[somerled]

It's interestingly comical to see that  the advanced calculator uses the most archaic perfect sphere model , R=6371km in it's "exact equations for hidden heights " section .

Why is that "comical"?

The circumference was, according to the textbooks, determined by two different methods, and different teams and individuals, in the 1600s and 1700s. 

Radius can be derived from circumference with simple school-level geometry.

/quote]

Then derive the radius of the oblate spheroid or pear shape model with your simple school level geometry , because earth is not reckoned to be a perfect sphere . How does one use an imaginary value , which is not found in reality ,for R in an " exact equation for hidden height " calculation and expect an answer which is supposed to give a real value ?

[Tumeni]

Then derive the radius of the oblate spheroid or pear shape model with your simple school level geometry , because earth is not reckoned to be a perfect sphere . How does one use an imaginary value , which is not found in reality ,for R in an " exact equation for hidden height " calculation and expect an answer which is supposed to give a real value ?

I don't need to, for others have done so already-

https://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html

"The radius of Earth at the equator is 3,963 miles (6,378 kilometers) ... Earth is not quite a sphere. The planet's rotation causes it to bulge at the equator. Earth's polar radius is 3,950 miles (6,356 km) — a difference of 13 miles (22 km)."

For "real values", I refer back to my previous post, February 27, 2020, 08:16:20 PM.

I don't actually need a "hidden height", nor an exact determination of R, to show that the seas around the Forth are Not Flat.

[Bikini Polaris]

1. The higher the viewer is, THE MORE CURVATURE WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

As far as I understand in the wiki they criticize Soundly's photos of Pontchartrain because, they say, if curvature was indeed *so* apparent, our planet would be quite small. I like that comment because it acknowledges the fact that you cannot just watch and see a round earth.

However, frontal curvature is somehow obvious when you start looking at it. In the picture you can notice three evidences:

- The abrupt stop of the horizon details (shouldn't they slowly disappear on a flat earth?)
- The fast downward decline of clouds.
- The cluster of buildings on the left popping out of nowhere, as if their base was hidden.

[totallackey]

1. The higher the viewer is, THE MORE CURVATURE WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

As far as I understand in the wiki they criticize Soundly's photos of Pontchartrain because, they say, if curvature was indeed *so* apparent, our planet would be quite small. I like that comment because it acknowledges the fact that you cannot just watch and see a round earth.

However, frontal curvature is somehow obvious when you start looking at it. In the picture you can notice three evidences:

- The abrupt stop of the horizon details (shouldn't they slowly disappear on a flat earth?)

Why?

- The fast downward decline of clouds.

Clouds do not descend to the ground?

- The cluster of buildings on the left popping out of nowhere, as if their base was hidden.

There are objects in front of those buildings, including denser air at or near ground level.

[Storm]

1. The higher the viewer is, THE MORE CURVATURE WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

As far as I understand in the wiki they criticize Soundly's photos of Pontchartrain because, they say, if curvature was indeed *so* apparent, our planet would be quite small. I like that comment because it acknowledges the fact that you cannot just watch and see a round earth.

I agree, you cannot. But its curvature SHOULD be visible in certain scenarios.

It is not. .....Ever.

However, frontal curvature is somehow obvious when you start looking at it. In the picture you can notice three evidences:

- The abrupt stop of the horizon details (shouldn't they slowly disappear on a flat earth?)

Answer #1. This is due to terrain. We're talking about geography, here, not curvature of the Earth. This is evidenced by Totallackey's contribution of the topo map of the area in question. No Flat Earther ever tried to argue that there are no hills or mountains on the Earth. Texas is relatively flat, but there are rolling hills everywhere.

Using this link you can easily identify lower and higher elevations of terrain between where the photo was taken, roughly between Pecan Acres and Haslet, and the epicenter of Dallas. There is an area between Colleyville and Bedford that is roughly 650 feet, while Dallas is at roughly 428 feet. This is due to 'Terrain'. NOT Curvature of the Earth.

See for yourself.
https://en-us.topographic-map.com/maps/nct/Fort-Worth/

- The fast downward decline of clouds.

Answer #2. Though I don't see that at all in this photo, this is due to perspective, distance and the vanishing point/line. The same way that light poles appear to rise to the horizon/vanishing line while getting shorter and smaller. Clouds do the same thing as they disappear into the distance, but they shrink and move 'down' toward the horizon.

- The cluster of buildings on the left popping out of nowhere, as if their base was hidden.

(see Answer #1.)

[Tumeni]

Clouds do not descend to the ground?

Physically, no, but they appear to do this in many instances;

[Tumeni]

Answer #1. This is due to terrain

Remove terrain, and frontal curvature is still there.

Like this;

[Storm]

Answer #1. This is due to terrain

Remove terrain, and frontal curvature is still there.

Like this;

That is a Flat Horizon vanishing line. It has been addressed many times.

[Storm]

Vanishing line...

[AATW]

I agree, you cannot. But its curvature SHOULD be visible in certain scenarios.

It is not. .....Ever.

What scenarios?
I mean, obviously you can see it from space but I guess you think those photos are fake?

This is due to terrain. We're talking about geography, here, not curvature of the Earth.

No terrain here. How is this explained in your model?

[Tumeni]

Answer #1. This is due to terrain

Remove terrain, and frontal curvature is still there.
Like this;

That is a Flat Horizon vanishing line.

... which has "frontal curvature"

Observation height - 210m
Lighthouse focal height 73m

Water beyond lighthouse clearly below sightline through top of lighthouse, so seas around the lighthouse cannot be flat.

If they were, the sightline from 210 through 73 would meet the water beyond the lighthouse. But it does not.

[Tumeni]

That is a Flat Horizon vanishing line. It has been addressed many times.

Is this a "Flat Horizon vanishing line"?

Camera height 100m
Ship height 58m

Downward sightline, which should meet the water beyond the ship, IF the seas are flat. But it does not.

[Storm]

I agree, you cannot. But its curvature SHOULD be visible in certain scenarios.

It is not. .....Ever.

What scenarios?
I mean, obviously you can see it from space but I guess you think those photos are fake?

Photos [that should show] 600 feet of drop have been presented. Photos [that should show] half a mile of drop have been presented. When they are, it is claimed that they do not exist and they show nothing.

How can one argue with that kind of rebuttal when the evidence is plainly visible?

This is due to terrain. We're talking about geography, here, not curvature of the Earth.

No terrain here. How is this explained in your model?

I cannot explain a video/photo that somebody else has made. BUT I will say, in my personal opinion, that it is very likely doctored (photo-chopped) because the building does not 'ever' appear to lean away from the viewer.

Take a close look at the top of the building in each image. It is identical. Same height, same angle. Zero evidence of the building leaning away whatsoever. As it quite plainly should be were it sinking down around the other side of the "Frontal Curve" of the so-called round earth globe.



Don't ya think?

[totallackey]

Clouds do not descend to the ground?

Physically, no, but they appear to do this in many instances;

Physically, clouds do descend to the ground.

Come on.

You know better.

[Bikini Polaris]

Answer #1. This is due to terrain. We're talking about geography, here, not curvature of the Earth. This is evidenced by Totallackey's contribution of the topo map of the area in question. No Flat Earther ever tried to argue that there are no hills or mountains on the Earth. Texas is relatively flat, but there are rolling hills everywhere.

I admit that I was hasty to conclude something without appreciating the terrain. But, by the same token, how can we say that the apparent horizontal flatness (I see that too!) is not hiding a curvature with a certain terrain configuration?

Answer #2. Though I don't see that at all in this photo, this is due to perspective, distance and the vanishing point/line. The same way that light poles appear to rise to the horizon/vanishing line while getting shorter and smaller. Clouds do the same thing as they disappear into the distance, but they shrink and move 'down' toward the horizon.

That wide white horizontal band on the background doesn't look to me as clouds vanishing due to perspective.

My points work better on the sea (as Tumeni pointed out), when I see a clear horizon on the sea I see the horizon abruptly changing into sky and clouds diving down faster than perspective. That of Texas is an interesting photo but maybe something more like frozen lakes give more clarity to the matter of flatness.

[AATW]

Firstly, can you learn how to use the quote feature on here properly? It makes reading and replying to your messages really difficult. There's a Preview button so you can check how the post will look and you can edit your picture

Photos [that should show] 600 feet of drop have been presented. Photos [that should show] half a mile of drop have been presented. When they are, it is claimed that they do not exist and they show nothing.

I'm pretty sure no-one has claimed the photos don't exist. The initial image which kicked this thread off, the 600ft figure was stated before and as was explained previously that figure assumes a viewer height of 0. That's if you're looking from the ground and it also assumes a perfect sphere by the way, as in no terrain. And the photo is taken from up a hill. I already answered this point. From up a hill the drop is significantly less and you'd absolutely expect to see the distant buildings. And the point about curve left to right has been addressed too.

I cannot explain a video/photo that somebody else has made.

Why not? You're expecting us to do that with the photos you present.

BUT I will say, in my personal opinion, that it is very likely doctored (photo-chopped) because the building does not 'ever' appear to lean away from the viewer. Take a close look at the top of the building in each image. It is identical. Same height, same angle. Zero evidence of the building leaning away whatsoever. As it quite plainly should be were it sinking down around the other side of the "Frontal Curve" of the so-called round earth globe.

Once again you are failing to understand the scale of the earth. The earth is 24,900m in circumference. The furthest observer distance in that video is 30 miles. Simple maths will tell you that the angle the building is leaning away from you at that distance is less than half a degree. You would not be able to perceive that. FE people do often seem to struggle to understand the sheer size of the earth, when you understand how big it is it helps you understand what you "should" see in certain situations.

[Storm]

I cannot explain a video/photo that somebody else has made.

Why not? You're expecting us to do that with the photos you present.

I present simple PHOTOGRAPHS. Not elaborate video constructions that have obviously been created using video editing software.

BUT I will say, in my personal opinion, that it is very likely doctored (photo-chopped) because the building does not 'ever' appear to lean away from the viewer. Take a close look at the top of the building in each image. It is identical. Same height, same angle. Zero evidence of the building leaning away whatsoever. As it quite plainly should be were it sinking down around the other side of the "Frontal Curve" of the so-called round earth globe.

Once again you are failing to understand the scale of the earth. The earth is 24,900m in circumference. The furthest observer distance in that video is 30 miles. Simple maths will tell you that the angle the building is leaning away from you at that distance is less than half a degree. You would not be able to perceive that. FE people do often seem to struggle to understand the sheer size of the earth, when you understand how big it is it helps you understand what you "should" see in certain situations.

Oh, less than half a degree? Really?

I'd love to see these simple maths you boast of. Please, enlighten us.

Because the distant city in the original post pic is 45 miles away from the camera. Let's just see how many fractions of a degree those buildings are SUPPOSED to be leaning away. We'll be waiting patiently for your presentation.

Since you've never 'seen' the Earth from space with your own naked eyes, I'm curious how it is you've convinced yourself that YOU have grasped the "sheer size of it" so much better than the common laymen who starve below your grandeur.

[model 29]

As far as I understand in the wiki they criticize Soundly's photos of Pontchartrain because, they say, if curvature was indeed *so* apparent, our planet would be quite small. I like that comment because it acknowledges the fact that you cannot just watch and see a round earth.

They say that because they don't understand the apparent foreshortening that occurs between visible features at great distances when viewed through high magnification.

[model 29]

Vanishing line...

The ship is on the horizon, not past it.  If it were past it, it would be obscured from the bottom up, and no amount of zooming in would restore it to full un-obscured height.

Oh, less than half a degree? Really?

I'd love to see these simple maths you boast of. Please, enlighten us.

Do you ever research anything?  Earth's circumference, 24,901 miles divided by 360 (degrees) equals 69.169 miles.  This means a building will be leaning away from you 1 degree at about 69 miles (*I'll round down instead).  You should be able to figure it out from there.

[Tumeni]

Oh, less than half a degree? Really?
I'd love to see these simple maths you boast of. Please, enlighten us.
Because the distant city in the original post pic is 45 miles away from the camera. Let's just see how many fractions of a degree those buildings are SUPPOSED to be leaning away. We'll be waiting patiently for your presentation.
Since you've never 'seen' the Earth from space with your own naked eyes, I'm curious how it is you've convinced yourself that YOU have grasped the "sheer size of it" so much better than the common laymen who starve below your grandeur.

Simple geometry, simple maths. Using approximate textbook figures, 360*69 = 24,840 circumference. 69 miles corresponds to 1 degree, since 360 make up a sphere or circle. Anything nearer than 69 miles leans by less than one degree away from you.