# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 02:19:57 AM

Title: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 02:19:57 AM
Here's a foolproof way to determine whether the Earth is a sphere or a plane:

1. Find a view of a mountain range which has: a) mountains of similar elevations; b) mountains of different elevations; c) mountains that are of varying distances from the observer

2. The observer should be at known elevation and position

3. A high resolution photo is best

Something like this:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/fryingpan-with-lines-jpg.27245/)

Or this:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/close-up-from-snowmass-labeled-with-line-2-jpg.33275/)

Or this:

(https://i.imgur.com/CExMeKb.jpg)

4. Then notice things about the photograph. For example:

In picture 1, if the Earth was flat, how is it possible that the lookout tower is higher in the frame than both Graybeard and Pinnacle?

In picture 2, how is it possible that Maroon Peak appears significantly higher than Mount Shavano and Mount Harvard?

And in picture 3, how is it possible that the much higher Mounts Rainier and Adams appear lower in the photo than Mount Jefferson?

5. Do lots of complicated geometry (http://www.metabunk.org/using-mountain-ranges-to-predict-the-shape-of-the-earth.t8800) to work out where the mountains hould appear in a photo if the world was: a) flat; b) a sphere (optional).
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 04:16:46 AM
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/close-up-from-snowmass-labeled-with-line-2-jpg.27257/)

...

In picture 2, how is it possible that Maroon Peak appears significantly higher than Mount Shavano and Mount Harvard?

Maroon Peak is higher than the observer and closer. Those other mountains are a lot further and are shrinking into the horizon.

You may well ask why you can raise the tip of your finger higher in your vision over the top of a telephone pole in the distance, as to raise such absurdities.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 04:31:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/CExMeKb.jpg)

And in picture 3, how is it possible that the much higher Mounts Rainier and Adams appear lower in the photo than Mount Jefferson?

Same explanation as above. Jefferson is higher than the observer, and closer than those other mountains.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 04:40:07 AM
Quote
5. Do lots of complicated geometry (https://www.metabunk.org/using-mountain-ranges-to-predict-the-shape-of-the-earth.t8800/) [metabunk.org link] to work out where the mountains would be if the world was a sphere.

Metabunk Debunked
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 04:57:07 AM
Oh for three, Tom.

Anybody else want to try?
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 05:51:09 PM
The argument is like standing next to a one story house and scratching your head in wonder on why a skyscraper in the distance seems lower than the house.

Don't get your education from Metabunk. Think for yourself.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 06:12:19 PM
Don't get your education from Metabunk. Think for yourself.
Wise words. Applicable to more than just Metabunk.

Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: edby on May 22, 2018, 07:14:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CExMeKb.jpg)

And in picture 3, how is it possible that the much higher Mounts Rainier and Adams appear lower in the photo than Mount Jefferson?

Same explanation as above. Jefferson is higher than the observer, and closer than those other mountains.
But 'those other mountains' are higher than Jefferson. So they should appear higher.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 08:08:53 PM
The upper red line is "eye level" according to the gauge.
If you don't trust that, then the lower limit of "eye level" would at least have to be the summit of North Sister.

How, then, can Mt. Adams or Mt. Ranier, both of which are taller than North Sister, ever appear below "eye level" according to EnaG explanation of perspective? It doesn't matter how far away they are. Their summits should never drop below "eye level" if on a flat surface.

Right?

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/m936mr.jpg)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 08:47:34 PM
Quote
http://oi64.tinypic.com/m936mr.jpg

Firstly, you should know first hand by now from your experiments, that it is difficult for such devices to establish "eye level," if that is what the 0o marker in the image is supposed to mean.

Secondly the mountains are higher than the observer. The observer is at 10363 feet. Jefferson is at 10495 feet. It is higher than you. It is also closer than the other taller mountains in the distance. This has nothing to do with special ENAG rules.

If you are looking at a mountain in the distance, is it possible to position a lamp post somewhere between you and the mountain to where the lamp post is taller than the mountain?

Shocking, right?
North Sister and South Sister are 4.3 miles apart. South Sister summit is 278' higher than North Sister. Sightline from S peak to N peak is -0.7° declined from "eye-level"

Adams and Ranier are below that even. Though higher than the viewer, they fall below eye-level, even if I give you -0.7° of error.

But the inclinometer gauge and the geometry work out to support 0° is where the gauge says it is. And I threw Peakfinder in there too, to corroborate. There's no way "eye level is so low as to be below the summit of Ranier in the distance. That would cut through the summit of North Sister, which is below the elevation of South Sister. Can't work.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2i28ned.jpg)

Work it out. Think for yourself.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 08:54:05 PM
On a flat earth, there's only one way I can think of for the yellow line to be "eye level" and cross the 14.4K Ranier in the distance and the 10.1K North Sister 4 miles away:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/11ha16x.jpg)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 09:04:26 PM
The argument is like standing next to a one story house and scratching your head in wonder on why a skyscraper in the distance seems lower than the house.

Don't get your education from Metabunk. Think for yourself.

Oh for four, Tom. Though, to be fair to you, you make a decent point: it's just that saying it isn't really the same as proving it - for that you'd need to do some calculations, and maybe draw some diagrams.

For example, as I look out my window right now, there's a tree about ten feet away, maybe eight feet tall; then a tree about sixty feet away, around fifteen feet tall; and then a hill, about half a mile away, around 300 feet high.

Yet: the smaller tree seems highest, then the taller tree, then the hill.

If I know the distances and elevations I can work out the angle between my eye and the objects: the larger the angle, the higher the object will appear in my view.

So to take your house and skyscraper scenario, let's say the house is 25 feet away and the top of it is 25 feet above my eye: that makes the angle I look up to the top as being 45°.

But what about the skyscraper? Will it appear higher or lower than the house?

Well, that all depends on the angle I'm looking up at it at - and that all depends on how tall it is, and how far away.

With this scenario I've made it easy, by using 45° for the top of the house: basically, if the skyscraper is taller than it is distant, it will appear higher; and if it's more distant than it is tall, it will appear lower.

Are you with me so far?

Now just do the same for the mountain ranges pictures and see how it works out.

And just to point out to you: I'm the one who wrote the original posts on metabunk too.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 09:08:39 PM
On a flat earth, there's only one way I can think of for the yellow line to be "eye level" and cross the 14.4K Ranier in the distance and the 10.1K North Sister 4 miles away.

Is it that light doesn't travel as we think it does, but rather jumps around all over the place, alighting on distant peaks in just the right way to make them fit with the geometry of a globe, out of cheer coincidence? ;)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 09:17:33 PM
Hah. No.

It's a trust issue. The claimed elevation from which the photograph was taken would have to be wrong or a lie.

Of course, then the geometry of the rest of the peaks could be checked to corroborate the claimed height, but I'm not going to do that. If Tom wants to salvage the perspective and eye-level argument for flat earth, and cast doubt on the height of the photographer, I'll leave that chore to him. I'm going to trust that the photo WAS taken at 10.3K and so the taller Mt.s Adams and Ranier really are below eye level.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 09:32:33 PM
If that's the only argument then...

Yes, I had thought of that one also: the peaks aren't really that elevation, they're just reported as that elevation so that it matches Round Earth geometry when viewed from another peak with an elevation of God knows what.

Of course, that's only feasible for one of those mountains looking in one direction - but impossible if someone should, say, take a look from one of the other mountains and look in another direction.

Still, it wouldn't be the weirdest excuse I've heard a flat earther come up with: after all, they think Google Maps is made up, even though they use it every day, and can go outside and check it for themselves...
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 09:53:52 PM
The argument is like standing next to a one story house and scratching your head in wonder on why a skyscraper in the distance seems lower than the house.

Don't get your education from Metabunk. Think for yourself.

Oh for four, Tom. Though, to be fair to you, you make a decent point: it's just that saying it isn't really the same as proving it - for that you'd need to do some calculations, and maybe draw some diagrams.

Everyone can see the concept clearly. Draw calculations and draw diagrams to combat your personal errors with the world?

Quote
And just to point out, being as the blindingly obvious hasn't occurred to you, I'm the one who wrote the original posts on metabunk too.

That explains a lot then.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 09:54:29 PM
Let's have a go at using Tom's logic on Picture 1:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/fryingpan-with-lines-jpg.27245/)

First off, to make things simpler, how about we cut off 5376 feet from the elevations, and pretend that's ground level.

Now we the viewer are at 105 feet.

The lookout tower on Fryingpan, 5.5 miles away, is at 20 feet.

And Pinnacle, 41 miles away, is at 291 feet.

To use Tom's analogy, it's not so much that we are standing next to a house looking up at a skyscraper, but rather that we are looking out the 10th floor window of an apartment building, and between us and the skyscraper there is a single storey house (the lookout tower).

In what universe, pray tell, will the house be higher in our view than a 29-storey skyscraper eight times as far away?
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: edby on May 22, 2018, 10:09:59 PM
Everyone can see the concept clearly. Draw calculations and draw diagrams to combat your personal errors with the world?
I'm not sure you can. If I am viewing a 4,000 peak from the same height, then anything behind, that lines up with that peak, must be the same height. Anything that appears lower, is lower. Do you agree with that?

If so, explain those pictures.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2018, 10:13:55 PM
Everyone can see the concept clearly. Draw calculations and draw diagrams to combat your personal errors with the world?
I'm not sure you can. If I am viewing a 4,000 peak from the same height, then anything behind, that lines up with that peak, must be the same height. Anything that appears lower, is lower. Do you agree with that?

If so, explain those pictures.

The closer peaks that were pointed out in Examples 2 and 3 of the OP were higher than the observer, not "the same height." Questioning why mountains that may exist beyond it are shrunken is the same as questioning why a skyscraper is smaller than a one story house in the foreground.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 10:24:33 PM
Very faulty logic there, Tom - and I think you know it.

But, just for fun, let's apply your thinking to Picture 2:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/close-up-from-snowmass-labeled-with-line-2-jpg.33275/)

This time let's cut off 14,005 feet, to simplify things (simplifying is good).

Now we the viewer are at 100 feet; Pyramid Peak is at 20 feet; and Mount Shavano is at 226 feet.

Let's make 10 feet = 1 storey, as in the example above.

So how is it that the 22-storey 'Shavano Towers' appears lower than a 2-storey house when viewed from the 10th floor of an apartment building?

You're right: you don't need a diagram to work out the impossibility of that.

Well done. :)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 22, 2018, 10:26:31 PM
Smaller makes sense.
Lower makes sense.
But taller yet lower than eye level doesn't, given flat earth explanations.

Distant things that are taller than the height of the viewer can never appear below eye level, can they?
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 22, 2018, 11:41:36 PM
Distant things that are taller than the height of the viewer can never appear below eye level, can they?

That's an incredibly good question. :)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 23, 2018, 12:19:48 AM
The thing about a proof like this is that it's complex and made up of many components.

Here's my prediction of what Tom will do: he will go through as many components as it takes until he finds one that has an aspect of uncertainty or imprecision about it, and then he will seize on that and feel secure in his belief that it's enough to provide a debunk.

If one is knocked back, he'll simply try again.

Though no doubt he can always find something, given the imprecise and uncertain nature of our world.

I wonder what he'll come up with for this one?
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2018, 12:26:29 AM
Max, here is my post again. There is a wide range of elevation estimates depending on the source you consult.

A possible difference of 90 feet or 245 feet depending on the source?

As the listed altitude can change so wildly between the source when assessing mountains that are slightly above or below each other, your criticism of the matter is insufficient.

Nor do we know if the person taking the picture got to the absolute summit for the photograph. Nor do we know if it is aligned and leveled.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 23, 2018, 12:35:30 AM
Nor do we know if the person taking the picture was got to the absolute summit for the photograph.
"Ding!" There it is.

Nor do we know if it is even aligned and leveled.

Been through this. Camera "aligned and leveled" doesn't matter. This isn't a laser beam.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on May 23, 2018, 01:02:04 AM
Ding indeed. ;-)

At least he'll sleep tonight: I can't begrudge him that. :D
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 23, 2018, 01:05:22 AM
Nor do we know if it is even aligned and leveled.
Been through this. Camera "aligned and leveled" doesn't matter. This isn't a laser beam.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2rnd7c5.jpg)
Height alignment is what matters. Camera leveling doesn't matter. (Well, except the objects being sighted need to be within the field of view, of course.)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: douglips on May 23, 2018, 01:14:11 AM
Now hang on a sec, though, the picture labels Pyramid Peak at an altitude of 13.9k, but it is widely regarded as a 14k peak, so that is a little weird.

That Colorado picture is not the best example, the Sisters'/Cascades is pretty telling.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on June 11, 2018, 11:52:31 AM
The Sisters one is definitely the best, by far, though the others work too.

I also have a nice shot of the front range of the Rockies, with about thirty peaks in it, which also illustrates the point:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/front-range-panorama-jpg.27750/)
(right-click and open in new tab to see it full-size)

My mistake on the Pyramid Peak elevation: I'd taken it from peakfinder, but used NAVD88 for the others, as Tom helpfully highlighted:

There are a wide range of elevation estimates depending on the source you consult.

A possible difference of 245 feet depending on the source.

Peakfinder currently has Pyramid Peak at 13,930 feet - but Tom was taking the elevation of an observer point near Pyramid Peak, not the peak itself:

(https://i.imgur.com/B52hidb.jpg) (https://www.peakfinder.org/?lat=38.9244&lng=-106.3206&azi=287&zoom=7&ele=4387&cfg=rs&date=2018-06-11T09:54Z&binoazi=286.94&binoalt=-0.37&name=mount%20harvard)

I have found that the summit elevations on peakfinder don't seem as reliable as expected, and are often quite different to the NAVD88 elevations, and other more well-used sources. Reason being: information on peakfinder is from openstreetmap.org, which is user-created and editable, and more prone to error.

I have now corrected the error at openstreetmap, so hopefully that will be reflected in peakfinder too.

In any case, either one of those elevations proves the point.

I've also fixed it in the posts and images above. Thanks again for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on December 08, 2018, 09:36:07 AM
That Colorado picture is not the best example, the Sisters'/Cascades is pretty telling.

This one?

(https://i.imgur.com/CExMeKb.jpg)

Yeah, I think that's the best one for illustrating the issue. :)
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: toomuchfuntoresist on February 11, 2019, 12:08:50 AM
Simple proof the earth is round by observing the mountains? Easy. I am not going to post any pictures, as this is not evidence, and can be easily nitpicked. I simply ask any believer to observe and ask themselves how. I live right beside the rocky mountain range. And its a pretty flat region. But on a beautiful clear day, looking west to the mountains, the ones in my direct line of sight are always larger than any to the south or the north. Follow along either direction and you notice that it doesn't get smaller proportionally (let's say an illusion of a 10% decrease with every 50 miles) as would be expected in a flat earth, but on a gradual slope (first 50 miles, shows a 10% decrease, next 50 miles is a 25% decrease, next 50 a 50% decrease, etc.). The same "illusion" occurs when atop a high mountain in the range looking in any direction. Basically, your view of the immediate surroundings is actually quite minimal (only about 200 mile radius). Whip out a telescope to few the horizon, and matters are worse, you can't see any further mountain ranges.

Not good enough? Another fun observation would be a top the mountain Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Another mountain in the Hawaiian islands (Kawaikini) should be totally visible as it is only 300 miles away with only a flat surface (the ocean) between it. But its not, even with a telescope. Why? Because the mountain peak is obstructed by the horizon as a result of a curved earth.
Title: Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
Post by: Max_Almond on February 11, 2019, 06:25:40 AM
That reminds me: I found a new picture that's even better than the one above:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/south-sister-to-rainier-jpg.35509/)

On a basic level, we can see how this proves impossible on the flat earth in two ways: one, there's no place to put the horizontal line that represents eye level that doesn't contradict the data; and two, there's no way Mount Rainier, Olallie Butte and Mount Saint Helens can appear at the same level.

The above image has been contrast enhanced, to make out the peaks more easily, but if you want to see the original, it's here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhane/372202821/in/photostream/

And also a whole bunch of similar images here:

https://www.oregonhikers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16080