[Icaruss]

When I'm flying over the ocean in an airplane and see the curvature of the earth what am I really seeing?

[Roundy]

Something your imagination is telling you you should see, maybe, since even REers recognize that the supposed curvature of the Earth isn't visible from an airplane.

[Icaruss]

Something your imagination is telling you you should see, maybe, since even REers recognize that the supposed curvature of the Earth isn't visible from an airplane.

So optical illusion? I flew to the UK and over land it looks flat like normal, but over the ocean it looks bent. I was thinking tidal forces but since I believe in a flat world the whole 'thinking it should exist because I think it' is a little backwards.

[Roundy]

Well, just to be straight, I do recognize that the view from very far above the Earth exhibit the appearance of curvature.  But not from most commercial airliners (which I assumed was what you were talking about).  If you thought you saw curvature, it is likely because you thought you should have seen curvature; it's not an optical illusion so much as it is your subconscious lying to you.  You probably heard you could see the curvature of the Earth from a plane, from someone who didn't know what they were talking about, or else otherwise thought you should since you're so high up, so your brain told you you could even though you couldn't.

[Roundy]

confirmation bias

THANK YOU, it was killing me trying to come up with that phrase.

[Icaruss]

The confirmation bias could also possibly be compounded by a slight fisheye effect of those rounded airplane windows.

Confirmation bias would be true if I was expecting to see the curvature. I was not so I was quite surprised. The fisheye effect actual explains what i was seeing because (now I know what I'm looking for) you see the same thing in a curved lens.

[Woody]

 This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

[Pete Svarrior]

This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

No, that's a terrible answer. Instead of relying on crappy pop-science websites, how about you read an actual peer-reviewed paper?

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

[Icaruss]

This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

No, that's a terrible answer. Instead of relying on crappy pop-science websites, how about you read an actual peer-reviewed paper?

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

The paper claims the Earth has a curvature, by citing this paper are you agreeing with that author that the world is round?

[juner]

This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

No, that's a terrible answer. Instead of relying on crappy pop-science websites, how about you read an actual peer-reviewed paper?

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

The paper claims the Earth has a curvature, by citing this paper are you agreeing with that author that the world is round?

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

[Icaruss]

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

[juner]

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

Your entire post is pure conjecture. Please stay on topic.

[Icaruss]

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

Your entire post is pure conjecture. Please stay on topic.

I'm sorry but you have no basis for that claim and are attempting to use it to distract from those personal attacks you felt the need to throw at me. Before that I was on topic talking about the fisheye effect causing the curvature and attempting to evaluate literature provided by another member. I wish you were as interested as I am in contributing to this topic so we can create a meaningful dialogue instead of posting low content attacks, then pretending they never occurred.

Are you interested in contributing to this tread or did you only post here because you wish to feel superior over others.

[juner]

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

Your entire post is pure conjecture. Please stay on topic.

I'm sorry but you have no basis for that claim and are attempting to use it to distract from those personal attacks you felt the need to throw at me. Before that I was on topic talking about the fisheye effect causing the curvature and attempting to evaluate literature provided by another member. I wish you were as interested as I am in contributing to this topic so we can create a meaningful dialogue instead of posting low content attacks, then pretending they never occurred.

Are you interested in contributing to this tread or did you only post here because you wish to feel superior over others.

Your entire diatribe was made up, not based on anything that actually was said. If you want to make things up, that's fine, just don't do it here. I'll ask you nicely once more to get back on topic.

[Icaruss]

Your entire diatribe was made up, not based on anything that actually was said. If you want to make things up, that's fine, just don't do it here. I'll ask you nicely once more to get back on topic.

Again, I'm desperately trying to get back on topic. If you scroll up you can plainly see that the first person to post something not related to optics was you insulting me. I can't make this up because what we typed is laid out for everyone to see. I ask again, do you wish to read the article posted and discuss it regarding the topic (again trying to get back on topic, but you won't let me), or do you want to keep insulting me?

I read the forum rules and I guess they don't apply to moderators.

[Thork]

Your thread started with a lie. You said you saw something you didn't and asked the community here to defend that. You didn't see curvature. You absolutely didn't. Even if the earth were a ball, you could not see that unless you were at least 45,000ft, typically 60,000. That is just maths based on the acuity of the eye and the supposed curve.

Also don't mix the two types of curve. Yes the horizon wraps around you in a large circle. Of course it does, as it would if you were stood on a large dinner plate. The curvature you need to find is the earth dropping away from you at the horizon, ball like curvature.

Below is a scientific paper proving you came here with a lie, posted already by SexWarrior, which you ignored.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Don't expect respectful discourse when you arrive a liar, accuse all around of being wrong, get an answer and then ignore it because it isn't the answer you wanted.

[Icaruss]

Your thread started with a lie. You said you saw something you didn't and asked the community here to defend that. You didn't see curvature. You absolutely didn't. Even if the earth were a ball, you could not see that unless you were at least 45,000ft, typically 60,000. That is just maths based on the acuity of the eye and the supposed curve.

Also don't mix the two types of curve. Yes the horizon wraps around you in a large circle. Of course it does, as it would if you were stood on a large dinner plate. The curvature you need to find is the earth dropping away from you at the horizon, ball like curvature.

Below is a scientific paper proving you came here with a lie, posted already by SexWarrior, which you ignored.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Don't expect respectful discourse when you arrive a liar, accuse all around of being wrong, get an answer and then ignore it because it isn't the answer you wanted.

The thread started with an observation, which (if you read the thread) was resolved ~5 posts later. I came here with the expectation of a reasonable discourse but no one wants the read the thread before posting. I also read that entire paper (again, something you would know if you read the thread), I was confused because the author uses the Earth's supposed curvature in his calculations.

Edit: It was 4 posts later

Fig. 6. Model of the horizon and the Earth’s curvature as seen by
an observer from an arbitrary elevation h above the surface. The
amount S (sagitta) by which the apparent Earth limb falls below
the horizon is easily calculable: S ¼ R − ðR2 − X2Þ1=2. To convert
this linear dimension to an angular dimension, we need only divide
each quantity by the distance to the horizon D ≈ ð2Rh þ h2Þ1=2).

Was I the only one to actually read the article?

[Thork]

You just told Junker you were desperately trying to get the thread back on track. On a track where? You have a scientific answer, you have no rebuttal, this thread is toast.

[Icaruss]

You just told Junker you were desperately trying to get the thread back on track. On a track where? You have a scientific answer, you have no rebuttal, this thread is toast.

Sorry, my rebuttal is in the edited post. I posted, realized no one read the article in depth, then had to go retrieve a portion of it to quote. I can quote more sections if you like regarding the assumption of a round Earth in his calculations.

[Charming Anarchist]

Something your imagination is telling you you should see, maybe, since even REers recognize that the supposed curvature of the Earth isn't visible from an airplane.

So optical illusion?

I would expect so. 

I do not understand the animosity in this thread. 

The earth is not curved but I am not surprized that you perceived a curvature.  There are lots of optical illusions that give the impression of curved lines when they are actually straight. 

At some point, your eyes fail to see forever ---- that place along your horizon will unlikely represent a straight line.  Thus, you get the impression of a curve.