[AATW]

Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?

I strongly disagree that this is applicable here. We can experience the shape of the Earth much more directly, without relying on hearsay.

Hmm. See, the trouble with that is that people have been doing that for over 2000 years
Anyone can observe that ships disappear hull first below the horizon or that you can't see the bottom of objects across a large body of water.
You can observe that the distance to the horizon gets bigger with altitude, as does the angle of dip to the horizon.
You can observe that during a lunar eclipse the shape of the shadow cast on the moon is round
These are characteristics of living on a sphere.
 
The trouble is you lot have come along and provided alternative explanations. And hey, maybe you're right (you aren't). But the point is none of the observations I have mentioned directly tell you the shape of the earth. They are more along the lines of "if the earth is a sphere then things would disappear bottom first below the horizon, if the earth is flat then they wouldn't, things would just get smaller until they are too small to see or rendered invisible by limits of visibility". You observe the former and thus conclude that a globe is a more likely explanation.
I'd suggest that going high enough to actually see the earth as it really is, is the only way to directly experience the shape of the Earth. And that - to continue our previous discussion in CN - is unlikely to be a common experience in our lifetimes. But I don't think we should dismiss the accounts of those who have experienced it for themselves.

Oh, I don't mind opinions, most people don't have a particularly high standard for those, and I'm no exception. It's when you start calling your half-arsed opinions "indisputable facts" that I get a bit miffed. As a society, have a serious problem with people conflating opinions with facts.

The last sentence is spot on, that is a massive problem. Unfortunately in the days of the internet it's increasingly difficult to discern the difference between an authoritative and reliable source and "some bloke" who just set up a website and is spouting nonsense. Both websites might be well designed and laid out, it's not trivial to tell the difference.
Although I don't think the line is as distinct as we like to think. It's like the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" it. The only actual difference is your own perception of how certain you are. That doesn't mean you're right. Scientific "facts" have often been shown to be wrong as new discoveries are made.

[Pete Svarrior]

These are characteristics of living on a sphere.

Of course, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't the case, and why it isn't, so let's pretend you've repeated all your tired arguments and we moved past this. If you really want to relive the experience, just read an older thread.
 

But the point is none of the observations I have mentioned directly tell you the shape of the earth.

Indeed - you had to cherry-pick experiences to avoid the ones that destroy the RE model. If you went for direct experiences you can currently access, you'd be cruising for an own goal.

They are more along the lines of "if the earth is a sphere then things would disappear bottom first below the horizon, if the earth is flat then they wouldn't, things would just get smaller until they are too small to see or rendered invisible by limits of visibility".

This is not only a terrible example of an experience that could determine the shape of the Earth, you also misrepresented the FE side of the argument. I promised not to immediately assume the worst out of you, so here we go: you are very mistaken about the FE prediction, and I really doubt you'll be able to reach many meaningful conclusions without first understanding the position you're arguing against. RE'ers going "NUH UH IF EARTH FLAT THEN YOU BELIEVE <thing no FE'er would ever believe>" is a major barrier to RE zealots examining the subject sincerely.

I'd suggest that going high enough to actually see the earth as it really is, is the only way to directly experience the shape of the Earth.

Except for the fact that this experience breaks completely under EA. You would simply see what you want to see, and you've already decided and declared what that would be. It would get us precisely nowhere.

Although I don't think the line is as distinct as we like to think. It's like the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" it. The only actual difference is your own perception of how certain you are. That doesn't mean you're right. Scientific "facts" have often been shown to be wrong as new discoveries are made.

That's why I focused on the word "indisputable". I would accept it as indisputable that if I drop a heavy object while standing on the Earth's surface, that object will fall to the ground. Someone could dispute that just to make a point, but no such dispute would go particularly far.

People misusing the word "fact" to mean "opinion, but really strong this time" is also a problem, but I don't think it's one that's fully solvable - my suggestion would be to keep punching that confidence down until you reach a reasonable standard. Is it an indisputable fact that if I drop my mug, it'll fall to the floor? Yeah, more or less. Is it an indisputable fact that it will break on impact? No, though I'm pretty sure it would, having dropped many mugs before. Is it an indisputable fact that the mug handle will break off on impact, and shatter into precisely 3 pieces? No, and that particular scenario is not very likely.

[Action80]

So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?

No, I'm showing the approx size of the spherical cap in total is 20-25 degrees, as I said, casually ESTIMATED from the images, but as I edited above, calculating it results in approx 12 degrees.

I have not assessed the arc you described. What landmarks do you see that would help us in this respect? Do you agree with the landmarks I have shown, and the approximate distances between them?

I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.

[AATW]

These are characteristics of living on a sphere.

Of course, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't the case, and why it isn't

All those things are what you'd expect to observe if you were living on a sphere.
I didn't say that was the only explanation and FE does have other explanations for them, but that doesn't change what I said.
 

Indeed - you had to cherry-pick experiences to avoid the ones that destroy the RE model.

I didn't cherry pick, I just mentioned a few things off the top of my head which we can observe which are consistent with us living on a sphere.
The fact there could be other explanations for those observations is neither here nor there - which is my exact point.
These observations do not tell us the shape of the earth directly.
What are the experiences we can directly observe in our day to day lives which "destroy the RE model"?

This is not only a terrible example of an experience that could determine the shape of the Earth, you also misrepresented the FE side of the argument.

I didn't represent or misrepresent the FE side of the argument and I have acknowledged elsewhere that FE has an explanation for this observation. I'm not talking about an "FE Prediction", what does that even mean? I'm just talking about what prediction I would make given my model of reality. That model tells me that if I have line of sight to an object then I can see it. And on a flat earth with a flat ocean then I'll always have line of sight to a ship going out to sea - if I'm above the wave level. This does all assume that light goes in straight lines of course, and I know that refraction is a thing. But even accounting for that, I would not expect a ship to sink below the horizon hull first on a FE. Unless some other mechanism is in play of course, and as I have repeatedly acknowledged, you have hypothesised one.

RE'ers going "NUH UH IF EARTH FLAT THEN YOU BELIEVE <thing no FE'er would ever believe>" is a major barrier to RE zealots examining the subject sincerely.

Agreed, with a side dish of pointing out there is no coherent universally accepted FE model. So it's hard to say that no FE'er would believe a certain thing.
And I didn't even talk about FE beliefs here. Again, I acknowledged that all the observations which I mentioned have an FE explanation.

Except for the fact that this experience breaks completely under EA. You would simply see what you want to see, and you've already decided and declared what that would be. It would get us precisely nowhere.

Well, I expect to see a globe. I know what spheres look like, I'd expect to see that if I was high enough - which would admittedly have to be "Apollo" high if I wanted to see the whole thing.
And if this "experience breaks completely under EA" then what way is there of determining the earth?
Does the sun sink beneath the horizon bottom first because we live on a globe or because EA is a thing? What is the observation we can make which discriminates between those possibilities?

And here's the problem. Did Branson observe a curved horizon (if he did, and I agree I've not heard him claim as such) because the earth is a globe and he was high enough to discern the curvature, or because of EA (if that is the FE explanation, to be honest I'm struggling to get my head around it). If either of those are possible then how to we determine the true shape of the earth?

[Tumeni]

I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.

Are you talking about the chord below the arc you described across the picture, like this;



... or the chord below my line A-C?

[Action80]

I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.

Are you talking about the chord below the arc you described across the picture, like this;



... or the chord below my line A-C?

The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I did not see a chord you drew for A-C.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

If it is, I believe that renders your analysis faulty.

[Tumeni]

The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

Can you tell us why? Have you identified any features or landmarks which would show the distance on the surface?

I think I have a few reference points, but I'm not complete on it. Later.

[Action80]

The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

Can you tell us why? Have you identified any features or landmarks which would show the distance on the surface?

I think I have a few reference points, but I'm not complete on it. Later.

I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

[Tumeni]

I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

[hvanmunster]

I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

Your example shows not only height difference, but also length difference on the surface. Surely the distance between the feet of the girl is much smaller than the distance between the ´feet´ of the Eifel tower.

[Action80]

I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

Well, you gave an FOV in your original submission, stating why water couldn't be seen.

How large a radius did that reflect?

That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

Or are you just going to forget you wrote that?

[Tumeni]

Well, you gave an FOV in your original submission, stating why water couldn't be seen. How large a radius did that reflect?"

No, I showed the limit of visibility from the camera and capsule, along the axis of the camera, not a Field of View.

The FoV across the picture depends on the focal length of the lens used, and I don't have that available. I know it was a GoPro, but without knowing which one...
 
I reckon, as stated above, the limit of visibility (from camera to that limit point, measured in a straight line from camera to surface) to be around 706km. The arc on the surface below this, and the chord below that, will be approximately the same, but will differ.

That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

I don't see how you can calculate the arc/chord across the frame without knowing the angle covered by the camera across its FoV, or by reference to landmarks in the frame. I don't see that can be derived from the distance to the limit of visibility along the axis of the camera. If we had the camera FoV in degrees, we can calculate the arc/chord easily with simple geometry.

We can clearly see how the distances on the surface take up different lengths within the frame, depending on whether they are closer or further away.

Do you agree with the identification of landmarks and features so far, and the distances between them?

[hvanmunster]

Hi,

As I mentioned before in a earlier reply to Toddler Thork, I think the entire 7 pages of discussions could be stopped at once if the FE team members would use the concept of Electromagnetic Acceleration to explain the apparent curvature of the horizon in the footage, as explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

On that page, EA is suggested as a possible  or alternative explanation of why we see the sun touching the horizon at sunset.
This is explained by accepting that the light of the sun bends due to EA

The tfes wiki pages also mentions that this bending happens not only for light coming directly from the sun, but also for light coming from elsewhere, like f.i. the horizon, see chapter 'Horizon Dip' on that same page.

As a result: the horizon should appear to be curved when seen from a great distance (high altitude). And thus the footage of the curved horizon at high altitude is in accordance with both the RE and the FE model.

Unfortunately (for FE), accepting EA creates other problems.

Althoug the concept of EA is explained in detail (again: as a "possibility", an alternative for the RE), the reason why EA is able to bend the light, is not explained (still unknown?). Also the math behind it needs more explanation. Just one example: The page explains that the value of Bèta is not yet know (fair enough), but that means that the formula can not be used as an approximation - not even close to - despite it being presented like that. The accompanying text with the formula also contains an error, so there is some work here for FE to improve the quality of that page.

EA basically looks a bit like a wild guess (but not impossible) in the way it is explained on tfes wiki. EA  is a fundamental pillar for the FE model - it tries to explain several types of observations, but the way it is presented on this wiki not only suggests that a mathematical model is inexistant, even the concept in itself already contains some inconsitencies. I´d like to propose a couple of suggestions.

In accordance with the policy of this forum, I suppose that the discussion about EA and it's formula should not be further discussed in this thread. Instead, it would probably require a new thread on anothor board.
If any FE team member is willing to discuss the 'flaws' (as seen from my perspective) of the formula and the concept, please feel free to open a new thread under the correct location.
It could contribute to improve the quality of the wiki page.

For reference, here´s the formula:


Note that this formula could be simplified to
y = k . x^4/3, where k is a constant of which the value will be known as soon as the value of Bèta is known. Real mathematicians always write their formulas as simple as possible, so it´s unclear why Parsifal didn´t apply this basic rule.

Plot of the formula (for Bèta = 1 and c expressed in km/s):

Note that the overall shape of the fomula does not change with changing values of Bèta. Tested for a very small positive value of Béta (1x10e-11) as well as for a very big positive value (1x10e+11).
The plot is symmetrical (mirrored) around the y-axis for negative values of x (y is always positive)


Ref: hvm_20120730_p01

[Tumeni]

That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

I believe the capsule was roughly above point X when Felix jumped. The first few seconds of his descent, from the camera above,
show him plummeting toward this point.







The camera in the arc photo appears to be aimed roughly North. The RH end of land feature A is slightly West of North from X, and is off-centre to the left in the photo, as is Fort Sumner (red dot), at the bend in the Pecos River where it bears West, and just in front of Felix's visor, having run North up to this point. This indicates a general Northerly aim of the camera.

The starting points for reference are A, A1 and A2. Their locations are determined by reference to distinctive land features.

A is the dark valley (?) just left of centre, and reference point A is roughly the centre of the RH 'ball end' of it.

Go left, and there's a distinct 6-dot pattern of light areas meeting the inverted "V" of a dark valley. A1 is the light patch to the left of this.

Above A is the "ridge with a V", and above this the dead-straight line of I-70. If we work right from A, there's an unclassified
road running North/South, a cluster forming an approximate V on its side, pointing right, an oval dark area, and a triple cluster of light ground at A2 with highway 42 to the right.

So the base edge of the photo frame, a rough line through A1, A and A2 is around 28km from the point directly under the camera. As per first and third photos above.

Point B in my original is the distinctive cluster of bends in the river, south of Fort Sumner, which is shown with a red dot above. Zoom out on the map a bit, and;



The second red dot, above Fort Sumner in the picture, but to North North West of it, is Turkey Mountains, West of the junction of I-25 and highway 120 at Wagon Mound. You can see the forest areas which broadly encircle it in the photo. The dark area of forest beyond it is, broadly speaking, Carson National Forest. On the map, with a purple line from Fort Sumner to Turkey Mountains;



(Original A/B/C line in green, line to LH edge of picture below that)

From maps

A to A1 is around 26km
A to A2 is around 26km to the highway

A to B is around 55km
A to Fort Sumner is 103km, measured to the Dallas Park Stadium, which seems fairly central in the town

A to Turkey Mountains is around 280km.
 
We can extend these lines beyond these targets to establish what would be at 706km distance, beyond these landmarks.

Taking a line from X to the leftmost edge of your arc would go through the top of the Cibola Forest, then Valles Caldera, and
the limit of 706km would be around Moab and Grand Junction, south-east of Salt Lake City.

If we extend the upper line through Turkey Mountains, 706km leads to a point just North of Aspen.

Add these two vectors to the large-scale map, and -



I reckon the angle between the two to be around 20 degrees out of the camera's FoV.

The complete circle with a radius of 706km would have a circumference of 360 degrees, length = 4,436 km

20 degrees out of 360 = (20/360)*4436 = 246km.

This tallies broadly with Google Earth's distance from Aspen to Moab, around 265km. Derivation of the width of this arc from landmarks and sightlines therefore tallies broadly with textbook distance.

I reckon the arc you described, from left of the frame to where it is obscured by the capsule, to be approx. 48 degrees of the camera's  FoV, therefore approx. 590km.  (48/20 * 246) If the left-hand sector is 20 degrees, as determined above, the right-hand one is, by visual estimation, around 28.