[AATW]

I've dealt with waves in this thread

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.msg145931#msg145931

Tom derailed it by talking about the horizon, but the main point of the thread was to show that unless the waves are higher than the observer they would not occlude objects as shown in that video.

[Curious Squirrel]

I've dealt with waves in this thread

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.msg145931#msg145931

Tom derailed it by talking about the horizon, but the main point of the thread was to show that unless the waves are higher than the observer they would not occlude objects as shown in that video.

Which is why Tom refuses to budge on the horizon rising to eye level, because this 'magic' is how the waves get higher than your eyes. The horizon rises to the level of your eyes, and the waves rest atop the horizon and can then block your view of objects beyond. At least, that's my understanding.

[AATW]

Although in his crazy world the horizon is the vanishing point, so how anything could rest on top of it...
But logical contradictions never seem to trouble him too much so long as he thinks they prove him right.

[JohnAdams1145]

A few nitpicks in the math here:
"Distance" on the Earth could mean straight-line distance or great-circle distance. In this 2D representation, straight-line distance at the base of each object is the chord length, straight-line distance from the tops of each object is something else, while the great-circle distance is the arc length (using the base of both observer and object).

Your diagram/derivation should include two segments: one for the object being observed and one for the observer.


(Ignore the distance labels; these are for you to define).

[Diy]

About the observer height from the Turning Torso video, they are in the description of the video:

25km/15.5mi - 3.7m/12.1ft
28.4km/17.6mi - 2.9m/9.5ft
34.7km/21.6mi - 2.9m/9.5ft
40.3km/25mi - 2.4m/7.9ft
45.1km/28mi - 2.7m/8.9ft
47.9km/29.8mi - 2.1m/6.9ft
47.9km/29.8mi - 17.6m/57.7ft

And also shown on https://flic.kr/p/R2q2fd and https://flic.kr/p/EseKVJ

[Earthman]

I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)

Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg

and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km

Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg

Data from video


As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator

Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}

Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?

[RonJ]

The answers to a lot of questions about the global earth can be found in the the publication called "The American Practical Navigator".  It's available on line for free.  Most of the theory of the global earth can be found there, but you will have to be prepared to spend some time reading and understanding the theory and information contained in this publication.  This publication can be found on any American Flagged ship as it is required to be on board at all times.  You really can't argue too much with the contents as a ship conducts an 'experiment' each time it leaves the dock and sails from point A to point B.  The part that says 'Practical' means exactly what it says. You take the theory and information found in this publication and it just plain works.  Is everything down to a gnat's ass?  No.  King Neptune is a harsh task master and will kill you if you don't pay attention and know what to do when things get ugly.  The American Practical Navigator is required reading for any watch officer because the safety of the ship and crew depends on the theory and practice of the information in this publication.  Why would it be interesting to people on this site?  Because the theory of the global earth is explained fairly well and there is no BS.  Is the theory and information verifiable in theory and practice?  Yes, ships come and go daily and navigate using the theories and practice contained in this publication.  It wasn't unusual for me to have the pages open and on my desk often while at sea.  How can you really dispute anything that works in theory and practice?

[AATW]

Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?

Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted.

[rabinoz]

Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?

Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted.

I have tried to discussing with Earthman the reason for the horizon viewed from low altitude on the Globe appearing almost precisely straight, horizontal and at eye-level.

The end result is that he is more convinced than ever that a straight, horizontal horizon proves the earth to be flat, end of story.

And he has "invented" this proof that the earth is flat:

At random the idea of Flat Earth passed in front of my computer screen a few months back. I am an inventor and I love a challenge, so this intrigued me. I thought, “I can debunk this.”

I started with the Blueprint of the Globe Earth theory, the curvature chart. If anything will prove Earth is a Ball, this will. If it doesn't, I will find I have been deceived.

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

I then applied the curvature chart to many other larger landmasses using two bodies of water as references points and found them to be a part of a plane Earth too. 

I now understand why Globies will not use their own Blueprint to prove Earth has curvature; it’s because it proves the opposite. It's quite ironic that the Globe Earth theory is destroyed by their own curvature chart. Hahahahaha

If you want to know how flat Earth is, use a curvature chart as a reference along with widths and elevations of land masses between two bodies of water.  If you do this you will see that even intelligent people are deceived with this fake Globe Earth crap.

He seems to have it all sewn up.