[yorkiblue]

although i would say at the moment im in the globe earths corner,i still dont get why theres videos on youtube showing balloons being sent upto 120,000 feet and theres no curve there.if any round earther can explain this i would be grateful.

[Rounder]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

[yorkiblue]

thanks for your response rounder..thats is exactly what i assumed..im wondering if all this flat earth stuff all over youtube is a syop.

[Bzz]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

My question is whether can a rounder show the curvature of the Earth in the proportion they've been theorizing?

[Rounder]

That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

No, it supports neither theory.  Both theories agree, you should not see curvature.  Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.

It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue.  We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue!  That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.

[Bzz]

That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

No, it supports neither theory.  Both theories agree, you should not see curvature.  Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.

It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue.  We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue!  That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.

You're right, in part. In this specific case, note that the experiment has been carried out, proving that up to 120 feet the earth is flat. You can argue otherwise and pose problems to it. This means the question is still open. But the experiment had been done and had supported the flat model. That's not disputable. If you want to theorize why at that height no curvature should be seen, I think the burden of proof is on you. Simply dening it based on numbers found in a book is not reality.

[rabinoz]

That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

No, it supports neither theory.  Both theories agree, you should not see curvature.  Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.

It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue.  We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue!  That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.

You're right, in part. In this specific case, note that the experiment has been carried out, proving that up to 120 feet the earth is flat. You can argue otherwise and pose problems to it. This means the question is still open. But the experiment had been done and had supported the flat model. That's not disputable. If you want to theorize why at that height no curvature should be seen, I think the burden of proof is on you. Simply dening it based on numbers found in a book is not reality.

You claim "the experiment had been done and had supported the flat model. That's not disputable."

What about sowing the Youtube video the indisputably "supported the flat model"?

Do you mean:

Due to the lens used, that one shows everything from excessive convex curvature through flat to excessive concave curvature.

This generally appears to show excessive convex curvature due to the lens.

Do you have a more credible one for your "That's not disputable" claim.

This document has a lot to say about this topic: Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth by David K. Lynch.

[Charming Anarchist]

Questions for the shills: 
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude? 
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so?? 





Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height. 

[rabinoz]

Questions for the shills: 
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude? 
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so?? 

Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height.

When someone has no valid argument they usually have to stoop to attacking the characters of their opponents - like calling them "liars" and "globullshitters".

Do you know anyone that applies to - got a mirror handy?

It just proves that YOU have nothing - keep it up!

And who here is even claiming the "veracity of the measurement of height"?

[cel]

I'm into your arguments and reasons globe and flat earthers, but have you wondered that until this time people have not really proven once and for all that the earth is globe or flat. Until this time! Why were/are people made to believe that the earth is globe (mostly) or flat (selectively) where in fact there are still 1001 arguments among concerned people or truth seekers trying to prove it. Even with NASA and science book and educators around, this situation remains unresolved. Well, how long will this issue remain to be unproven? Why are there too many loopholes in existing proofs found in science materials every where? And why the flat earthers, day in and day out, keep on discovering new proofs? Of course, we're basically all globe earthers as we're taught by formal education, but why are people keep on knowing things and info that are inconsistent with what were taught in school? Say something folks! May your kind of earth be proven right in time! Go,go,go...

[Bzz]

Questions for the shills: 
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude? 
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so?? 





Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height.

That's the premise held. If the premise is right, then it can be used to demonstrate the earth is flat, as it has been correctly done.
Institutions do the same every day with proofs backing up their ideology. The difference is that people, like Rabinoz, Rounder, decide their proof is beyond doubt, and never question "How can I be so sure this is real?" as you just did.
Personally i'm more inclined to believe non-institutional information though.

As for the optics: when someone discredits nasa's optics, this is called conspiracy. But when someone makes an experiment with his own means, it seems there is an urgent necessity to discredit it because it goes against institutional information, which is highly bureaucratic, with its main premise being not to accept any information from those without credentials and years in their schools (universities).

[Bzz]

I'm into your arguments and reasons globe and flat earthers, but have you wondered that until this time people have not really proven once and for all that the earth is globe or flat. Until this time! Why were/are people made to believe that the earth is globe (mostly) or flat (selectively) where in fact there are still 1001 arguments among concerned people or truth seekers trying to prove it. Even with NASA and science book and educators around, this situation remains unresolved. Well, how long will this issue remain to be unproven? Why are there too many loopholes in existing proofs found in science materials every where? And why the flat earthers, day in and day out, keep on discovering new proofs? Of course, we're basically all globe earthers as we're taught by formal education, but why are people keep on knowing things and info that are inconsistent with what were taught in school? Say something folks! May your kind of earth be proven right in time! Go,go,go...

Well, could you link some of your 1001 other references about Earth's shape?

I can only say that for some globe people it feels right having such an aggressive ideology, under the disguise of hundreds of complex and intertwined scientific facts. This gives them authority. Imagine you losing your authority. Remember that modern science is a fruit of capitalism, since it's been growing on its branches for years. If you want to make their science then, you have to be a capitalist. You'll have to bend if you don't want to be a 'lunatic' at maximum. See?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

[juner]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

RErs won't ever get their story straight. We frequently see RErs parrot "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON AN AIRPLANE YOU CAN SEE THE CURVE," even though anyone who isn't retarded knows you aren't discerning curvature at 30-35 thousand feet. Then they reply that you can with a large enough field of view, although there's no evidence of this. Now, we are seeing them deny that you can see curvature at 120K feet because it's so big, etc... They will move the goalposts and change the narratives when their arguments fall apart, which we both know is frequently.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

Go to your local hardware store. Find a long piece of lumber. Look for one that looks very straight. Place it on the ground, step back, and look at it horizontally. Can you see any curvature? If you can, find a straighter piece. Once you have your super straight piece of lumber, turn it lengthwise, and look straight down the length of it. You will immediately notice many imperfections.

This is only a rough analogy, but hopefully it helps you understand why it is easier to notice curvature by noticing the drop off straight in front of us than the horizontal curvature.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

RErs won't ever get their story straight. We frequently see RErs parrot "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON AN AIRPLANE YOU CAN SEE THE CURVE," even though anyone who isn't retarded knows you aren't discerning curvature at 30-35 thousand feet. Then they reply that you can with a large enough field of view, although there's no evidence of this. Now, we are seeing them deny that you can see curvature at 120K feet because it's so big, etc... They will move the goalposts and change the narratives when their arguments fall apart, which we both know is frequently.

Yeah yeah yeah, round earthers are all horrible, misguided, dishonest people, blah blah blah...

Here is a three step method for presenting some solid evidence related to this topic:

1. Find a picture of the horizon taken from a specific altitude.
2. Based on the altitude and specifics of the camera, calculate how much curvature we should expect to see, assuming the earth is round. Use math. No guessing.
3. Compare that with the amount of curvature shown in the photo.

If the measured amount of curvature disagrees significantly with the predicted amount, then congratulations! You have found evidence that the earth is not round! So far, I have yet to see this happen, from any altitude. There is no need to move any goalposts because I have yet to see even an attempt at a field goal by flat earthers.

[rabinoz]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!

Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.

All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.

You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.

From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!

100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!

10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!

even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level -  detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!

Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!

Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.

There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.

The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.

Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:

Altitude		Dip Angle		Horizon Distance
32,808 feet		2.8°		256 miles

It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.

I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.

Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:

He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial.

None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.

You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!

[cel]

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!

Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.

All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.

You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.

From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!

100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!

10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!

even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level -  detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!

Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!

Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.

There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.

The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.

Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:

Altitude		Dip Angle		Horizon Distance
32,808 feet		2.8°		256 miles

It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.

I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.

Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:

He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial.

None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.

You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!

You know what i think on this? You're right in saying that the height reached by the camera is still just very near to the earth relative to the earth's radius or diameter. So it's hard to tell and conclude whether there is really an observable curvature. Well, we need bigger funding to prove and see a curvature this way. I can see that this will end up, just the same, in GEs and FEs still believing, defending and confirming/proving their respective claims. You know why? the FEs claim that the earth is a flat circular disc, so whatever curvature, though how minute, seen at some considerable height, they will just say that it confirms also the circular arc or edge of their circular disc earth. Well, again an endless debate continues. The earth is enormous. People are just virus wanting to see the curvature of their enormous spherical or circular disc home called earth... good luck... just an insight...

[rabinoz]

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!

Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.

All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.

You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.

From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!

100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!

10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!

even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level -  detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!

Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!

Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.

There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.

The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.

Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:

Altitude		Dip Angle		Horizon Distance
32,808 feet		2.8°		256 miles

It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.

I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.

Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:

He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial.

None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.

You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!

You know what i think on this? You're right in saying that the height reached by the camera is still just very near to the earth relative to the earth's radius or diameter. So it's hard to tell and conclude whether there is really an observable curvature. Well, we need bigger funding to prove and see a curvature this way. I can see that this will end up, just the same, in GEs and FEs still believing, defending and confirming/proving their respective claims. You know why? the FEs claim that the earth is a flat circular disc, so whatever curvature, though how minute, seen at some considerable height, they will just say that it confirms also the circular arc or edge of their circular disc earth. Well, again an endless debate continues. The earth is enormous. People are just virus wanting to see the curvature of their enormous spherical or circular disc home called earth... good luck... just an insight...

Please get the message! I am not claiming curvature at all! At high enough altitudes there will obviously be some visible on a globe.

What I am claiming, with some evidence, it that when the observer is above sea-level there is a measurable dip angle down to the horizon. This sort of thing:

Dip Angle to Horizon, Globe

Angles as large as those on diagram would only be observed from very high altitudes:
  20 miles altitude would give a dip angle of 5°
  50 miles altitude would give a dip angle of 8° and
100 miles altitude would give a dip angle of 11°.

But with good equipment this dip angle can be measured from quite moderate altitudes, as in the picture and video above. The picture shows the horizon about 2.8° below true horizontal.

[flachland]

although i would say at the moment im in the globe earths corner,i still dont get why theres videos on youtube showing balloons being sent upto 120,000 feet and theres no curve there.if any round earther can explain this i would be grateful.

Sorry for digging up this old post as a newcomer, but I see the flat/curved discussion pretty often going on in other topics.

Of course you will see a curved horizon. If not, look closer. But you will see a curved horizon anyway, no matter you are on a globe or disk. Unless you are on a square rectangular earth.

But maybe we can ask the guys below to add a little action cam as payload. They always have a Gopro, which IMHO is really good, but the lens is not so suitable. They use very wide angle lenses (I think around 7mm or so), you can easily replace them with some sort of more normal lens, like 15-20mm M12 lens. No need for an expensive Gopro, a cheap China clone has good image quality too.

https://www.overlookhorizon.com/flight-schedule/
https://www.youtube.com/c/OLHZN