#### SimonC

• 127
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #200 on: April 02, 2023, 08:54:22 AM »
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).

#### SimonC

• 127
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #201 on: April 02, 2023, 08:57:26 AM »
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:–

Another 1.57 miles and you're another 1 mile lower than the pole:–

On and on, for each 1.57 miles you travel, you're another mile lower than the pole:–

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).

#### SimonC

• 127
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #202 on: April 02, 2023, 09:00:39 AM »
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.

#### SimonC

• 127
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #203 on: April 02, 2023, 09:03:03 AM »
.... 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.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 01:08:39 PM by SimonC »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16194
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #204 on: April 02, 2023, 09:44:35 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 09:46:19 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### Mack

• 17
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #205 on: April 02, 2023, 01:37:08 PM »
Quote
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?

#### AATW

• 6596
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #206 on: April 02, 2023, 02:05:28 PM »
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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### ichoosereality

• 315
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #207 on: April 02, 2023, 03:33:35 PM »
...
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
Quote from: Ichoosereality
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
The contents of the GPS NAV message is the time of transmission and the orbital location of the transmitter at that time. If the transmitters are not where they claim to be GPS would not work.  Since it does work the transmitters must in fact be in orbit, which means the earth is round.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16194
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #208 on: April 02, 2023, 03:35:52 PM »
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, and I'm now responding to his response to that. Just restating my point over and over would be... ah, you get the idea.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 03:37:38 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### Longtitube

• 228
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #209 on: April 02, 2023, 04:11:23 PM »
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.

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)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 08:23:01 PM by Longtitube »
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #210 on: April 02, 2023, 06:05:23 PM »
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'.

It's unclear why you keep asserting it's not.

#### Gonzo

• 78
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #211 on: April 10, 2023, 08:08:39 PM »

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?

#### Action80

• 2940
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #212 on: April 10, 2023, 10:11:24 PM »
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.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 444
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #213 on: April 11, 2023, 07:28:22 AM »
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?

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #214 on: April 11, 2023, 10:28:01 AM »
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.

#### Action80

• 2940
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #215 on: April 11, 2023, 11:45:58 AM »
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?
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### Action80

• 2940
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #216 on: April 11, 2023, 11:48:32 AM »
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.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 444
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #217 on: April 11, 2023, 03:34:07 PM »
What is a non-delineated line?

#### Action80

• 2940
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #218 on: April 11, 2023, 03:38:34 PM »
What is a non-delineated line?
Non-delineated?
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 444
##### Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« Reply #219 on: April 11, 2023, 04:43:50 PM »
"to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes"