[Action80]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.

On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.

Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?

Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.

Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.

[stack]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.

On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.

Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?

Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.

Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.

Perhaps it's also because of the dip.

[Pete Svarrior]

Perhaps it's also because of the dip.

Perhaps; but that would directly contradict your compatriots' position that the opposite is happening because of the dip. That's pretty much the sad state this thread has been reduced to.

[stack]

Perhaps it's also because of the dip.

Perhaps; but that would directly contradict your compatriots' position that the opposite is happening because of the dip. That's pretty much the sad state this thread has been reduced to.

Possibly. Sometimes it looks like a crisp line, sometimes it doesn't. When crisp, trying to determine exactly how crisp, to what degree, is probably impossible. Perhaps with magnification, maybe a theodolite. Is it fuzzy 1" above the water, 1', 10', hard to tell. But I imagine in some circumstances the fuzziness is very small and in others, very large, and everywhere in between.

And then there's the dip which may contribute, but may also be an entirely different issue that needs an explanation all unto itself.

[Action80]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

[stack]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

[Action80]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

Curvature is curvature.

Just stop with the equivocation.

There is no curvature.

[stack]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

Curvature is curvature.

Just stop with the equivocation.

There is no curvature.

Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.

[Action80]

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

[stack]

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

[Action80]

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

You are the RE expert, remember?

You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

You are a smart guy, figure it out.

[Tom Bishop]

If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.

This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:

[DuncanDoenitz]

If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.

This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:

Agree with Tom 100% (that's twice this year!). 

At 4.43 in the U-2 video the horizon is concave, and the aircraft's wing curves upward.  As we don't know the optics involved in either the U-2 video or the Concorde picture their presentation as evidence is pointless.  (And "optics" includes both the camera lens and the aircrafts' cockpit canopy/window). 

[Tom Bishop]

The picture stack showed us is also cropped. There are other versions of the photo wish show more area of clouds beneath the plane.

Here was stack's photo:

This version from this site has more area of clouds beneath the plane:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/



While this verion from aviationgeekclub.com itself also appears to be cropped, it shows that stack did not actually show us the full picture.

If the plane is centered in the photo then lens barrel distortion or a fish-eye effect could cause the the plane to be straight while the horizon is curved.

Fisheye distortion  grid:



The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.

[stack]

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

You are the RE expert, remember?

You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

You are a smart guy, figure it out.

As expected, I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

Thanks for proving my point.

[stack]

The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.

It could have been cropped over the years...or not. Here's a print signed by Adrian Meredith, the original photgrapher. Whether he cropped it back in 1985, unknown.



The horizon seems to be in the center of the image, yet still arc'd. And if barrel distortion was present, I would expect to see the Concord itself sufficiently bent considering it's location in the image. Interesting.

Here's what I would expect from fisheye barrel distortion...



I guess from now on the only acceptable evidence is something that came straight from the source with a letter of provenance guaranteeing that it has never been altered in any way. And the same standard shall be applied to anything and everything you post.

[Action80]

Yes, stack...

I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.

Wrong as usual.

[stack]

Yes, stack...

I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.

Wrong as usual.

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

I see. So again, you're just saying so without saying how so. What is this dictatorial math you keep ambiguously referring to without saying what it is. Why so cryptic? Why not just lay out this math you claim exists. Or are you just in the business of making claims without backing them up? Seems to be your MO.

If you can't bring yourself to put your money where your mouth is, I've got one for you...

Anyway, the math dictates that from the altitude of the Concorde, you are able to see curvature.

High enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

There you go, case closed.

[Tom Bishop]

Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.

Signed photo:



From the first picture you posted:



There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.

This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.

[stack]

Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.

Signed photo:



From the first picture you posted:



There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.

This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.

Could be. Or maybe the matte in the frame is covering it. We don't know. So no, it's not necessarily evidence it is cropped. Buy it, rip it out of the frame and find out.