Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2018, 12:47:18 AM »
Looks pretty flat to me.





It's not that hard to say "I was wrong." Or, "Here's where I saw that information." Instead, you are just in denial mode.

You can't just say "This is true" when all evidence contradicts it.

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2018, 01:19:57 AM »
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

The curvature of the Earth is not what causes the drop. You're talking about a difference in elevation. I refuse to believe that there is only 1 foot drop from Lake Victoria to the Mediterranean. What is the prime source?

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not.

Why should it curve? I explained why it should be a straight line. You either show why I am wrong, or you explain why you're right. You can't just repeat the assertion.
If the horizon should curve, as you say, where would the top of the curve be?

Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.

I bet it doesn't even make sense to you. It's a sound bite you parrot without realizing it's gibberish.

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2018, 01:31:29 AM »


This image illustrates what I point out in another post. On a FE there would be no horizon like we see it in the real world. Because the image is taken from a high altitude, the horizon has 'moved' further back, beyond our range of vision which is limited due to the diffraction caused by the atmosphere. The horizon becomes fuzzy. On a flat earth the 'edge' would always be out of sight, so to speak. Strictly speaking there would be no edge (i.e. horizon) at all, since it is the result of the surface curving away from the observer.

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2018, 01:55:08 AM »
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.

mathematically: The projection of a circle is a line, only if the observer is at the same level/same plane of the circle. If the observer is above the center of the circle, he would see part of an ellipse.
Theoretically, but this circle, the horizon, compared to the hight of the observer, is huge. So in practice it's not distinguishable if you see a line or part of an ellipse.

An example: You know a Soccer field? There's a big circle in the center of the field. If you stay in the middle of this circle, you can see, that this is a circle around you - All points on the horizon this circle are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions.

The points on the circle are all on the same horizontal plane. Standing up I can see the ellipse, yes, but that is not a curvature of the plane on which the circle is. It is the same elipse one would see standing close to the edge on a FE. It is also what we see in images of the Earth taken from space. We see the Earth is round, but because it is so far away it's reduced to the 2 dimensional shape of a circle, and we can't determine, from still images, that we're looking at a globe. From the Moon the Earth might as well be a flat disk ;)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 01:57:13 AM by Morgenstund »

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2018, 01:58:14 PM »
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.

mathematically: The projection of a circle is a line, only if the observer is at the same level/same plane of the circle. If the observer is above the center of the circle, he would see part of an ellipse.
Theoretically, but this circle, the horizon, compared to the hight of the observer, is huge. So in practice it's not distinguishable if you see a line or part of an ellipse.

An example: You know a Soccer field? There's a big circle in the center of the field. If you stay in the middle of this circle, you can see, that this is a circle around you - All points on the horizon this circle are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions.

The points on the circle are all on the same horizontal plane. Standing up I can see the ellipse, yes, but that is not a curvature of the plane on which the circle is. It is the same elipse one would see standing close to the edge on a FE. It is also what we see in images of the Earth taken from space. We see the Earth is round, but because it is so far away it's reduced to the 2 dimensional shape of a circle, and we can't determine, from still images, that we're looking at a globe. From the Moon the Earth might as well be a flat disk ;)

I've been following this thread with interest, so decided to register and join the party so to speak, to add a few observations of my own.

It just so happens that I spent a very pleasant couple of hours at a cafe by the seaside yesterday. A very clear day with a clearly defined horizon and calm sea. Based on the few boats I could see at various distances, I'd estimate the horizon at about 3-5 miles (let's say 5) distant and I was about 15-20 feet above sea level. If I looked directly ahead, I could see the horizon, it looked flat and perpendicular to my line of sight, however I had a very clear field of view of the sea approximately 180 degrees from left to right and no matter where I looked, I saw the horizon the same apparent distance away, perpendicular to my line of sight. So if I can turn my head through 180 degrees and see a horizon line at about 5 miles everywhere I look, then logically I'm looking at a semi-circle with a 10 mile diameter and me dead centre.

My eyes tell me I'm looking at a straight line, no curve, but I turn my head around and my brain tells me I'm clearly looking at a semi-circle. Lesson learned, I simply can't trust my own eyes to detect a curve on this scale from this viewing position.

Past experience also tells me that I could have moved to pretty much anywhere along the coast and I'd still find myself at the centre of a circle (or rather semi-circle). Also if I were to choose a higher vantage point, I'd see further - the circle would grow. As a pure exercise in geometry, ignoring any other factors, if I ask myself what kind of geometric object am I likely to be looking at if I find myself at the centre of a circle, no matter where I move to or look, but at the same time the size of circle grows when I increase my altitude, then the simplest explanation is that I'm in close proximity to a reasonably large sphere. It perfectly explains everything I see. Of course I'm ignoring all other factors such as refraction here, I'm just looking for the simplest geometrical explanation for what I saw. I'm not trying to go beyond that and speculate how or why the sea would curve away from me, just using my eyes and brain.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2018, 03:26:21 PM »
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not. Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.

WTF is this nonsense? The source of the Nile is at least 1000 feat above sea level, probably more (I'll look it up to double check).

Why on earth would you say this 1 feet crap?

You MUST be trolling.


>> Just checked, the source of the Nile is over 3000 feet above see level. Please stop flippantly spreading BS.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 03:32:40 PM by Edgar Alan Hoe »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2018, 01:54:19 AM »
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.
They probably just built Luxor airport a bit higher up.

Ah well, true denial mode! Nothing new there, and not really contributing to the discussion. I really am surprised he doesn’t get warned more often!

How does one explain the Aswan dam if it falls a foot from source to the sea?

The dam is 111 meters high, so lets be charitable and say it contains 100M depth at the dam when full.
If water always stays level (EnaG old bedford experiments are accepted as TRUTH by FEers that this is so) how does 100m depth of water build up behind the dam?

The dam base on the downstream side still flows to the sea, so the foot of the dam MUST be above sea level. On the upstream side the dam creates a lake, which is level with the water hieght at the artificial lakes entrance, so the entrance to the lake MUST be 100 metres higher, than the water level at the foot of the dam, Water flows into the lake from further upstream, therefore MUST be higher again. (Observation, experience all good empirical evidence)

Unless FE theory has water flowing uphill???

Ok back to the OP.
The distance to the horizon is the same all round.
I have on a few occasions happened to find myself in a lattitude the same as the suns declination (NOTE EnaG does not dispute suns declination)
Using a sextant i have measured the arc from the suns lower limb to the horizon at midday, and found that there was no angular difference around the entire horizon, therefore by observation, and experience, i have empirical evidence that the horizon does not curve.
If the horizon curved away to either side of me i would surely see an altitude change when taking the suns altitude from south, through west to north then east?


Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2018, 10:43:57 AM »
Of course the horizon could curve on a globe. This follows directly from the full rotational symmetry of a sphere. If I turn around by 360° while staying perpendicular to the surface any line at a fixed distance describes a circle centered around me with its normal parallel to my rotation axis. So I'm looking down onto a circle with my in the center.
 

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2018, 05:19:07 PM »
Of course the horizon could curve on a globe. This follows directly from the full rotational symmetry of a sphere. If I turn around by 360° while staying perpendicular to the surface any line at a fixed distance describes a circle centered around me with its normal parallel to my rotation axis. So I'm looking down onto a circle with my in the center.
I agree. When I wrote my first post I actually deleted a paragraph where I wrote 'When seen from above the points on the horizon would form a circle with the observer at the center', but I felt I didn't need to state the obvious. So, of course the line would curve, but as I have said elsewhere, the plane on which all the points on the horizon lie is horizontal (duh!) and does not curve. It's flat. And it's the last bit that FEs claim should be the case and should be observed on a spherical Earth. They're dead wrong.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 226
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2018, 09:08:29 PM »
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.
They probably just built Luxor airport a bit higher up.

Ah well, true denial mode! Nothing new there, and not really contributing to the discussion. I really am surprised he doesn’t get warned more often!

How does one explain the Aswan dam if it falls a foot from source to the sea?

The dam is 111 meters high, so lets be charitable and say it contains 100M depth at the dam when full.
If water always stays level (EnaG old bedford experiments are accepted as TRUTH by FEers that this is so) how does 100m depth of water build up behind the dam?

The dam base on the downstream side still flows to the sea, so the foot of the dam MUST be above sea level. On the upstream side the dam creates a lake, which is level with the water hieght at the artificial lakes entrance, so the entrance to the lake MUST be 100 metres higher, than the water level at the foot of the dam, Water flows into the lake from further upstream, therefore MUST be higher again. (Observation, experience all good empirical evidence)

Unless FE theory has water flowing uphill???

Ok back to the OP.
The distance to the horizon is the same all round.
I have on a few occasions happened to find myself in a lattitude the same as the suns declination (NOTE EnaG does not dispute suns declination)
Using a sextant i have measured the arc from the suns lower limb to the horizon at midday, and found that there was no angular difference around the entire horizon, therefore by observation, and experience, i have empirical evidence that the horizon does not curve.
If the horizon curved away to either side of me i would surely see an altitude change when taking the suns altitude from south, through west to north then east?
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.

As for the dam, that's basic stuff. A dam builds water up behind it. It stops the water being level the whole way because the 20th century man made structures are now preventing it.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2018, 09:13:31 PM »
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 226
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2018, 09:54:28 PM »
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
Confused here. Are you saying the Nile flows through Luxor airport?

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2018, 10:23:58 PM »
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
Confused here. Are you saying the Nile flows through Luxor airport?

Within a couple of miles.



Are you claiming that the airport is 700 feet above the Nile a couple of miles away? Where is your evidence if so?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 226
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2018, 03:57:36 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2018, 05:16:33 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2018, 07:17:40 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.

See, like Tom you have made your trolling too obvious and spoilt the fun we all have debating with an 'idiot'.

Tone it down a little so we can all carry on pretending this is a real debate.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 226
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2018, 07:18:47 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.

Macarios

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2018, 07:21:49 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.

Nile itself already disagree with "Dr" Rowbotham. :)

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2018, 07:47:28 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.

Funny, cos man saying so in a book isn't evidence either.

What is the actual evidence for the Nile dropping only 1 foot? What 'astute' experiment did Rowbotham carry out to establish this?

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2018, 09:58:05 AM »
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
Nope.

http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Luxor-8089754/

Just to be clear. What you're claiming is that for the entire length of the Nile, which Google reckons is 6,853km, the elevation only changes by 1 foot.
So nowhere the Nile flows through can be higher than that, unless the Nile is in a trench or canyon.
I'd be interested to know how you think water would flow at all were that the case.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 10:10:22 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.