[Pongo]

So, I was doing some flat-earth research for a colleague and I ran across some facts about CN Tower that, among other things, boasted about being able to see ~100 miles on a clear day (fact 12).  This seemed fishy to me so I dusted off some triganometry and used arc cosine to find out how far you can see from the observation deck before the "round-earth" curves away.

Given Values
Height of the observation deck: 1,135 feet
Generous height of eye level: 6 feet
Elevation of Toronto: 249 feet

Mean Radius of the Earth at sea level (lol) = 20,903,520 feet

h = Height of observation deck + Generous  height of eye level + Elevation of Toronto
R = Mean radius of the Earth (lol)

h= 1390 feet
R= 20,903,520 feet

Formula
How far you can see if you were on a sphere = R*ACOS(R/(R+h))

How far you can see if you were on a sphere = 20925524.9*ACOS(20925524.9/(20925524.9+1390))

How far you can see if you were on a sphere = 241,057.18 feet

How far you can see if you were on a sphere =  45.65 miles

45.65 miles isn't 100 miles... not by half.  The only possible way you can see landmarks 100 miles away, such as Niagara Falls as they boast, is if the earth is flat.  They even make note to say that it can only be seen on a clear day!  Or, exactly what you would expect to see on a flat-earth.

[Gulliver]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

For example, on a clear day standing outside, and individual can readily see over 93 million miles. Do bring your shades though.

[Ghost of V]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

For example, on a clear day standing outside, and individual can readily see over 93 million miles. Do bring your shades though.

I've seen you make this claim before, but you have yet to support it.

[Gulliver]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

For example, on a clear day standing outside, and individual can readily see over 93 million miles. Do bring your shades though.

I've seen you make this claim before, but you have yet to support it.

Just go outside tomorrow, If it's a clear day, you'll see that Pongo's formula is obviously the wrong one--in the light of day.

Hint: you must consider the relative height between the observer's location and the target's. He did not.

[Ghost of V]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

For example, on a clear day standing outside, and individual can readily see over 93 million miles. Do bring your shades though.

I've seen you make this claim before, but you have yet to support it.

Just go outside tomorrow, If it's a clear day, you'll see that Pongo's formula is obviously the wrong one--in the light of day.

Hint: you must consider the relative height between the observer's location and the target's. He did not.

This is easy for you to say, but difficult for you to demonstrate. Why can't you provide more conclusive evidence?

[Gulliver]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

For example, on a clear day standing outside, and individual can readily see over 93 million miles. Do bring your shades though.

I've seen you make this claim before, but you have yet to support it.

Just go outside tomorrow, If it's a clear day, you'll see that Pongo's formula is obviously the wrong one--in the light of day.

Hint: you must consider the relative height between the observer's location and the target's. He did not.

This is easy for you to say, but difficult for you to demonstrate. Why can't you provide more conclusive evidence?

Sure I can. I'll be happy to provide clear and convincing evidence, but only after the OP clearly supports his use of his formula. He who claims first must demonstrate first, right?

[Ghost of V]

Sure I can. I'll be happy to provide clear and convincing evidence, but only after the OP clearly supports his use of his formula. He who claims first must demonstrate first, right?

Fair enough.

[Pongo]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

No. I'm sure you found some formula on Wikipedia or somewhere that shows you how to calculate the distance to the horizon so if you see another method, you think it's wrong. It's not wrong (other than the fact that the earth is flat, of course) and your post does nothing but show your ignorance of math in general. Please allow this Subway napkin (Eat Fresh) to crush your self-esteem and show everyone how little you know about math, round-earth theory, and basic research skills.

[Rama Set]

How was the Italian B.M.T?

[Pongo]

How was the Italian B.M.T?

It was awful. They were out of mustard so I had to sub in honey mustard. Big mistake.

On topic though, I hate it when I have to explain to round-earthers how their own damn model works. All the while they call me the dumb one! There's enough irony to write a catchy 90's song.

[Gulliver]

Wrong formula. Please do try harder.

No. I'm sure you found some formula on Wikipedia or somewhere that shows you how to calculate the distance to the horizon so if you see another method, you think it's wrong. It's not wrong (other than the fact that the earth is flat, of course) and your post does nothing but show your ignorance of math in general. Please allow this Subway napkin (Eat Fresh) to crush your self-esteem and show everyone how little you know about math, round-earth theory, and basic research skills.

So why would you use a formula for the distance to the astronomical horizon when calculation is to determine how far you can see? Like I said "wrong formula". Please do try harder.

Here's another hint. Consider why the wrong formula you used does not result in 93 million miles when looking to the sun. It's the wrong formula to calculate how far you can see.

[Pongo]

Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.

[Gulliver]

Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about how far you can see from the observation deck of the CN Tower. You claim that your formula determines that one can never in RET see more than about 40 miles from the deck.

You fail to consider the height of the target (and the height of the foundation of the tower), assuming incorrectly that the target is on the horizon. The example of the sun at 93 million miles destroys your claim as the formula does not predict that.You fail miserably. Please do try harder.

[Tau]

Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about how far you can see from the observation deck of the CN Tower. You claim that your formula determines that one can never in RET see more than about 40 miles from the deck.

You fail to consider the height of the target (and the height of the foundation of the tower), assuming incorrectly that the target is on the horizon. The example of the sun at 93 million miles destroys your claim as the formula does not predict that.You fail miserably. Please do try harder.

1) In FET the sun is not 93 million miles away
2) Since we're being pedantic, its not 93 miles away in RET either
3) Given that the Sun is not on the Earth, your argument is irrelevant. Honestly, you're the RE'er in the room. If you're so certain you're obviously right, why do you have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

[Gulliver]

Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about how far you can see from the observation deck of the CN Tower. You claim that your formula determines that one can never in RET see more than about 40 miles from the deck.

You fail to consider the height of the target (and the height of the foundation of the tower), assuming incorrectly that the target is on the horizon. The example of the sun at 93 million miles destroys your claim as the formula does not predict that.You fail miserably. Please do try harder.

1) In FET the sun is not 93 million miles away
2) Since we're being pedantic, its not 93 miles away in RET either
3) Given that the Sun is not on the Earth, your argument is irrelevant. Honestly, you're the RE'er in the room. If you're so certain you're obviously right, why do you have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

1) That's irrelevant.
2) Really? See:

The Sun is at an average distance of about 93,000,000 miles (150 million kilometers) away from Earth.

3) Why is the argument irrelevant? It points directly to Pongo's sophomoric error.

So why doesn't Pongo's RET formula predict that an observer on the deck of the CN Tower can see 93 million miles? Well, to answer my own question: because he's using the wrong formula, not considering the height of the target or of the Tower's foundation.

[Pongo]

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

[Gulliver]

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

[Pongo]

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?

[Gulliver]

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?

As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.

[Pongo]

Actually, I mistyped it in the description, but good catch. I'll fix that. Reguardless, why do you suppose that the height of the observation deck does not include the tower's foundation