The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.
That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.
No, it supports neither theory. Both theories agree, you should not see curvature. Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.
It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue. We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue! That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.
That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.
No, it supports neither theory. Both theories agree, you should not see curvature. Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.
It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue. We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue! That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.
You're right, in part. In this specific case, note that the experiment has been carried out, proving that up to 120 feet the earth is flat. You can argue otherwise and pose problems to it. This means the question is still open. But the experiment had been done and had supported the flat model. That's not disputable. If you want to theorize why at that height no curvature should be seen, I think the burden of proof is on you. Simply dening it based on numbers found in a book is not reality.
Questions for the shills:
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude?
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so??
Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height.
Questions for the shills:
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude?
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so??
Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height.
I'm into your arguments and reasons globe and flat earthers, but have you wondered that until this time people have not really proven once and for all that the earth is globe or flat. Until this time! Why were/are people made to believe that the earth is globe (mostly) or flat (selectively) where in fact there are still 1001 arguments among concerned people or truth seekers trying to prove it. Even with NASA and science book and educators around, this situation remains unresolved. Well, how long will this issue remain to be unproven? Why are there too many loopholes in existing proofs found in science materials every where? And why the flat earthers, day in and day out, keep on discovering new proofs? Of course, we're basically all globe earthers as we're taught by formal education, but why are people keep on knowing things and info that are inconsistent with what were taught in school? Say something folks! May your kind of earth be proven right in time! Go,go,go... :)
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
RErs won't ever get their story straight. We frequently see RErs parrot "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON AN AIRPLANE YOU CAN SEE THE CURVE," even though anyone who isn't retarded knows you aren't discerning curvature at 30-35 thousand feet. Then they reply that you can with a large enough field of view, although there's no evidence of this. Now, we are seeing them deny that you can see curvature at 120K feet because it's so big, etc... They will move the goalposts and change the narratives when their arguments fall apart, which we both know is frequently.
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
Altitude | Dip Angle | Horizon Distance | |||
32,808 feet | 2.8° | 256 miles |
The earth is ENORMOUS. Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.
Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles. That's 21 million feet. 120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that. If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!
Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.
All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.
You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.
From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!
100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!
10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!
even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level - detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!
Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!
Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.
There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.(http://i65.tinypic.com/amzfiu.jpg)
The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.
Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.
Altitude Dip Angle Horizon Distance 32,808 feet 2.8° 256 miles
I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.
Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Rhetoric%20Discourse%20-%20Horizon%20goes%20not%20rise%20to%20Ete-level_zpszd5fq73a.png)
He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial. (https://youtu.be/2-vRzQ_GDV0)
None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.
You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth? (https://owlcation.com/stem/How-to-Determin-the-Radius-of-the-Earth-Al-Birunis-Classic-Experiment)
Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!
If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?
From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!
Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.
All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.
You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.
From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!
100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!
10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!
even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level - detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!
Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!
Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.
There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.(http://i65.tinypic.com/amzfiu.jpg)
The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.
Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.
Altitude Dip Angle Horizon Distance 32,808 feet 2.8° 256 miles
I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.
Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Rhetoric%20Discourse%20-%20Horizon%20goes%20not%20rise%20to%20Ete-level_zpszd5fq73a.png)
He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial. (https://youtu.be/2-vRzQ_GDV0)
None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.
You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth? (https://owlcation.com/stem/How-to-Determin-the-Radius-of-the-Earth-Al-Birunis-Classic-Experiment)
Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!
You know what i think on this? You're right in saying that the height reached by the camera is still just very near to the earth relative to the earth's radius or diameter. So it's hard to tell and conclude whether there is really an observable curvature. Well, we need bigger funding to prove and see a curvature this way. I can see that this will end up, just the same, in GEs and FEs still believing, defending and confirming/proving their respective claims. You know why? the FEs claim that the earth is a flat circular disc, so whatever curvature, though how minute, seen at some considerable height, they will just say that it confirms also the circular arc or edge of their circular disc earth. Well, again an endless debate continues. The earth is enormous. People are just virus wanting to see the curvature of their enormous spherical or circular disc home called earth... good luck... just an insight... :)
although i would say at the moment im in the globe earths corner,i still dont get why theres videos on youtube showing balloons being sent upto 120,000 feet and theres no curve there.if any round earther can explain this i would be grateful.