The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
No, it doesn't!The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.
The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.That's not quite correct. The horizon is curved, but the curve is so slight, that you cannot notice it. Or at least you cannot rule out lens distortions etc., which could produce a similar curve.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
No, it doesn't!The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.
Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:(https://i.postimg.cc/x84C1F5Q/Scarborough-Beacon-50-mm-lens-higher-res.jpg)Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.
Is there anything else you like me to agree to?Quote from: EarthmanYou just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.
And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.That's an interesting approach.
I think you will ignore it again.
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.Say for example, that the earth really were a globe of radius about 7,000km. Of course it isn't, but suppose it were. Can you explain how the horizon would look?
I think you will ignore it again.
No, it doesn't!The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.
Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:(https://i.postimg.cc/x84C1F5Q/Scarborough-Beacon-50-mm-lens-higher-res.jpg)Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.
Is there anything else you like me to agree to?Quote from: EarthmanYou just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.
And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.That's an interesting approach.
I think you will ignore it again.
I'll take that photo robinoz posted as example for a coarse estimate.
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.Say for example, that the earth really were a globe of radius about 7,000km. Of course it isn't, but suppose it were. Can you explain how the horizon would look?
I think you will ignore it again.
What's to ignore? Don't you even read the posts you reply to?No, it doesn't!The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.
Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:(https://i.postimg.cc/x84C1F5Q/Scarborough-Beacon-50-mm-lens-higher-res.jpg)Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.
Is there anything else you like me to agree to?Quote from: EarthmanYou just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.
And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.
What's to ignore? Don't you even read the posts you reply to?No, it doesn't!The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.
Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.
Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:(https://i.postimg.cc/x84C1F5Q/Scarborough-Beacon-50-mm-lens-higher-res.jpg)Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.
Is there anything else you like me to agree to?Quote from: EarthmanYou just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.
And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!
Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.
I said that the horizon on the Globe from a 2 m eye-level was a circle of a bit over 5 km radius seen edge-on from within 4 m of the centre - of course it's going to look straight.
Your 3959 mile radius only comes into the picture when working out the 5 km (about 3.1 miles) radius and the dip angle of 0.045° to that horizon.
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
The only datum known for your pictures is height of observer and therefore distance to horizon. There are no numbers given for field of view, how long is the stretch of horizon observed?Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?. See the picture below.That's an interesting approach.
I think you will ignore it again.
I'll take that photo robinoz posted as example for a coarse estimate.
Why don't you do it with the pictures (with numbers) I posted? You do know the higher you get, the easier it is to see curvature, right? But we don't see any except through the eyes and lenses of NASA. Why?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
I didn't ask how much curve could be seen. I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.
I didn't ask how much curve could be seen. I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.
So, in other words, you don't see curvature that you wouldn't expect to see anyways, right?I didn't ask how much curve could be seen. I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?
This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.
You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.
That's a broad question, it depends on the elevation, but very visible at high altitudes because of its small radius of only 3959 miles. Please see my last post to "edby"
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!
Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?
The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.
The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.
That's a true Checkmate.Not so fast with your Checkmate!
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
- A "stronger zoom lens" can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!
- You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
Quote from: EarthmanIf you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!
Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?
The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.
The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.Quote from: EarthmanThat's a true Checkmate.Not so fast with your Checkmate!
Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.
I imagine that you mean this photo?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmNq6fv48LL9epC1X2kL9b7DznpgpabWNRXQ6CtMm6kiLs/chic%20flat%20earth.jpg)
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Not so fast with your Checkmate!Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.
Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.
I imagine that you mean this photo?
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmNq6fv48LL9epC1X2kL9b7DznpgpabWNRXQ6CtMm6kiLs/chic%20flat%20earth.jpg)
Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.
So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?
Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".
PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".
It doesn't matter if it made the news or not. I do know seeing Chicago from that distance is common.I guess that you mean this one? Bring it on!
Joshua Nowicki was standing on shore at a park. The news reported this.
This is not an isolated event. There are many. The world record is 275 miles across water. (At later date)
What is hiding more of the city at 40 miles is worse atmospheric conditions than from 56 miles away.Not at all! It is quite obvious that the 40 mile photo has a far more sharply defined horizon.
Oh, yes, it's Checkmate because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball with a 3959 mile radius, but I don't expect you to believe it nor do I care. I only care for those seeking truth.But I asked you to calculate how much would have been expected to be hidden in Joshua Nowicki's photo but you refused as you have always done.
Do you know how to prove Earth has curvature with a curvature chart? If you can, why haven't you or any other Globie done this already?You made the claim that "because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball" so the onus is on you to prove your claim.
Bye for now.
This video might provide a more detailed explanation of why, when viewed from a low altitude, the horizon on the Globe should look flat.Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
- A "stronger zoom lens" can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!
- You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.