with no atmospheric conditions to intrferfere with iits sighting.The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. Your hypothetical ideal conditions are an amusing thought experiment, but they're useless for any practical purposes.
with no atmospheric conditions to intrferfere with iits sighting.The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. Your hypothetical ideal conditions are an amusing thought experiment, but they're useless for any practical purposes.
Just a comment on the "round earth" or the "flat earth" definition of the horizon.
"Round Earth"
It is admittedly a bit ironic that the earth looks the flattest on a ship in the middle of the ocean.
But if you were in that crow's nest, 100 feet above the surface of the sea, the distance you would see to the horizon would be about 12 miles.
You would be in the center of a circle 24 miles in diameter with the horizon all around you in 360 degrees (in all directions).
If you were on the main deck of the ship about 50 feet above the water, you would see the horizon to be about 8 1/2 miles away.
If you were standing up in a boat on the surface of the ocean, about 2 or 3 miles.
"Flat Earth"
Same example.
You would just see a blur in all directions stretching out at a distance which you would be unable to estimate.
It wouldn't matter how high you were on that ship in the middle of the ocean . You wouldn't need any tall masts for crow's nests.
If it wasn't for the atmoplane you could see from the north pole to the ice ring.
Hmmmmm ??????......In that case, why has no-one ever seen the ice ring ?
The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg) Sharp Horizon from near Sea Level - at Shorncliffe | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg) Scarborough, Horizon past Beacon | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg) Scarborough, Beacon on Horizon |
Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Naturally, rabinoz also wants you to think that you're seeing something else, and that basic chemistry need not apply to his fantasy world [necessary consequence: rabinoz's sky isn't blue], but let's overlook that for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
As for your "distance from the horizon" argument, it applies perfectly well to FET (you do understand perspective, don't you?), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Naturally, rabinoz also wants you to think that you're seeing something else, and that basic chemistry need not apply to his fantasy world [necessary consequence: rabinoz's sky isn't blue], but let's overlook that for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
As for your "distance from the horizon" argument, it applies perfectly well to FET (you do understand perspective, don't you?), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
If you ask me an 18th century Naval Authority would be a better source for information than the writings of a 19th Century author. The British Admiralty might not have been a bad place to go. I think Captain James Cook knew a lot more than Rowbotham on these things - first-hand experience!Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Naturally, rabinoz also wants you to think that you're seeing something else, and that basic chemistry need not apply to his fantasy world [necessary consequence: rabinoz's sky isn't blue], but let's overlook that for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
As for your "distance from the horizon" argument, it applies perfectly well to FET (you do understand perspective, don't you?), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
In all of the photos the horizon is clearly visible. There is a distinct line where sea and sky meet in all of the photos.
Where is this blur ? The horizon and the buoy stand out clearly.
The rule of the estimate of the distance to the horizon is clearly shown.
Sex Warrior's arguments are simply clearly erroneous.
If the earth was flat, and according to the flat earth wiki, these photos would only show a blur.
The whole idea of a flat earth is a fallacy and there is no evidence for it.
The only argument flat earth seems to have is denial of reality.
I think the flat earthers are simply afraid to go to some authority to discuss this subject. The Navy would be the best source as explained in previous posts regarding lookouts. A 21st Century Naval Authority would be a better source for information than the writings of a 19th Century author.
High Altitude PhotographsAnd here is one showing a sharp horizon at sea-level and a blurred horizon at 35,000 feet.
Most pictures of the earth taken by amateur balloonists at very high altitudes are not doctored. Flat Earth Theory holds that there is elliptical curvature from the edge of space, over 50 miles in altitude. Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.
Example: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/
Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle. A circle is always curved in two dimensions. When looking down at the circular area of the sun's light upon the earth we see elliptical curvature.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/ca/Highalt.jpg)
Sure sign of one who knows he has lost the argument. He attacks his opponent's motives and character first! Thanks for confirming that thought.I attacked your ludicrous claim first. Then I concluded you're being dishonest. I know keeping your lies straight is difficult, but do try to keep up with your own posts!
I fitted the photos on one line simply to keep the post compact and for absolutely no other reason. I did not "dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring".I've explained to you countless times that your abuse of BBCode is unhelpful, as have many others. You keep doing it nonetheless. At this point I pretty much have to assume malicious intent.
You are great at inferring motive on other people! In case you didn't know cloudy skies aren't blue.[emphasis mine]
Then in case you missed it the sky in two off the photos is blueI'm glad you no longer deny this. We can finally put the "transparent atmosphere" argument aside!
the horizon quite sharp"Quite" sharp, huh? How sharp is "quite" sharp? How much blurring are you willing to ignore? Because your photos are perfectly consistent with FET (doubly so bearing in mind your admission regarding the altitudes at which the photos were taken).
So, you show us some photos of this horizon fading into an indeterminate distance caused by the "The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent."You already did that! Are you trying to start one of these threads where everyone keeps posting the same picture over and over? Because those generally belong in CN.
Actually I quite agree, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, and even in the clearest air the visibility limit is from 100 km to a few hundred km depending on the colour.I'm glad you agree!
But the horizon distances on my photos is only a few kilometres. Maybe you have a better explanation for that.Could you present some evidence to substantiate that claim? Could you also present some data to ascertain just how clear the air was in the heavily-polluted Queensland locations you named?
What ludicrous claim?Sure sign of one who knows he has lost the argument. He attacks his opponent's motives and character first! Thanks for confirming that thought.I attacked your ludicrous claim first. Then I concluded you're being dishonest. I know keeping your lies straight is difficult, but do try to keep up with your own posts!
OK, I get you point, but it was not done to deceive.I fitted the photos on one line simply to keep the post compact and for absolutely no other reason. I did not "dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring".I've explained to you countless times that your abuse of BBCode is unhelpful, as have many others. You keep doing it nonetheless. At this point I pretty much have to assume malicious intent.
But okay, in the extremely unlikely event that you still don't understand, here's what your post looks like on a mobile device. Bear in mind that just about half of our visitors view this site on mobile devices (41.67% mobile phones, 7.84% tablets).
(https://i.imgur.com/A7n2ZqN.png)
It is very difficult to believe that you would continue doing this if your intention is not to deceive.
I do not know what you are bitching about! Clouds or not the horizon is still quite sharp. so I honestly do not know where your "Classic RE logic right there!" comes in.You are great at inferring motive on other people! In case you didn't know cloudy skies aren't blue.[emphasis mine]
Ah, yes, "a sure sign of one who knows he has lost the argument". Clouds exist therefore we can dismiss obvious evidence of the atmosphere not being perfectly clear. Classic RE logic right there!
I have NEVER claimed that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent. As it happens that is the whole point of my argument. Because the atmosphere is not transparent, the only way for the horizon to be sharp is for it to be relatively close.Then in case you missed it the sky in two of the photos is blueI'm glad you no longer deny this. We can finally put the "transparent atmosphere" argument aside!
How do you explain a sharp horizon on the Flat Earth? If the surface of the ocean were flat the limit of vision would be set by the limited transparency of the atmosphere and I would expect it to fade into a blur as we see in high altitude photos from aircraft or mountains.the horizon quite sharp"Quite" sharp, huh? How sharp is "quite" sharp? How much blurring are you willing to ignore? Because your photos are perfectly consistent with FET (doubly so bearing in mind your admission regarding the altitudes at which the photos were taken).
No I did not. In the photos I showed any reasonable person would accept that the air-sea boundary is sharp, quite unlike what we see in high altitude photos like this oneSo, you show us some photos of this horizon fading into an indeterminate distance caused by the "The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent."You already did that! Are you trying to start one of these threads where everyone keeps posting the same picture over and over? Because those generally belong in CN.
Of course I agree, where have I said otherwise!Actually I quite agree, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, and even in the clearest air the visibility limit is from 100 km to a few hundred km depending on the colour.I'm glad you agree!
I believe I can at give the distance from Scarborough Beach at -27.201667°S 153.115833°E to the Beacon NE Scarborough at 27.183583°S 153.132746°E is just over 2.6 km.But the horizon distances on my photos is only a few kilometres. Maybe you have a better explanation for that.Could you present some evidence to substantiate that claim? Could you also present some data to ascertain just how clear the air was in the heavily-polluted Queensland locations you named?
Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Naturally, rabinoz also wants you to think that you're seeing something else, and that basic chemistry need not apply to his fantasy world [necessary consequence: rabinoz's sky isn't blue], but let's overlook that for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
As for your "distance from the horizon" argument, it applies perfectly well to FET (you do understand perspective, don't you?), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
The horizon is not the place that the earth curves away from you. It is the furthest that any particular optics can resolve. The blurring is dependent upon how much atmosphere you are looking through.
This phenomenon's relation to the shape of the Earth is indeterminate.
| Addendum | on Vanishing Point Quote from: the Wiki Horizon Limits with PerspectiveNote the statement "The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree." Some of those buildings are around 1,000' tall, which puts the vanishing point at around 3,000 x 1,000 = 3,000,000 feet or well over 500 miles. Now, of course, they would be hidden by haze in much less distance than that. That photo looks like Toronto over Lake Ontario, making the distance to the buildings roughly 30 miles - far, far closer than their vanishing point due to eye (or camera) resolution. |
The horizon is not the place that the earth curves away from you. It is the furthest that any particular optics can resolve. The blurring is dependent upon how much atmosphere you are looking through.
This phenomenon's relation to the shape of the Earth is indeterminate.
Have you never been to sea or have you never stood on the shore and looked out to sea on a clear day ?I have. Rabinoz has kindly provided photos which blow your explanation out of the water. He did rather dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring, but hey, we're here to correct such attempts, aren't we?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sharp%20Horizon%20from%20near%20Sea%20Level%20-%20at%20Shorncliffe_zpsbhzco08y.jpg)(Excessive BBCode stripped for readability and to allow for the blur to be more clearly visible)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon_zpsestuuzhe.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon_zps3et5nloo.jpg)
Naturally, rabinoz also wants you to think that you're seeing something else, and that basic chemistry need not apply to his fantasy world [necessary consequence: rabinoz's sky isn't blue], but let's overlook that for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
As for your "distance from the horizon" argument, it applies perfectly well to FET (you do understand perspective, don't you?), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
According to flat earth, the horizon would not be clearly seen as in the photographs. They would just show the ocean in the foreground fading to a blur in the bsckground..
Please answer my questions in a previous post rrgardiing the horizon if the earth was flat.
According to flat earth, the horizon would not be clearly seen as in the photographs. They would just show the ocean in the foreground fading to a blur in the bsckground..
Please answer my questions in a previous post rrgardiing the horizon if the earth was flat.
No one has ever said that except Rabinoz and you.
Can someone explain to me, why when we see ship or buildings from long distance they are as taken from animation ?,
I know it is because of the air, it is not crystal clear and showing things according to the forces working on it ? but what yours excuse ?
The Horizon looks like clumsy painting.Can someone explain to me, why when we see ship or buildings from long distance they are as taken from animation ?,
I know it is because of the air, it is not crystal clear and showing things according to the forces working on it ? but what yours excuse ?
Can you explain what you mean by a "they are as taken from animation" ?
To "truth"-
I can see, as is the usual case, it is impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion with a so-called "flat earth believer" so it's time to vacate the premises.
But I do know the earth is a globe.
I do know the earth is not a flat disc.
I do know the horizon is a distinct line where the sea and sky meet.
I do know how to estimate the distance to the horizon.
And I do know it's not just a blur.
And I am no genius like skeptimatic or truth, but I do know a few other things that the so-called "flat earth believers" seem to pretend to not know.
So if you don't want to learn anything and stay in your ignorance, so be it.
Just don't talk to anyone in the Navy or anyone who has ever been in the Navy about your idea of a so-called "flat earth" if you want to stay out of trouble.
With best regards, best wishes, and hope for your future intelligence, Adios Amigos......LOL
If the horizon is the curvature of the Earth, and you can clearly see it, why can't you clearly see the curvature of the horizon without being 100k feet in the air?
Please, before you go, would you mind answering my question?QuoteIf the horizon is the curvature of the Earth, and you can clearly see it, why can't you clearly see the curvature of the horizon without being 100k feet in the air?
Please, before you go, would you mind answering my question?QuoteIf the horizon is the curvature of the Earth, and you can clearly see it, why can't you clearly see the curvature of the horizon without being 100k feet in the air?
I'll give it a shot if you don't mind.
First of all, it's easier to notice curvature that is parallel to your line of vision, rather than perpendicular. Imagine going to the hardware store and picking out a long board. You want a perfectly straight board. If you set the boards down horizontally on a bench, and then step back, they might all look fairly straight. But if you hold the board up to your eye as if you are looking down the barrel of a gun, you can see the tiny imperfections. This is because all the tiny imperfections are compressed into a tiny section of your vision, which makes them stand out.
But there is another reason why horizontal curvature is difficult to notice. Mathematically, the horizon is the same distance away from you in all directions (assuming symmetrical terrain). This is true for both a flat earth and a round earth. Therefore, the curvature of the horizon is due ENTIRELY to the dip in visual angle to the horizon. (dg in this image:)
(http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/figs/dip1.gif)
There are 2 things about this that you should understand:
1. There is a dip in the visual angle to the horizon for a flat earth as well. Unless you believe that the horizon is an infinite distance away, which most flat earthers don't believe, for obvious reasons. This means that there should be curvature for a flat earth horizon as well, although it would be slightly less than that of a round earth.
2. How you perceive this curvature is entirely dependent on how the 3d view of the horizon is projected onto a 2d image. For example, for a cylindrical panorama, the horizon would appear perfectly straight, regardless of the dip angle. Think of the lines of latitude on a globe. They are curved, right? But in a mercator projection, all lines of latitude are perfectly straight, regardless of "dip angle" (degrees away from the equator).
If you want to get a feel for how much curvature you would see based on a given "dip angle", I recommend downloading Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/).
1. Turn off the ground and atmosphere.
2. Turn on the Azimuthal grid.
3. Position the camera so that the horizontal line labelled "+0 degrees" is in the middle of the screen. It should be perfectly straight.
4. Zoom in until your horizontal field of view is similar to the average camera. (about 60 degrees)
5. Now look at the curvature of the line labelled "-10 degrees".
See how little curvature is visible in that line? For reference, to actually achieve a -10 degrees dip angle to the horizon, you would have to be 320,000 feet high. 60 miles high.
The dip angle for a person with an eye level of 6 feet is only -0.04 degrees. That is a tiny fraction of the curvature of the -10 degree line.
Feel free to change which projection Stellarium uses. It comes with a long list of different projections. The one it uses by default is fairly close to human vision.
I would be interested in knowing how you would calculate the distance to the horizon if the earth was flat ?
Do you have any ideas on this and/or would you like to take a shot at it ?
To be honest, I am a so-called "Round Earther"...
I would be interested in knowing how you would calculate the distance to the horizon if the earth was flat ?
Do you have any ideas on this and/or would you like to take a shot at it ?
You could measure the dip angle to the horizon and then convert that to distance on a flat earth. This would result in a horizon that is slightly closer than on a round earth for a given dip angle.
distance = h/sin(angle)
Of course, this just pushes the problem one step backwards: how can we predict what the dip angle will be? No idea. It should be noted that Rowbotham claims the dip angle doesn't exist, and that it is just an error in the measuring equipment. Or something. I think Rowbotham believes the horizon is an infinite distance away. I don't remember though. I could be wrong.
Rowbotham also provides a way to calculate how much of an object is obscured behind the horizon, assuming you are at exactly ground level. It's an idiotic explanation, but its there if you are curious.QuoteTo be honest, I am a so-called "Round Earther"...
Yeah, I know. In case you didn't notice, both of us have posted to this forum regularly for a long time.