[Earthman]

Considering today's technology, it is very rational to believe Earth is not a Ball. But you must be careful and not be deceived by this same technology. Curvature can be added to any photo to trick people. Photography is a powerful tool, and in the wrong hands and used with technology, it can be a very deceptive tool.

Globies cannot prove Earth has curvature whatsoever if not for NASA using CGI, Photoshop and a fisheye lens.  If you ask Globies to provide a "regular picture" proving Earth has a curved horizon without it being manipulated with said technology, they can't do it. But we flat Earthers can provide millions of regular pictures proving Earth has a non-curved horizon.

Beware of Globies who can only use pictures that were manipulated to prove Earth has curvature.

[titidam]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

[Earthman]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Please try to use your explanation with a "ball" instead of a "Plane." That would actually make sense for your argument of a ball earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball. You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

You do know if Earth was a Ball, the word "Curvizon" and "Sea Curvevel" would be a part of the English language, right?


Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See below.

Trying to get a Globie to say a flat Earther is right is like trying to get a liberal to say "Trump is right."  - It's just not going to happen. They will go down with the ship.

[321BamBam]

"Trying to get a Globie to say a flat Earther is right is like trying to get a liberal to say "Trump is right."  - It's just not going to happen. They will go down with the ship."

More like the other way around until you can undebunk my 321 Bam Bam post. Good Luck.

[rabinoz]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.

No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.

Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

[HorstFue]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.
The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.
You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

That's not quite correct. The horizon is curved, but the curve is so slight, that you cannot notice it. Or at least you cannot rule out lens distortions etc., which could produce a similar curve.

The horizon would appear as straight line, if the observer would have the same height as the observed circle. But the observers is above this circle. Mathematically the projection would be an ellipse.
You are familiar with soccer? Place yourself in the center of the circle in the middle of the field. You would still realize that this is a circle.

Let's estimate the curve: On globe earth the horizon dips below the eye level. You could calculate this with curvature calculator.
Assuming you have a very large field of vision of 120°, I estimate the ends, left and right of your field of vision have an additional drop of about half the drop in the middle.

Example with this:
observers height: 100m
distance to horizon: 38892m
dip/drop angle: 0.147°    (atan(100/38892))
additional dip angle at the sides: 0.074°
If you make a digital image with this, say 2000 pix wide, the ends would drop against the center:  0.074°/120°*2000 = 1.2 pix   
 

[Earthman]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.

No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.

Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

[HorstFue]

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

That's an interesting approach.
I'll take that photo robinoz posted as example for a coarse estimate.
If you are at the beach, eye level round about 4m, the horizon would be at a distance lets say 5 miles (statute).
Let be the field of vision something about 100°. The horizon line then would be something about 10 miles from left to right end.
How many "tiles" are then in your puzzle? 25,000/10 = 2,500.
To make a circle with these tiles, each tile has to bend with how many degrees?  360°/2500 = 0.145°

I cannot imagine, that anyone could notice a bend of 0.145° with bare eyes on a 10 miles stretch.
Even with camera and image processing, this could be tedious, not to mention lens distortions.

[edby]

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

Say for example, that the earth really were a globe of radius about 7,000km. Of course it isn't, but suppose it were. Can you explain how the horizon would look?

[Earthman]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.

No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.

Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

OMG, you are using an APP, as proof the Oceans are curved while ignoring your own eyes,  a horizon that looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to you.

I bet you have not proved this App to be a factual correct, have you? Did you know that things that are not proven are just hearsay and even theories? Has that APP been applied to our Earth and been proved to be correct? Just because it makes claims it doesn’t mean the Earth actually curves as claims.

A part of a circle viewed at eye level on a horizontal plane cannot be viewed as part of a circle, but it can if viewed as part at eye level on a sphere.
A part of a circle can be viewed as part above the surface of a plane or sphere, but on a plane the horizon is past whatever formed that part of the circle. On a sphere anything past the part circle on the left and right is just space, but on a plane it’s just more land of a plane Earth.

When you or I look at the horizon a few feet or thousands of feet above the surface, we do not see any part of a circle. However, we would if Earth was a ball. See pic below.

Do you know why you cannot prove Earth has any alleged curvature without the fake crap from NASA?

Maybe you and your globie friends should get together and see if you can learn the difference between a horizontal line and a circle. This may help you understand why you’re seeing a perfectly flat horizon. Please try to forget what you have been taught while trying to find the difference between the two.

[Earthman]

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

That's an interesting approach.
I'll take that photo robinoz posted as example for a coarse estimate.

Why don't you do it with the pictures (with numbers) I posted? You do know the higher you get, the easier it is to see curvature, right? But we don't see any except through the eyes and lenses of NASA. Why?

[Earthman]

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

Say for example, that the earth really were a globe of radius about 7,000km. Of course it isn't, but suppose it were. Can you explain how the horizon would look?

It wouldn't be a horizon, it would be a curvizon and its center would be lower than you now see and it would bend down from center to the left and right. The land around you would immediately curve downward and way from any point of view, much like what is seen through a fish-eye lens. But this is not what we observe, because we live on a plane.

[rabinoz]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.

No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.

Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

What's to ignore? Don't you even read the posts you reply to?

I said that the horizon on the Globe from a 2 m eye-level was a circle of a bit over 5 km radius seen edge-on from within 4 m of the centre - of course it's going to look straight.
Your 3959 mile radius only comes into the picture when working out the 5 km (about 3.1 miles) radius and the dip angle of 0.045° to that horizon.

Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason

[Earthman]

The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.

No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.

Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.

No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

What's to ignore? Don't you even read the posts you reply to?

I said that the horizon on the Globe from a 2 m eye-level was a circle of a bit over 5 km radius seen edge-on from within 4 m of the centre - of course it's going to look straight.
Your 3959 mile radius only comes into the picture when working out the 5 km (about 3.1 miles) radius and the dip angle of 0.045° to that horizon.

Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason

Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions. If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.

Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?

The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.

The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.

That's a true Checkmate.

[HorstFue]

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.

That's an interesting approach.
I'll take that photo robinoz posted as example for a coarse estimate.

Why don't you do it with the pictures (with numbers) I posted? You do know the higher you get, the easier it is to see curvature, right? But we don't see any except through the eyes and lenses of NASA. Why?

The only datum known for your pictures is height of observer and therefore distance to horizon. There are no numbers given for field of view, how long is the stretch of horizon observed?
I'm also not convinced, that these images do not include some barrel distortion or similar. The same way a flat horizon can be made to appear curved, vice versa a curved horizon can be made appear flat.

The "coarse estimation" I gave was meant as coarse estimation. You have to add more math. to calculate the correct view.
Especially the angle I gave with 0.145° is still far above that what could be really seen - according the following paper I came out with 0.02°.
Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth

Given your example:
height of observer 121000" = 36421m
Distance to horizon 742,226m
Let say, to make it simple, field of view = 60°
Then observed stretch of horizon also is 742,226m - that's about 1/54 of earth circumference, so each image/tile would have to give 6.7° of curve.
But with the paper above, the observed drop at the ends, the "sagitta" S is only 0.8°

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

[Earthman]

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?

[markjo]

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?

How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?

[Earthman]

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?

How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?

There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.

Do you have another English word related to geometry you can describe what you are talking about? Something like "Curvizon"

[markjo]

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?

How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?

There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.

I didn't ask how much curve could be seen.  I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.

[Earthman]

This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.

 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?

How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?

There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.

I didn't ask how much curve could be seen.  I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.

That's a broad question, it depends on the elevation, but very visible at high altitudes because of its small radius of only 3959 miles.    Please see my last post to "edby"