also because of the dip.
Perhaps; but that would directly contradict your compatriots' position that the opposite is happening because of the dip. That's pretty much the sad state this thread has been reduced to.
Possibly. Sometimes it looks like a crisp line, sometimes it doesn't. When crisp, trying to determine exactly how crisp, to what degree, is probably impossible. Perhaps with magnification, maybe a theodolite. Is it fuzzy 1" above the water, 1', 10', hard to tell. But I imagine in some circumstances the fuzziness is very small and in others, very large, and everywhere in between.
And then there's the dip which may contribute, but may also be an entirely different issue that needs an explanation all unto itself.
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."
Curvature is curvature.
Just stop with the equivocation.
There is no curvature.
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."
Curvature is curvature.
Just stop with the equivocation.
There is no curvature.
Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.
-
You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.
That is according to RET dimensions as presented.
Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.
-
You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.
That is according to RET dimensions as presented.
Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.
I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.
What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.
And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?
-
You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.
That is according to RET dimensions as presented.
Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.
I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.
What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.
And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?
You are the RE expert, remember?
You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?
Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.
Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.
You are a smart guy, figure it out.
-
If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.
This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-icS-XOFU&ab_channel=AIRBOYD
-
If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.
This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-icS-XOFU&ab_channel=AIRBOYD
Agree with Tom 100% (that's twice this year!).
At 4.43 in the U-2 video the horizon is concave, and the aircraft's wing curves upward. As we don't know the optics involved in either the U-2 video or the Concorde picture their presentation as evidence is pointless. (And "optics" includes both the camera lens and the aircrafts' cockpit canopy/window).
-
The picture stack showed us is also cropped. There are other versions of the photo wish show more area of clouds beneath the plane.
Here was stack's photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
This version from this site has more area of clouds beneath the plane:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Concorde-Supersonic.jpg)
While this verion from aviationgeekclub.com itself also appears to be cropped, it shows that stack did not actually show us the full picture.
If the plane is centered in the photo then lens barrel distortion or a fish-eye effect could cause the the plane to be straight while the horizon is curved.
Fisheye distortion grid:
(https://manula.r.sizr.io/large/user/12518/img/gopro-original.png)
The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.
-
You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.
That is according to RET dimensions as presented.
Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.
I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.
What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.
And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?
You are the RE expert, remember?
You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?
Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.
Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.
You are a smart guy, figure it out.
As expected, I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.
It could have been cropped over the years...or not. Here's a print signed by Adrian Meredith, the original photgrapher. Whether he cropped it back in 1985, unknown.
(https://www.concordephotos.com/images/source/cp2811.jpg)
The horizon seems to be in the center of the image, yet still arc'd. And if barrel distortion was present, I would expect to see the Concord itself sufficiently bent considering it's location in the image. Interesting.
Here's what I would expect from fisheye barrel distortion...
(https://i.imgur.com/0UJbM0u.jpg)
I guess from now on the only acceptable evidence is something that came straight from the source with a letter of provenance guaranteeing that it has never been altered in any way. And the same standard shall be applied to anything and everything you post.
-
Yes, stack...
I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.
Wrong as usual.
-
Yes, stack...
I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.
Wrong as usual.
Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.
Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.
I see. So again, you're just saying so without saying how so. What is this dictatorial math you keep ambiguously referring to without saying what it is. Why so cryptic? Why not just lay out this math you claim exists. Or are you just in the business of making claims without backing them up? Seems to be your MO.
If you can't bring yourself to put your money where your mouth is, I've got one for you...
Anyway, the math dictates that from the altitude of the Concorde, you are able to see curvature.
High enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.
There you go, case closed.
-
Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.
Signed photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/lodBLyE.png)
From the first picture you posted (https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg):
(https://i.imgur.com/0EOlEbR.png)
There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.
This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.
-
Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.
Signed photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/lodBLyE.png)
From the first picture you posted (https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg):
(https://i.imgur.com/0EOlEbR.png)
There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.
This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.
Could be. Or maybe the matte in the frame is covering it. We don't know. So no, it's not necessarily evidence it is cropped. Buy it, rip it out of the frame and find out.
-
Here is another signed Adrian Meredith Concord photo from concordephotos.com. I bet you think the earth curvature is real in this one too. Who knew that the Concorde could achieve satellite altitudes?
(https://www.concordephotos.com/images/cache/cp2816.600.jpg)
Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake/manipulated but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?
-
Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?
That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:
Here’s the only picture of Concorde flying at supersonic speed (https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/)
The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985.
Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption.
Several attempts were made to take the photo, and eventually the Concorde had to slow down from Mach 2 to Mach 1.5-1.6 so that the Tornado crew could get the shot. The Tornado was stripped of everything to get it up to that speed as long as possible.
After racing to catch the Concorde and struggling to keep up, the Tornado broke off the rendezvous after just four minutes, while Concorde cruised serenely on to JFK!
Like I said, buy the photo, rip it out of the frame, and see what's hidden behind the 2" matte.
-
Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here.
One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet. In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k. And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature.
Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter.
-
Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?
That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:
So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.
Considering that you are only showing us one image from someone who manipulates his photos it is hardly compelling evidence that your one image is not also manipulated.
Here is the description of the item you claim to be the fake/manipulated Adrian Meredith Photography image, sold by what appears to be concordephotos.com's official ebay account named concordephotos:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050
(https://i.imgur.com/4lvDnKX.png)
Sold by concordephotos, Surrey, United Kingdom
Concorde Flyiing Over The Curvature Of The Earth At 60,000 Feet Signed 16X12
This Air to Air Photograph 1998, of Concorde G-BOAF is flying at 60,000
feet, you can clearly see the curvature of the Earth, you are now in the
stratosphere, flying on the edge of space, and burning 5 gallons of fuel per
mile, Photo size 16x12 inches
Photograph Signed by Chief Concorde Captain Mike Bannister, Photograph
signed by Adrian Meredith.
-
Oh, and look at the bottom of that ebay page listing at the Business Seller Information. It's Adrian Meredith himself calling it an "Air to Air Photograph":
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050
Business seller information
Adrian Meredith Photography
Adrian Meredith
16 Golf Close
Woking
Surrey
GU22 8PE
United Kingdom
-
Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here.
One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet. In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k. And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature.
Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter.
It's reported that the shot was taken at 55k'.
I'm not seeing what you are seeing. A comparison between the high altitude image and a low altitude image...
(https://i.imgur.com/g7ee8D8.jpg)
Just to be clear, this discussion started with Lackey taking an old AATW quote out of context, the context being the image in question. Whether the image was cropped, distorted, etc., I obviously can't say for sure. And no one else can either except for Mr. Meredith himself. So yeah, the argument is sort of pointless.
Aside from all of this, for me, it's whether the observed dip of the horizon line at altitude is caused by a globe earth or the potential fuzziness of the line between the sky and ground/water. That's what I think really needs to be addressed.
-
Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?
That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:
So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.
All images are altered as soon as they committed to a sensor inside a camera or on to a strip of film. Even more so when developed or imported. Even more when printed or exported.
But I guess you are saying that if a photographer adjusts anything in one image, all images they have ever taken have been similarly adjusted. Ok, sure. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it.
-
It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.
The two photos are also advertised exactly the same way without distinction.
https://www.chaucercollectables.co.uk/ishop/images/1099/p8.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/Qjb5i0P.jpg)
Both are called "photographic prints", both are called "photos" and both are by the same photographer. Elsewhere the photographer also calls them both "photographs".
Yet you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.
-
It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.
Hmmm, how do you know photographer is clearly faking earth curvature? By you saying so it seems that you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
Fact of the matter is?
Sorry, no, that’s your opinion.
Every seafarer and navigator would disagree.
Yes, at time, in poor visibility, one cannot distinguish the horizon. But on many other occasions it is very clear.
Are you saying that even when it is clear, you believe that the water continues on, effectively appearing above the horizon, but that it looks to us exactly the same as the sky?
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.
Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.
Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?
Agreed, I don't care about curvature left to right, nor whether the horizon line is fuzzy or crisp or somewhere in between. As I've stated before, I'm way more interested in the observed dip at altitude, the perceived curvature away from the observer that produces a horizon line. As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level whereas GE contends that it dips below eye-level with altitude as it curves downward and away...
(https://i.imgur.com/LnIHj4W.png)
I'm looking for an explanation of this.
-
As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level
Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.
SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.
If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.
-
As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level
Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.
SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.
If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.
A couple of things…
I was being cautious by using “some”. As in the past if I were to simply say, “FErs claim that blah, blah, blah…” I would get blasted by you for implying all FErs. So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.
For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments and observations that are stated as inaccurate. It appears to me as a refutation of GE’s claim of dip due to curvature considering that’s exactly what the experiments are designed to show: Water Level Devices (https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices)
There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”
And
“...no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye…"
Also, there was a request back in 2018 to remove this from the wiki:
”A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see."
Since I can’t seem to find it in the wiki, I guess it was removed. Perhaps it was removed when a new redirect was created in 2019:
• Horizon always at Eye Level
#REDIRECT [[High Altitude Horizon Dip]]
39 bytes (5 words) - 14:33, 6 December 2019
All that said, if some or all FEr’s here are no longer in the horizon always at eye-level camp anymore then, I guess, never mind.
-
So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.
Yes, it's still an issue, because you still don't have the first idea about FE, but you have the audacity to push beliefs onto others. Being "cautious" about how you phrase your complete lack of respect is not going to improve the situation. You need to fix the issue, not express it more cAuTiOuSlY.
Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.
For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments
C'thulhu, give me patience. Yes, the Wiki documents a broad variety of FE and RE arguments, current and historical. You have to exercise a modicum of critical thinking, rather than just point at webpages you haven't read and say "duuuuuh here is some stuff????"
There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”
Perhaps if you bothered reading the page, or at least its very first couple of sentences, you would know what you're quoting. It's very poor form of you to just go "huh, this is some stuff" and not include a link to what you're referencing. Let's help you out. What you're referring to is https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe). The first line of this page is:
For a list of Flat Earth experiments see Experimental Evidence. The following is a verbatim copy of the book A Hundred Proofs the Earth Is Not a Globe by William Carpenter (1885).
Your second quote, unsurprisingly, comes from the same historical reference.
Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."
Curvature is curvature.
Just stop with the equivocation.
There is no curvature.
Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.
Even the fusilage of Concorde has a slight curve to it in this pic.
-
Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.
Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE. I thought that was the point of the wiki, but apparently I was wrong. Lesson learned.
Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.
Cool. Thanks for the pro tips. It means a lot when you take the time to offer advice and guidance.
Edit: Oh yeah, I was remiss in not including the link regarding where it used to state in the wiki that the horizon always rises to eye level:
Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9764.msg152886#msg152886)
It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)
-
Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.
They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.
Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlessly quote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.
-
Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.
They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.
Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlesuquote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.
I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining. But that’s just me.
Like I mentioned before, as this now seems to be something that the society no longer adheres to then that’s fine. I incorrectly had assumed otherwise.
-
I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining.
Emphasis on former.
Any comments on the other quotes you provided? How mindful were they? Why are you only focusing on one?
-
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
Fact of the matter is?
Sorry, no, that’s your opinion.
No, it is fact.
Every seafarer and navigator would disagree.
Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration.
Yes, at time, in poor visibility, one cannot distinguish the horizon. But on many other occasions it is very clear.
Are you saying that even when it is clear, you believe that the water continues on, effectively appearing above the horizon, but that it looks to us exactly the same as the sky?
I am saying no one knows what it is they are looking at from that distance.
-
if there is something you don't understand, you can try the radical approach of asking questions.
Well alright then. Why would RE make a sharp horizon impossible? I mean, it wouldn't be perfectly sharp because of the atmosphere and it wouldn't be completely straight because of waves and that, but the line between sea and sky is, on a clear day, very distinct. At a viewer height of 10 feet the horizon is just under 4 miles away. I'd suggest that's high enough to be looking over waves on a calm day, why can't you see any more sea after that?
Now, I reckon you forgot what we're talking about by now, so let me offer a quick reminder. It was your position that a sharp edge would be proof of RE, and that a gradient horizon would be indicative of FE. My position is that this is not the case - you should be expecting a gradient in both models, and therefore your argument is a waste of time. We are now stuck on you simultaneously rejecting that there is a gradient to the horizon, while repeatedly stating "well, okay, it's not mathematically perfect, but duuuuuh". In reality, there are no ifs or buts about it. Take your favourite photo of the horizon (n.b., not a wave that's less than a mile away from the photographer) and inspect the colours. They will gradually fade away, as is expected of RE and FE alike.
I think the word "gradually" is where we are stuck. The foggy day picture is a gradual fade. The other horizon pictures are not.
Now, having thought about this some more I'm not sure there would be as much difference between a FE horizon and a RE one. My gut feeling is a FE horizon would be less distinct than the RE one, but I must concede it wouldn't be like the foggy day image on a FE.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuurgh. Are you sure you took a course on image processing? I'm getting suspcious here.
Well alright, I'll admit it was ages ago as I'm very old. I remember we did stuff around JPG compression - there was a collective gasp when the professor put the equation for a Fourier Transform on the OHP (yes, I am that old), before he said we didn't need to know that, he was just showing us. And we did code a rudimentary edge detection algorithm. But from your explanation I'll consider myself schooled. I did say I wasn't an expert. :(
Tbh, I don't think we are a million miles away from agreeing now. I think there are other horizon based discriminators between FE and RE, I dipped my toes in those waters and you didn't want to talk about those.
One comment on the horizon dip thing - when I first came here the claim that the horizon always rises to eye level was vigorously defended by TB and on the Wiki. When Bobby Shafto spent an inordinate amount of time doing experiments to demonstrate that where is a dip to the horizon which increases with altitude Tom bent over backwards calling black is white to deny his results. Now it seems that Wiki page has been quietly deprecated. Which is good, I guess. It does show some progress, a lack of which I have criticised you guys for. But I didn't know that had happened, so I can understand other people not realising it either.
-
Why would RE make a sharp horizon impossible? I mean, it wouldn't be perfectly sharp because of the atmosphere
I mean, you answered your own question. The horizon in RE curves downard with distance from the observer. This, combined with refraction, will cause it to gradually blur away.
the line between sea and sky is, on a clear day, very distinct
This continues to be false, and you've provided ample evidence for that. I really wish you could stop just restating it without making a further argument.
I think the word "gradually" is where we are stuck. The foggy day picture is a gradual fade. The other horizon pictures are not.
That certainly sounds like the disagreement. I explained what I mean by the term (and I'm going with a pretty straight-forward dictionary definition of "gradual" and "gradient"), and I showed you how you can verify the presence of a gradient in an image. My reading of what you're saying is "nuh uh, it's obviously not gradual", repeated ad nauseam.
Now, having thought about this some more I'm not sure there would be as much difference between a FE horizon and a RE one.
Yup. They'd be more-or-less identical, with too many different factors to account for to make a reasonable distinction between the two in real life.
One comment on the horizon dip thing - when I first came here the claim that the horizon always rises to eye level was vigorously defended by TB and on the Wiki.
Was it just Tom, perchance? I know he used to subscribe to the "no EA, just perspective" view, and, as far as I know, he was in the minority here.
Now it seems that Wiki page has been quietly deprecated.
"Quietly"? It sounds like you're trying to put a negative spin on this. We don't usually announce changes to the Wiki, but if you really wanted to track them, the changelogs are public (https://wiki.tfes.org/Special:RecentChanges).
It's how things usually work here - if a good debate takes place, we* try to update the Wiki to reflect the outcomes. This is evident in the Water Level Devices (https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices) page (the closest I could find to an active defence of the horizon "always being at eye level") - it explicitly refers back to the thread, and includes copies of Bobby's pictures that tinypic has since deleted. This isn't some sneaky secret effort - it's preservation of information.
* - mostly Tom these days, though I used to have a good streak a few years ago, and I hope to get back into it.
-
Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9764.msg152886#msg152886)
It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)
If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?
-
Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9764.msg152886#msg152886)
It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)
If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?
Because, quite simply, I was mistaken. Let me explain.
I was reading through ENAG to see what good old Sam had to say about the horizon, atmosphere, eye level, etc. And I came across this from Chapter 'PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA’ :
“…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…”
He refers back to FIG. 44 under EXPERIMENT 15:
(https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig44.jpg)
And I swore that the wiki aligned with that belief being ENAG, Rowbotham and all. But I couldn’t find anything in the wiki specifically about it. So I searched the forum and found a suggestion thread from 2018 requesting that the following statement in the wiki under the page https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level be altered:
"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.”
That particular suggestion thread somewhat died seemingly without a resolution.
However, apparently that statement was deleted in 2019 and the page redirected to https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip.
It now appears that TFES no longer holds the Rowbotham position that the horizon always rises to eye level as it did back in 2018. At least FE and GE are now in agreement on one thing.
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
In the diagram I have attached below the following apply (assuming a round earth and approx. dimensions).
N = North Pole
S = South Pole
C = Centre
E1 – E2 = Equator
Circumference (N-E1-S-E2-N) = 24,901 miles
N – E1 = 6,225 miles
E1 – S = 6,225 miles
S – E2 = 6,225 miles
E2 – N = 6,225 miles
Diameter (E1 – E2) = 7,926 miles
Diameter (N – S) = 7,926 miles
Radius (E1 – C) = 3,963 miles
Radius (C – S) = 3,963 miles
Radius (N – C) = 3,963 miles
Radius (E2 – C) = 3,963 miles
Lets say I walk from the north pole (N) to the equator (E1) a distance of 6,225 miles. And when I get to the equator the curvature of the earth has fallen away by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth).
6,225 divided by 3,963 = 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked the curve fell away by 1 mile. That’s an awful lot.
If I carried on to the south pole (S) I would have walked 7,926 miles (the diameter of earth) and the curve would have fallen away by 12,450 miles; which (divided by 7,926) is 1.57 0r rather every 1.57 miles the curve falls away by 1 mile.
These figures are consistent. A circle is a continuous curve. And If I divided the circumference (24,901 miles) by 360 degrees each degree would be 69 miles in length. And the fall of the curve over each 69 miles would be 44 miles; a ratio of 1 mile fall for every 1.57 miles travelled.
I would be interested to know if anyone disagrees with these figures (errors and omissions excepted) and if so for what reason?
-
Let's give you one shot at this. Define "fall of the curve".
-
Let's give you one shot at this. Define "fall of the curve".
I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.
-
I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.
Curvature is measured as the angular turn per unit distance. Your definition seems to be based on straight line measurements.
-
I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.
Curvature is measured as the angular turn per unit distance. Your definition seems to be based on straight line measurements.
Ok lets forget about the actual curve itself for a moment. What I am calculating is how much does the curve drop in height (assuming a non-spinning globe earth that has a top and bottom). So if I walked a quarter of the earth's circumference from the north pole to the equator in a straight (obviously curved) line I would cover 6,225 miles (or so). And in doing so I would have dropped in height by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth). Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked there is a drop in height of 1 mile. Using the ocean as an example; and again assuming a globe earth, if rowed out to sea a distance of 1.57 miles there should have been a drop in height of 1 mile. Now a physical drop of 1 mile in height is something we just do not see (in fact we see no such thing and to us it looks quite level) but we should see it if we were on a globe earth.
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.
-
I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.
Curvature is measured as the angular turn per unit distance. Your definition seems to be based on straight line measurements.
Ok lets forget about the actual curve itself for a moment. What I am calculating is how much does the curve drop in height (assuming a non-spinning globe earth that has a top and bottom). So if I walked a quarter of the earth's circumference from the north pole to the equator in a straight (obviously curved) line I would cover 6,225 miles (or so). And in doing so I would have dropped in height by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth). Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked there is a drop in height of 1 mile. Using the ocean as an example; and again assuming a globe earth, if rowed out to sea a distance of 1.57 miles there should have been a drop in height of 1 mile. Now a physical drop of 1 mile in height is something we just do not see (in fact we see no such thing and to us it looks quite level) but we should see it if we were on a globe earth.
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.
The fundamental mistake you are making is an assumption that your "Rate of Drop" is linear; it isn't. The "rate of Drop" as you call it increases as you travel south.
Consider standing at the North Pole in your model and travel 1 mile. Your actual drop is negligible, and you can probably still see the Pole. The Rate of Drop is zero.
Now stand 1 mile north of the equator and then walk to it. Your Rate of Drop is now 1 mile per mile.
Your formula only works if the drop is linear, as if the Earth was a cone.
-
....
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.
The fundamental mistake you are making is an assumption that your "Rate of Drop" is linear; it isn't. The "rate of Drop" as you call it increases as you travel south.
....
Exactly. Perhaps playing a bit with a chord calculator like this one https://planetcalc.com/1421/ would be instructive.
Go down near the bottom to the "Circular segment - complete solution". The height here is the distance from center of the arc to the center of the chord so to have that stand in for the north pole you will need to double your arc lengths (since its arc length includes the arc on both sides of the height line). Put in radius=3963, arc length=2, increase the digits after the decimal point to 5 and see that the height is .00013 . Since that is in miles that's about 8 inches drop for being 1 mile from the start. For the last mile set the arc length=12448 and compare that height with the full arc length=12450 and you will see the height difference is 1 mile (actually very slightly less than 1 mile if you were to do the calculation with sufficient precision).
Isn't that non-linearity pretty obvious just thinking about a circle or ball?
-
If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?
The Wiki page is titled "High Altitude Horizon Dip"
And the text says that "according to a planar prediction the horizon should be at 0 degrees eye level"
In this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.0
Which is a response to the original Wiki page. You spend 20 pages finding fault with every method which demonstrates horizon dip.
Finally on page 21 you say:
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.
...but then later on the same page you say:
I believe that was the point of all of this. The horizon isn't "always at eye level" as asserted in the Wiki, and a change is needed. The Wiki forgot about the concept of fog and atmosphere.
So...it sounds like you do believe that the horizon is always at eye level, but atmospheric conditions can affect the observation of it.
Then in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11721.0
You reiterate that:
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story. The error we made was in the wiki, by leaving out that you may not be able to see it.
And
Every time I've looked at the horizon I was seeing half land and half sky, with an apparent line cutting through my vision. Take a mirror and turn around, with the horizon facing your back and, when studying the mirror, the horizon follows the level of your eye
The default is, therefore that the horizon is at eye level. If someone has a crazy theory about the earth being a ball and the horizon being imperceptibly below the eye level, in contradiction to observation, it seems that the onus is on that person to demonstrate their claim.
But you then say
None of this is to say that the horizon is always at eye level at every altitude and atmospheric condition, or that one could expect to see the same from a plane where the horizon is very foggy, just that it has been tested at sea level to be so, just as Rowbotham tested it from the third story building
I understand that the common response to this is "that's too low," or whatever, but yet, it remains a test of the horizon. If one is to argue something about the imperceptible drop, that is a claim against reality, and thus one should be burdened to show it rather than argue that it is the burden of others to prove that there is no imperceptible drop
Although as I said for 20 pages in the first thread I references you bent over backwards with multiple methods which showed the horizon drop.
So...in brief, your beliefs about this are confusing. You seem to concede that horizon drop happens but spent pages and pages refusing to acknowledge the evidence that demonstrated it. Then when you did concede the point you did so only by claiming that in cases where there is horizon dip it's because you're not seeing the true horizon.
But even in the amended Wiki page it still says that:
"according to a planar prediction the horizon should be at 0 degrees eye level"
You see how this is all confusing?
-
I think the word "gradually" is where we are stuck. The foggy day picture is a gradual fade. The other horizon pictures are not.
That certainly sounds like the disagreement. I explained what I mean by the term (and I'm going with a pretty straight-forward dictionary definition of "gradual" and "gradient"), and I showed you how you can verify the presence of a gradient in an image. My reading of what you're saying is "nuh uh, it's obviously not gradual", repeated ad nauseam.
I think the issue is by your definition the edge of every object, certainly distant objects, will be gradual. There will always be some atmospheric effect which causes a gradient. That doesn't mean that objects don't have edges, and it doesn't mean that for all practical purposes those edges aren't clear enough to determine where they are.
In RET the horizon is effectively the edge of the earth. You objected to that word some pages back. I'd agree it's not an ideal word, but I don't know what word to use. It's a circle on the earth's surface.
If you're standing on a perfect sphere then the limits of how much of the sphere you can observe are because of the ground sloping away from you. You're looking down at a spherical cap and the "horizon" is the circle formed by the slice of the sphere at the base of the cap. The radius of the circle is determined by viewer height.
That all makes sense of the observations of the increasing horizon distance with altitude and less of distant objects being hidden by the horizon (see Turning Torso video).
Obviously we don't live on a perfect sphere and the sea isn't perfectly flat. So sure, that adds some gradient. But with decent visibility the point where the sky ends and the sea starts always seems clear to me
Yup. They'd be more-or-less identical, with too many different factors to account for to make a reasonable distinction between the two in real life.
OK. I have come to think that this is more or less true. But there are other differentiators which I have hinted at above which we can move on to if you want.
Was it just Tom, perchance? I know he used to subscribe to the "no EA, just perspective" view, and, as far as I know, he was in the minority here.
I think it pretty much was just Tom. But he was always the loudest FE voice on here a few years back so his (ridiculous, IMO) arguments stick most in my mind.
And I'm not saying you're trying to actively hide changes to the Wiki, but given how vocal Tom was in his defence of "the horizon always rises to eye level", despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, he wasn't that clear about a change of view. He does mention updating the Wiki in some of the threads I've mentioned in my reply to him above, to be fair, but even then the new Wiki page still says that "According to a planar prediction the horizon should be at 0 degrees eye level", so there doesn't seem to be that much shift in his stance. It always seemed like a silly argument because the horizon wouldn't be at 0 degrees on a FE anyway.
-
What I am calculating is how much does the curve drop in height (assuming a non-spinning globe earth that has a top and bottom). So if I walked a quarter of the earth's circumference from the north pole to the equator in a straight (obviously curved) line I would cover 6,225 miles (or so).
There’s already a formula for computing the amount of drop along a curve. It’s h = r * (1 - cos a). h is the amount of drop, r is the radius of the sphere, a is the angle created by the start and end points measured from the center of the sphere.
The number of degrees in the angle is the drop. The more you move along the curve, the number of degrees increases.
The radius of the earth is about 3959 miles, so in one mile the curve drops .0000137 degrees = 0.67 feet=8 in. This is just approximate since it assumes a perfect sphere though.
From point a to point b, it drops 8 inches and from point b to point c, it drops another 8 inches. But you can’t add the 8 inches from a to b and from b to c like you were moving is a straight line. For every unit down, you also move sideways, but it isn’t a 1:1 ratio because the direction keeps changing.
-
I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.
Curvature is measured as the angular turn per unit distance. Your definition seems to be based on straight line measurements.
Ok lets forget about the actual curve itself for a moment. What I am calculating is how much does the curve drop in height (assuming a non-spinning globe earth that has a top and bottom). So if I walked a quarter of the earth's circumference from the north pole to the equator in a straight (obviously curved) line I would cover 6,225 miles (or so). And in doing so I would have dropped in height by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth). Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked there is a drop in height of 1 mile. Using the ocean as an example; and again assuming a globe earth, if rowed out to sea a distance of 1.57 miles there should have been a drop in height of 1 mile. Now a physical drop of 1 mile in height is something we just do not see (in fact we see no such thing and to us it looks quite level) but we should see it if we were on a globe earth.
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.
The fundamental mistake you are making is an assumption that your "Rate of Drop" is linear; it isn't. The "rate of Drop" as you call it increases as you travel south.
Consider standing at the North Pole in your model and travel 1 mile. Your actual drop is negligible, and you can probably still see the Pole. The Rate of Drop is zero.
Now stand 1 mile north of the equator and then walk to it. Your Rate of Drop is now 1 mile per mile.
Your formula only works if the drop is linear, as if the Earth was a cone.
I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.
Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles. Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?
Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.
Like it or not and forget what I have called these dimensions does anyone disagree with these maths?
Hopefully not. And regardless of what others have said every single infinite point on a circle is at the 'top of the curve'. Above that point the circle curves away as does it below that point wherever that point is on the circle. And as a circle is one continuous curve there are no parts of the curve that are any different to other part. Take any two segments of the curve and they will be identical no matter where on the circle they came from.
Now instead of me walking 3,113 miles I am going to divide the circle into 360 (purely for conventional purposes - I could have chosen any figure to divide it by; 100, 125, 299 - it wouldn't make any difference). The circumference of the earth divided by 360 = 69 miles. I am now going to walk that 69 miles from the north pole. And when I have finished I will be at a point on the circle some 43 miles below the north pole. Forget linear dimensions they don't matter. The fact is I will have dropped by roughly 43 miles. Or to make it simpler 1 mile for every 1.57 miles travelled around the circumference. And if someone stood at the north pole and watched me walk 1.57 miles away from them I should be at a point 1 mile below them. These figures are irrefutable. Its down to the wording. If anyone disagrees can you please do so in layman's terms? Many thanks
-
I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.
Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles. Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?
Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.
As several folks including myself have pointed out, its incorrect as the drop/fall IS NOT LINEAR. So computing one value of drop/fall for a particular distance traveled, dividing by the distance to get an average drop per unit distance for that particular distance, and then multiplying it by another distance traveled is mathematically wrong. Circles and spheres are not linear.
You can see this for yourself using the chord calculator I posted. Use that to get the drop for 1 mile walked south from the North Pole (or 1 mile walked away from any other point) If you multiply that times 1/4 of the circumference of the earth does it come anywhere close the the actual drop that we know must be equal to the radius of the earth? Of course not. Its just as wrong doing it with the bigger values going to the smaller distances as you are doing.
-
Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.
I’m going to start with this comment because I think it is the source of your confusion. The “height” of a position is measured against sea level and depends on the terrain. If the earth was a perfectly smooth sphere everything would be at sea level. “Height” doesn’t have anything to do with the curvature of the earth.
Curvature is the rate a line is changing direction at a given point. The “drop” in the curvature of the earth is a change in direction of an arbitrary line on its surface, not a change in height.
Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles.
You have walked 3,113 miles south, not “down”. Eventually you would be going north.
You have two errors. The first is you try to measure curvature using straight line distances. That doesn’t work. Second you are adding the curvature linearly.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qiy6a1q50axt3d/Angles.PNG?dl=1)
Using the equation I gave before: h = r * (1 - cos a). One mile across the surface is .0145 ° change in direction from straight.
The cosine of a .0145 ° angle is .99999997
h=3959*(1-.99999997)
h=3959*.000000032
h=.000127 miles
h=8.04672 in
So in one mile, there is a “drop”, or change in direction of the surface of 8 in. from A to B.
By your logic, then there should be 16 in of drop between A and C, but:
Two miles across the surface is .0288 ° . The cosine of a .00288 ° angle is 0.99999987
h=3959*(1-.99999987)
h=3959*.00000013
h=.000515 miles
h=32.6304 in
To sum up, a sphere or circle isn’t a straight line so the ratio of distance to curvature isn’t 1:1. It’s close to quadratic…the curvature is proportional to the square of the distance.
-
To make it a little easier to explain. Imagine the big round circle in my diagram is actually a big round global building - a perfect sphere. And S is the base of it and N is the top of it. As I stated previously I am assuming a global stationery earth so this global building is no different. And for this example lets assume the building has a 250 metre diameter with a 786 metres circumference (all future numbers will be rounded up).
I have the window cleaning contract for the building and my anchor point is at the top (point N). I anchor myself to the top of the building and freeline halfway down the building. In doing so I have travelled one quarter (1/4) of the circumference of the building ie 197 metres. I have also dropped in 'height' 125 metres. Divide 197 by 125 and we come up with that magical figure of 1.57 metres. That same figure I arrived at earlier using the earth as the model. This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). And I can't understand why no one agrees with this. Forget the earth and its gravity and its unevenness and the fact it rotates and doesn't have an up or down per se and just think of it as one continuous curve. Now look out to see from the shore 1.57 miles. There is no evidence of the 1 mile fall away (I won't use the word height as its confusing) of the curve. Yet it happens on the building why shouldn't it happen on a similar size and shaped object.
Can we use this as something to build on as I am certain there is more to this than meets the eye? And I really would like to know what is causing such an impasse. And for those who say it isn't true simply because it doesn't manifest on earth this way then think again...is that because you were wearing your global hat at the time?
Looking forward to hearing further comments.
-
You're just not getting this are you?
If you come halfway down the circumference of a dome, you are not vertically-halfway to the ground. The relationship between circumference and "drop" is not linear.
If you want to "drop" halfway to the ground, you have to travel 2/3 of the circumference between apex and ground
-
To make it a little easier to explain. Imagine the big round circle in my diagram is actually a big round global building - a perfect sphere. And S is the base of it and N is the top of it. As I stated previously I am assuming a global stationery earth so this global building is no different. And for this example lets assume the building has a 250 metre diameter with a 786 metres circumference (all future numbers will be rounded up).
I have the window cleaning contract for the building and my anchor point is at the top (point N). I anchor myself to the top of the building and freeline halfway down the building. In doing so I have travelled one quarter (1/4) of the circumference of the building ie 197 metres. I have also dropped in 'height' 125 metres.
This is correct , so far.
Divide 197 by 125 and we come up with that magical figure of 1.57 metres. That same figure I arrived at earlier using the earth as the model. This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). And I can't understand why no one agrees with this.
...but this is wrong, I'm afraid. As the others have said, it's not linear. If you go 1 metre around the circumference of your building, you'll have gone 1/768th of the way around, which is 0.458 degrees. The 'drop', as you describe it, for that first metre, is 125 metres (the radius) - (cos 0.458 x 125), which comes to 0.004 metres. Close to the equator, the relationship goes the other way - almost all of the travel is 'drop', referenced to the 'top' of the building. But of course for us on earth, wherever we are feels like the top - indeed the choice of the North Pole as the top is entirely arbitrary. So every mile we travel the 'drop' remains very small indeed.
-
.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....
No, it is not a constant for circles/globes. It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle. This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge. Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?
-
You're just not getting this are you?
If you come halfway down the circumference of a dome, you are not vertically-halfway to the ground. The relationship between circumference and "drop" is not linear.
If you want to "drop" halfway to the ground, you have to travel 2/3 of the circumference between apex and ground
Its you who isn't getting this. I have never said am halfway down the circumference AND halfway down the dome. What am saying is for every 1.57 'units of measurement' I travel down the circumference I am going to drop (in height) by 1 unit of measurement. Try it yourself it works every time. And the relationship between the curve of a perfect circle and the drop IS relative - it has to be. Its 1.57 (or thereabouts depending on how many places you put after the point for Pi).
-
You're just not getting this are you?
If you come halfway down the circumference of a dome, you are not vertically-halfway to the ground. The relationship between circumference and "drop" is not linear.
If you want to "drop" halfway to the ground, you have to travel 2/3 of the circumference between apex and ground
Duncan - you actually do concur with me. You just dont realise it. By travelling 1.57 units of measurement you will drop 1 unit of measurement in height. You just prefer to deal in imperial instead of metric. Try it.
-
To make it a little easier to explain. Imagine the big round circle in my diagram is actually a big round global building - a perfect sphere. And S is the base of it and N is the top of it. As I stated previously I am assuming a global stationery earth so this global building is no different. And for this example lets assume the building has a 250 metre diameter with a 786 metres circumference (all future numbers will be rounded up).
I have the window cleaning contract for the building and my anchor point is at the top (point N). I anchor myself to the top of the building and freeline halfway down the building. In doing so I have travelled one quarter (1/4) of the circumference of the building ie 197 metres. I have also dropped in 'height' 125 metres.
This is correct , so far.
Divide 197 by 125 and we come up with that magical figure of 1.57 metres. That same figure I arrived at earlier using the earth as the model. This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). And I can't understand why no one agrees with this.
...but this is wrong, I'm afraid. As the others have said, it's not linear. If you go 1 metre around the circumference of your building, you'll have gone 1/768th of the way around, which is 0.458 degrees. The 'drop', as you describe it, for that first metre, is 125 metres (the radius) - (cos 0.458 x 125), which comes to 0.004 metres. Close to the equator, the relationship goes the other way - almost all of the travel is 'drop', referenced to the 'top' of the building. But of course for us on earth, wherever we are feels like the top - indeed the choice of the North Pole as the top is entirely arbitrary. So every mile we travel the 'drop' remains very small indeed.
You agree am right - theres nothing wrong with the second half of my submission. Please forget your formulas - just do the maths its easier. Use my figures and see what happens. You admit that by me travelling 197 metres down the circumference i am going to drop 125 metres in height. That should be the end of it. Nothing further needs to be said. Cant you see?
-
To make it a little easier to explain. Imagine the big round circle in my diagram is actually a big round global building - a perfect sphere. And S is the base of it and N is the top of it. As I stated previously I am assuming a global stationery earth so this global building is no different. And for this example lets assume the building has a 250 metre diameter with a 786 metres circumference (all future numbers will be rounded up).
I have the window cleaning contract for the building and my anchor point is at the top (point N). I anchor myself to the top of the building and freeline halfway down the building. In doing so I have travelled one quarter (1/4) of the circumference of the building ie 197 metres. I have also dropped in 'height' 125 metres.
This is correct , so far.
Divide 197 by 125 and we come up with that magical figure of 1.57 metres. That same figure I arrived at earlier using the earth as the model. This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). And I can't understand why no one agrees with this.
...but this is wrong, I'm afraid. As the others have said, it's not linear. If you go 1 metre around the circumference of your building, you'll have gone 1/768th of the way around, which is 0.458 degrees. The 'drop', as you describe it, for that first metre, is 125 metres (the radius) - (cos 0.458 x 125), which comes to 0.004 metres. Close to the equator, the relationship goes the other way - almost all of the travel is 'drop', referenced to the 'top' of the building. But of course for us on earth, wherever we are feels like the top - indeed the choice of the North Pole as the top is entirely arbitrary. So every mile we travel the 'drop' remains very small indeed.
You dont read. Am not going 'around' the building I am going vertically down it. And for every 197 metres down the curve I have dropped 125 metres in height. Wheres the confusion? You have already accepted that.
-
.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....
No, it is not a constant for circles/globes. It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle. This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge. Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?
You arent reading this correctly. Its nothing to do with being 2 steps away from someone. Its to do with being 2 steps away (your example) from someone on a perfect curve. Stand on the top of St Pauls Cathedral. Ask someone to stand 1.57 metres away from you. They will be in the region of (because its a dome roof not a circle) 1 metre lower than you.
-
.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....
No, it is not a constant for circles/globes. It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle. This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge. Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?
And a circle is constant. Every section no matter how large or small has the same curve as any other section of that circle. Thats constant.
-
Okay - hopefully this should explain what am saying although I would appreciate some assistance from any mathematicians out there.
This final diagram is of a quarter circle to make things simple.
Duncan - please look at the image. Its the same dimensions as my global building - it has a 250 metres diameter but I am showing it as a quarter circle therefore half the diameter is 125 metres (aka the radius). Hopefully you will see that if I travel from point A along the circumference in the direction of the arrows to point B that I will have covered 197 metres. Now if you look to the left of point B to point C you will notice that I have 'dropped' in height by 125 metres. Please tell me what it is you don't understand about that as you have already accepted that this is correct.
By dividing 197 metres by 125 metres you get 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 metres travelled down the curve ie from A to B you will descend in height by 1 metre.
Come on guys give me a break? Its simple maths.
-
Okay - hopefully this should explain what am
By dividing 197 metres by 125 metres you get 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 metres travelled down the curve ie from A to B you will descend in height by 1 metre.
I guess on average that’s true, but you can see that the first few meters there’s hardly any drop and the last few meters you’re dropping pretty much the whole meter (with respect to the top of the curve).
Because it’s a curve.
-
Okay - hopefully this should explain what am
By dividing 197 metres by 125 metres you get 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 metres travelled down the curve ie from A to B you will descend in height by 1 metre.
I guess on average that’s true, but you can see that the first few meters there’s hardly any drop and the last few meters you’re dropping pretty much the whole meter (with respect to the top of the curve).
Because it’s a curve.
No way. Never mind on average its a fact all the way round; the curve is the same all the way round - it doesn't drop away any more or less than anywhere else on the circle. Choose any 2 arcs on a circle it doesn't even matter if one is longer than the other and overlay one against the other - the curve is identical. You are always 'dropping' at the same rate. I could divide a circle into any number of degrees/sections you like - 1000 for example and the ratio of circumference to 'drop' will be 1.57 every time. The reason people are finding it so hard to comprehend is because that's not what it looks like on a globe earth. Now why might that be I wonder? ;)
-
You dont read. Am not going 'around' the building I am going vertically down it.
You've said you're going along the circumference cleaning windows - that's what I mean by 'around'.
Okay - hopefully this should explain what am saying although I would appreciate some assistance from any mathematicians out there.
This final diagram is of a quarter circle to make things simple.
Duncan - please look at the image. Its the same dimensions as my global building - it has a 250 metres diameter but I am showing it as a quarter circle therefore half the diameter is 125 metres (aka the radius). Hopefully you will see that if I travel from point A along the circumference in the direction of the arrows to point B that I will have covered 197 metres. Now if you look to the left of point B to point C you will notice that I have 'dropped' in height by 125 metres. Please tell me what it is you don't understand about that as you have already accepted that this is correct.
By dividing 197 metres by 125 metres you get 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 metres travelled down the curve ie from A to B you will descend in height by 1 metre.
Come on guys give me a break? Its simple maths.
Well, we're trying to help. So now redo your diagram, but only travel 1.57 metres around the circumference - less than one degree of the circle. Even if you don't trust my maths, you should be able to see graphically that you won't 'drop' anything close to one metre.
-
I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.
Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles. Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?
Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.
Like it or not and forget what I have called these dimensions does anyone disagree with these maths?
Hopefully not. And regardless of what others have said every single infinite point on a circle is at the 'top of the curve'. Above that point the circle curves away as does it below that point wherever that point is on the circle. And as a circle is one continuous curve there are no parts of the curve that are any different to other part. Take any two segments of the curve and they will be identical no matter where on the circle they came from.
Now instead of me walking 3,113 miles I am going to divide the circle into 360 (purely for conventional purposes - I could have chosen any figure to divide it by; 100, 125, 299 - it wouldn't make any difference). The circumference of the earth divided by 360 = 69 miles. I am now going to walk that 69 miles from the north pole. And when I have finished I will be at a point on the circle some 43 miles below the north pole. Forget linear dimensions they don't matter. The fact is I will have dropped by roughly 43 miles. Or to make it simpler 1 mile for every 1.57 miles travelled around the circumference. And if someone stood at the north pole and watched me walk 1.57 miles away from them I should be at a point 1 mile below them. These figures are irrefutable. Its down to the wording. If anyone disagrees can you please do so in layman's terms? Many thanks
Well, yes we do disagree with your maths and find the figures entirely refutable. In layman's terms, I'll try drawing out what you are actually describing. Starting at the north pole, you travel 1.57 miles and find yourself 1 mile lower than the pole:–
(https://i.imgur.com/GJw49WH.jpg)
Another 1.57 miles and you're another 1 mile lower than the pole:–
(https://imgur.com/KfSCYyT.jpg)
On and on, for each 1.57 miles you travel, you're another mile lower than the pole:–
(https://imgur.com/LkFyKUe.jpg)
Does the path travelled bear any resemblance to the curve of a globe? No, it doesn't, it's a straight line: you are travelling down a constant slope.
If you disagree, explain in layman's terms.
-
You are always 'dropping' at the same rate.
My favourite question applies here - "relative to what?" If you choose a fixed point on RE, then the "drop" is not, in fact, occurring "at the same rate". If you choose the traveler's own frame of reference and measure it at some consistent interval, then it is. However, you fail to consistently apply one frame of reference to your logic, which introduces contradictions.
Your argument relies on a misrepresentation of RET. Please don't do that.
-
.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....
No, it is not a constant for circles/globes. It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle. This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge. Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?
And a circle is constant. Every section no matter how large or small has the same curve as any other section of that circle. Thats constant.
Yes but you are not talking about a drop relative to each section but to the starting point (at N) and that is NOT constant. Someone moving 2 steps away from a person at N (on your dome) would NOT be 1.57m lower. As others have pointed a constant rate of your "drop" results in a straight slope not a curve.
-
I anchor myself to the top of the building and freeline halfway down the building. In doing so I have travelled one quarter (1/4) of the circumference of the building ie 197 metres.
No you haven’t. The length of your line will tell you the distance you have travelled (vertical plus horizontal). Your line would look like the one on the right. If you straighten it out, it will be longer than the one on the left and more than ¼ of the circumference. You’ve dropped ¼ of the circumference, but you’ve travelled more distance (vertical plus horizontal)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/b0pzu0l77as8ag5/Curve.PNG?raw=1)
Never mind on average its a fact all the way round; the curve is the same all the way round - it doesn't drop away any more or less than anywhere else on the circle.
Wrong. Curvature can be measured by how much it deviates from straight. Here’s a graph of a circle.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2k6qs2ea8igqp6/circle%20graph.PNG?raw=1)
Notice how the circumference hits the grid lines at irregular intervals. That means it deviates from straight a different amount each time it hits the grid and the rate of drop varies. That’s why there is 8in of drop at 1 mile, but 32 in of drop at two, like I already explained. Compare that to the graph of a straight line where each coordinate hits the graph line in equal intervals. That’s a constant rate of drop
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ynbbwi5fgq1zx4s/Constant%20drop.PNG?raw=1)
And I can't understand why no one agrees with this.
.
Because this is pretty basic well understood geometry and math. Even Rowbotham accepted the 8in. m^2 equation, which works pretty good up to a point. But it’s the equation for a parabola not a sphere so eventually the errors start compounding.
-
The reason people are finding it so hard to comprehend is because that's not what it looks like on a globe earth. Now why might that be I wonder? ;)
Ah now we come to it. Forget the earth just use a circle. You are claiming (at least as I read it) that the change in height (the y axis) of coordinates on the perimitter of this circle are constant for a constant traversal of circumference i.e. for a constant angle which that circumference subtends. If that were true then
sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case. What you claim is nonsense.
I am guessing that you understand that and are just trolling a bit to try and make a FE claim. Math is not your friend in this cause.
-
If that were true then sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case. What you claim is nonsense.
If I'm translating right, I think this website makes your point. It's pretty cool. Move the slider in the top right corner.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/hnZMkBdc
-
As this is a debating forum, not a geometry tutorial, I'm out.
-
If that were true then sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case. What you claim is nonsense.
If I'm translating right, I think this website makes your point. It's pretty cool. Move the slider in the top right corner.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/hnZMkBdc
That’s rather near. Thanks
-
You dont read. Am not going 'around' the building I am going vertically down it.
You've said you're going along the circumference cleaning windows - that's what I mean by 'around'.
Okay - hopefully this should explain what am saying although I would appreciate some assistance from any mathematicians out there.
This final diagram is of a quarter circle to make things simple.
Duncan - please look at the image. Its the same dimensions as my global building - it has a 250 metres diameter but I am showing it as a quarter circle therefore half the diameter is 125 metres (aka the radius). Hopefully you will see that if I travel from point A along the circumference in the direction of the arrows to point B that I will have covered 197 metres. Now if you look to the left of point B to point C you will notice that I have 'dropped' in height by 125 metres. Please tell me what it is you don't understand about that as you have already accepted that this is correct.
By dividing 197 metres by 125 metres you get 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 metres travelled down the curve ie from A to B you will descend in height by 1 metre.
Come on guys give me a break? Its simple maths.
Well, we're trying to help. So now redo your diagram, but only travel 1.57 metres around the circumference - less than one degree of the circle. Even if you don't trust my maths, you should be able to see graphically that you won't 'drop' anything close to one metre.
What I said was I freeline halfway down the building. Not around it. If I freelined 1.57 metres down the building my rate of drop in height would be 1 metre (per 1.57 metres).
-
I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.
Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles. Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?
Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.
Like it or not and forget what I have called these dimensions does anyone disagree with these maths?
Hopefully not. And regardless of what others have said every single infinite point on a circle is at the 'top of the curve'. Above that point the circle curves away as does it below that point wherever that point is on the circle. And as a circle is one continuous curve there are no parts of the curve that are any different to other part. Take any two segments of the curve and they will be identical no matter where on the circle they came from.
Now instead of me walking 3,113 miles I am going to divide the circle into 360 (purely for conventional purposes - I could have chosen any figure to divide it by; 100, 125, 299 - it wouldn't make any difference). The circumference of the earth divided by 360 = 69 miles. I am now going to walk that 69 miles from the north pole. And when I have finished I will be at a point on the circle some 43 miles below the north pole. Forget linear dimensions they don't matter. The fact is I will have dropped by roughly 43 miles. Or to make it simpler 1 mile for every 1.57 miles travelled around the circumference. And if someone stood at the north pole and watched me walk 1.57 miles away from them I should be at a point 1 mile below them. These figures are irrefutable. Its down to the wording. If anyone disagrees can you please do so in layman's terms? Many thanks
Well, yes we do disagree with your maths and find the figures entirely refutable. In layman's terms, I'll try drawing out what you are actually describing. Starting at the north pole, you travel 1.57 miles and find yourself 1 mile lower than the pole:–
(https://i.imgur.com/GJw49WH.jpg)
Another 1.57 miles and you're another 1 mile lower than the pole:–
(https://imgur.com/KfSCYyT.jpg)
On and on, for each 1.57 miles you travel, you're another mile lower than the pole:–
(https://imgur.com/LkFyKUe.jpg)
Does the path travelled bear any resemblance to the curve of a globe? No, it doesn't, it's a straight line: you are travelling down a constant slope.
If you disagree, explain in layman's terms.
What you say is almost true and in the spirit of what I am saying. But there are no straight lines on a globe. They are all curves. So i walk 1.57 miles from the north pole heading due south to the north pole. The line I have walked is a curve although it will look straight if looking from above and it will feel straight to me. It is a curve. And when i have travelled that 1.57 miles curve my rate of drop in height will be 1 mile (for each 1.57 miles).
-
You are always 'dropping' at the same rate.
My favourite question applies here - "relative to what?" If you choose a fixed point on RE, then the "drop" is not, in fact, occurring "at the same rate". If you choose the traveler's own frame of reference and measure it at some consistent interval, then it is. However, you fail to consistently apply one frame of reference to your logic, which introduces contradictions.
Your argument relies on a misrepresentation of RET. Please don't do that.
For explanatory purposes I start at one point on a fixed global earth. The north pole. I could start anywhere but its better to imagine it from the north pole. And for the example am assuming north is always at the top and south is always at the bottom of the globe.
Am not sure what am misrepresenting in relation to RET but I am demonstrating why the earth can not be a globe due to the rate of drop - folk have been relying on the 8" per Mile squared. This is a pure constant it never changes and works.
-
.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....
No, it is not a constant for circles/globes. It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle. This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge. Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?
And a circle is constant. Every section no matter how large or small has the same curve as any other section of that circle. Thats constant.
Yes but you are not talking about a drop relative to each section but to the starting point (at N) and that is NOT constant. Someone moving 2 steps away from a person at N (on your dome) would NOT be 1.57m lower. As others have pointed a constant rate of your "drop" results in a straight slope not a curve.
There are no straight slopes on a globe. They are all curved. If i walked 1.57 miles due south from someone at the north pole i would be 1 mile lower than them on the globe. But because that doesnt appear to occur then the earth can not be global.
-
Am not sure what am misrepresenting in relation to RET but I am demonstrating why the earth can not be a globe due to the rate of drop - folk have been relying on the 8" per Mile squared. This is a pure constant it never changes and works.
You are doing the same thing RE'ers do here quite often. You present a set of assumptions which are internally inconsistent, then you rightly say that they make no sense, and you conclude that RE can't be true as a result.
The problem is that what you presented in the first place is not your opponents' position. YOU drew up the assumptions, and YOU showed that they're nonsense. The only thing that disproves is the assumptions you've presented.
The RE'ers trying their best to help you understand their model. You should stop pushing your assumptions and learn from them - that way, you can critique the real RE model, rather than what you imagine RE to be.
-
There are no straight slopes on a globe.
With all due respect, that’s the point you don't understand. Literally, the definition of a straight line is that it has a constant rate of change. You are arguing that the circumference of the globe has a constant rate of change, but isn’t a straight line.
Put another way, if the circumference of the globe has a constant rate of change, then it is a straight line. Do you see the contradiction in your own argument?
-
Your argument relies on a misrepresentation of RET. Please don't do that.
His argument mostly relies on him not understanding maths.
SimonC, the drop from one mile to the next is consistent (roughly). So wherever you are the drop a mile away from that place is about 8 inches. But that doesn’t mean the drop after 2 miles is 16 inches. It’s not linear because this is the maths of a curve, not a line.
-
...
There are no straight slopes on a globe. They are all curved. If i walked 1.57 miles due south from someone at the north pole i would be 1 mile lower than them on the globe. But because that doesnt appear to occur then the earth can not be global.
No. The math you suggest is simply wrong and is obviously so just looking at a circle let alone opening a basic trigonometry textbook (there are plenty of such resources online).
If you really do not understand the math here (which I doubt) you might play a bit with the site Mack offered
If that were true then sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case. What you claim is nonsense.
If I'm translating right, I think this website makes your point. It's pretty cool. Move the slider in the top right corner.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/hnZMkBdc
-
His argument mostly relies on him not understanding maths.
Yes - I am trying not to go into too much detail on the things RE'ers do that this guy is repeating, and I don't believe that would be very productive.
I already covered your point in my own words (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg278734#msg278734), and I'm now responding to his response to that. Just restating my point over and over would be... ah, you get the idea.
-
What you say is almost true and in the spirit of what I am saying. But there are no straight lines on a globe. They are all curves. So i walk 1.57 miles from the north pole heading due south to the north pole. The line I have walked is a curve although it will look straight if looking from above and it will feel straight to me. It is a curve. And when i have travelled that 1.57 miles curve my rate of drop in height will be 1 mile (for each 1.57 miles).
Perhaps we ought to consider where you got the "magic number" of 1.57.
(https://i.imgur.com/8IyISKS.jpg)
It's not magic at all, it's just half of pi. Having revisited junior high school mathematics and determined the distance from pole to equator is the globe's radius times half of pi (correct), you have mistakenly thought this ratio is a constant amount for the distance travelled compared to vertical drop from pole to equator. If the sphere has a radius of 250m, the distance from top to "equator" position is ½ x pi x 250 = 392.5m (and the vertical drop 250m.) If it has a radius of 1700 miles, the distance from top to "equator" position is ½ x pi x 1700 = 2669 miles (and the vertical drop 1700 miles.)
But the only sphere where travelling a distance of 1.57 miles on its surface from the top results in a drop of 1 mile is on a sphere of radius 1 mile. And the earth is a great deal larger than that.
(edited for clarity)
-
There are no straight slopes on a globe. They are all curved. If i walked 1.57 miles due south from someone at the north pole i would be 1 mile lower than them on the globe. But because that doesnt appear to occur then the earth can not be global.
I think you're wrong according to the RE model...
Drop: is the amount the surface at the target has dropped from the tangent plane at the surface of the observer. This amount depends on the surface distance between observer and target. This distance is dependent on the Target Distance and the Side Pos of the target via Pythagoras.
The Drop after walking 1.57 miles on the globe is 1.644'.
(https://i.imgur.com/1yr90ex.png)
It's unclear why you keep asserting it's not.
-
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
Fact of the matter is?
Sorry, no, that’s your opinion.
No, it is fact.
Every seafarer and navigator would disagree.
Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration.
Yes, at time, in poor visibility, one cannot distinguish the horizon. But on many other occasions it is very clear.
Are you saying that even when it is clear, you believe that the water continues on, effectively appearing above the horizon, but that it looks to us exactly the same as the sky?
I am saying no one knows what it is they are looking at from that distance.
Sorry, I've been away and busy with work.
Action80,
Please can you provide any evidence that backs up your view that 'it is fact' ...'that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distance away' and that 'Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration'?
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if sea extends above this
- You can't see a clear delineation at all
How far away does an object have to be to be at that 'distant point away' 'such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at'?
For example, the lighthouse in my picture below, how far away would it have to be near to the horizon such that you are no longer confident it's a lighthouse?
-
Sorry, I've been away and busy with work.
Action80,
Please can you provide any evidence that backs up your view that 'it is fact' ...'that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distance away' and that 'Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration'?
Well, I don't know how to be more clear on either point.
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
There is no clear delineation.
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if sea extends above this
There is no clear delineation.
- You can't see a clear delineation at all
Correct.
How far away does an object have to be to be at that 'distant point away' 'such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at'?
That is variable, based on the object.
For example, the lighthouse in my picture below, how far away would it have to be near to the horizon such that you are no longer confident it's a lighthouse?
Well, that is a physical object with a known location. Anyone familiar with the area would know what it was whenever they are in the area.
Visibility and distinguishing the difference between "blue" water and "blue" sky is always variable and based on atmoplane and water conditions.
-
Your constant reference to "shades of blue" seems a little naive and reinforces my opinion that you have never actually seen a nautical horizon. Are your conclusions based upon a series of actual observations, or are you just using photographs, paintings and imagination as a reference?
-
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
There is no clear delineation.
Almost 300 years of celestial navigation using the horizon line seems to indicate that there is some sort of discernible delineation. At least very useful considering how accurate a sextant can be in determining one's longitude and latitude.
-
Your constant reference to "shades of blue" seems a little naive and reinforces my opinion that you have never actually seen a nautical horizon. Are your conclusions based upon a series of actual observations, or are you just using photographs, paintings and imagination as a reference?
I was born on the western shore of the Chesapeake and have spent many hours leisure boating on the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Caribbean, and Great Lakes.
Shades of blue don't exist in your opinion?
-
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
There is no clear delineation.
Almost 300 years of celestial navigation using the horizon line seems to indicate that there is some sort of discernible delineation. At least very useful considering how accurate a sextant can be in determining one's longitude and latitude.
The sextant is held level to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes.
-
What is a non-delineated line?
-
What is a non-delineated line?
Non-delineated?
-
"to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes"
-
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
There is no clear delineation.
Almost 300 years of celestial navigation using the horizon line seems to indicate that there is some sort of discernible delineation. At least very useful considering how accurate a sextant can be in determining one's longitude and latitude.
The sextant is held level to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes.
Yes, yet dependent on a horizon line and shockingly accurate for centuries. If it were not delineated to some extent, celestial navigation would be useless. Off a degree over 500 miles away from Hawaii as your destination would have you sailing nowhere within sight of the islands. So the horizon line must be somewhat delineated to be that useful. To what extent, idk, but good enough for mariners performing essential navigation duties.
-
"to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes"
Not clearly delineated, yes.
Perceived, yes.
-
When you claim this, are you saying that:
- You can see what looks like a clear delineation in most conditions, but you are not sure if the sky extends below this
There is no clear delineation.
Almost 300 years of celestial navigation using the horizon line seems to indicate that there is some sort of discernible delineation. At least very useful considering how accurate a sextant can be in determining one's longitude and latitude.
The sextant is held level to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes.
Yes, yet dependent on a horizon line and shockingly accurate for centuries. If it were not delineated to some extent, celestial navigation would be useless. Off a degree over 500 miles away from Hawaii as your destination would have you sailing nowhere within sight of the islands. So the horizon line must be somewhat delineated to be that useful. To what extent, idk, but good enough for mariners performing essential navigation duties.
"Close enough for government work," (as it were), and based on the outline of the heavens above the flat earth plane.
-
Action80,
Please can you provide any evidence that backs up your view that 'it is fact' ...'that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distance away' and that 'Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration'?
Well, I don't know how to be more clear on either point.
You've been clear as to what you believe, I wasn't asking you that, I'd like to understand what you're basing that view on. What evidence have you got? Is it recorded that people often confuse what they think is the horizon with something else? That the sea extends further up then they think, or the sky extends further down than they think?
There is no clear delineation.
You don't see a clear delineation on my photograph? I've marked it with the red arrow as to where I'm seeing one. The reflective sea, and the non-reflective sky. Does the area below the arrow, and the area above the arrow look the same to you?
-
Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?
If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?
Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?
Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?
You can't see the curvature of the earth. Even from space all you can see is a circle with no way of knowing if you're looking at a flat circle or a ball. You can only tell it's a ball if you have the depth perception to see the ball curving away from you (i.e. you can perceive 3d).
-
I just joined, so I'm not familiar with the posters here. I looked farther down and saw a thread called "looking for curvature of the earth is a fool's errand'. I read the first post and I think it explains everything you need to know about the topic. I didn't read the responses.
-
Yes, that's why lighthouses are built very high, to get a clearer view of the surrounding landscape and to see ships far from land, even in the dark of night. And as you rotate 360 degrees in the middle of the ocean, you will notice that the horizon changes with each rotation as it slowly bends away from you. If you look closely, you may also notice the curvature of the Earth's surface.
-
And as you rotate 360 degrees in the middle of the ocean, you will notice that the horizon changes with each rotation as it slowly bends away from you.
No, No, No. That is exactly what does NOT happen. The horizon will look exactly the same as you spin around. Nobody seems to understand this.