Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DuncanDoenitz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 30, 2023, 10:42:06 AM »
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. 

Its not easy to fly over antarcticaa you know.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 18, 2023, 10:58:37 PM »
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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 18, 2023, 07:09:13 PM »
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:

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). 

Interesting and topical, don't think I've noticed this before; Latam's 800/801 outbound/inbound Dreamliners between Santiago and Auckland are both airborne at the same time (registration CC-BGD westbound as LAN801, CC-BGB LAN800 eastbound).  Google Maps shows the Great Circle route reaches a maximum declination of around 53deg S; one flight is currently at 47deg S, the other at 54deg S. 

Presumably one of them is benefitting from Tom's winds. 

(Not sure if the other is full of hapless hobos on a one-way ticket to Palookaville).   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 10, 2023, 01:31:15 PM »
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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 09, 2023, 10:32:29 AM »

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? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 07, 2023, 09:18:36 PM »

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). 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 07, 2023, 10:55:15 AM »

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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 06, 2023, 08:48:28 PM »

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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 06, 2023, 03:21:36 PM »
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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 04, 2023, 01:33:23 PM »

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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: February 23, 2023, 09:47:30 AM »

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. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship
« on: February 21, 2023, 10:12:25 AM »
As usual, I agree with Tom and Action80.  The whole point of literature, at every level, is to be challenging, to broaden the mind, and promote further learning. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof
« on: February 21, 2023, 09:42:32 AM »

This has already been performed on the Humboldt Estuary and the Verrazano Narrows.

Are you referring to the Humber estuary? ("FAST BRIDGE FACTS");

"-The concrete towers are 155.5 metres (510 feet) tall and were built to be 36mm further apart from each other at the top than at the bottom, to allow for the curvature of the Earth".

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness
« on: February 14, 2023, 10:20:33 PM »
You seem to be suggesting that the only meaningful intelligence possible from balloon-altitudes is visible-light photographic.  I seem to be suggesting that your premise is false.  If it works over Europe, it works over North America; geographical location is irrelevant. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness
« on: February 14, 2023, 08:25:03 PM »
USAF, RAF and others are making daily flights by E-8 JOINT-STARS, RC-135 Rivet-Joint, etc, along the Moldavia, Ukraine and Belarus borders, in order to conduct SIGINT and monitoring of Russian forces across hundreds of kilometers, so the 18 km altitude of a balloon is hardly going to be a problem. 

And if you can provoke a hostile fighter to actually use its targeting radar against your balloon's SIGINT suite, that's a bonus. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness
« on: February 13, 2023, 06:10:08 PM »
Have any REers claimed that?
It used to be a pretty regular occurrence, yeah.
And you obviously have a link to those claims; its ok, we don't need to see it. 

Balloons are a thing.  Satellites are a thing.  F-22s are a thing.  They're not mutually exclusive. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« on: January 31, 2023, 10:22:02 AM »
Have to disagree.  The most important thing a flying school teaches is thinking for yourself.  Why do you think they ever sent you solo if they didn't believe you can think independently? 

I sorry, I still don't see your point.  You've said you used to be a pilot, but you still haven't told us anything about your personal navigational experience. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« on: January 30, 2023, 08:10:07 PM »
Interesting sub-thread Swanlinnet; don't know if the mods will be happy with it here, but, hey-ho. 

As a "person who used to be a pilot", you will know that the FAA, CAA and other National Aviation Authorities (under the auspices of the ICAO and Chicago Convention) don't actually teach anyone to fly, although they do regulate such activities.  Its difficult to address your submission about the relevance of the Earth's roundness without knowing more about your knowledge base.  Yes, the training is broad and intense but, if I remember correctly (1970's for goodness sake!), its not something I remember being taught, or needing, when studying for a PPL, but I think it would certainly have been important if I was to consider long-range navigation, or a commercial licence. 

What category of licence did you hold, commercial or private, local or long-haul?  Have you ever flown a sector more than a couple of hundred miles?  I'd be surprised if you had not learnt, for instance, the need for Great Circle navigation over long distances. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >