Google Earth

How much more discussion are we going to get out of this?  I, as a licensed pilot, say that the curvature is not visible at normal flight altitudes.  You, as the average joe, say it is. 

I say no.

You say yes.




Now what?

How much more discussion are we going to get out of this?  I, as a licensed pilot, say that the curvature is not visible at normal flight altitudes.  You, as the average joe, say it is. 

I say no.

You say yes.




Now what?

Now you have to tell me what being a licensed pilot has to do with seeing curvature.

I'm up there a lot, and I get a better view.

I'm up there a lot, and I get a better view.

So am I, even in cockpits several times, and I do see curvature.

Now what?

Like I said.


I would like to know how you are in the cockpits, though.

Like I said.


I would like to know how you are in the cockpits, though.

Business jets.  They let you sit in the cockpit.

By the way, even then, being able to see the curvature is dictated by your field of view.  I can plant my face against a tiny passenger window and get a nearly-150 degree field of view of the horizon.  I don't need to be in the cockpit all the time to see curvature.  You also don't need a 150 degree field of view to notice it.  Simple rendering programs (pov-ray, for instance) can render the exact same view and show a distinct curvature.  Want me to do it, or is that a conspiracy?

What would that prove?

What would that prove?

That if the earth is what 99% of the world says it is, you would be able to see the curvature with the camera view at 1.00126r and a field of view of 90 degrees, which is a lot less than what a human sees.

Of course, you believe the world is flat, so nothing is going to convince you otherwise, even seeing a curved horizon, which you do see, but won't accept.

Of course, you believe the world is flat, so nothing is going to convince you otherwise, even seeing a curved horizon, which you do see, but won't accept.

Since when?

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 23, 2007, 11:28:13 PM

Of course, you believe the world is flat, so nothing is going to convince you otherwise, even seeing a curved horizon, which you do see, but won't accept.

Since when?

Make a complete question that I can actually answer.

As I have said directly and also hinted at, I'm a pilot as well. I fly an Airbus A310-200F for FedEx. Now that that has been established, my "verified observations" are as good as yours. Since you don't have a mic, would you agree to answer my simple questions via IRC or another instant messenger? If I were to ask the questions on the forums regularly you could look up the answers. In real time you would need to provide an answer within a few seconds. If you do not agree, myself and (most likely) everyone else on the forums (besides Big Tuna) will have a hard time believing your claim of being a pilot.

Edit: Typo, fixed in bold.

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30kcurvatureaaoh7.png



This doesn't prove either way that the earth is flat or round, but it does prove that if the earth is round, you can see the curvature at 30,000 feet.

This is a simple rendering of a sphere with a 90 degree field of vision with the camera located at 1.001261626r, looking horizontally (duh)

Note that 90 degrees is much less than a human field of vision, so this picture sees less horizon but still shows a distinct curvature.

More importantly, it proves that it is an experiment for RE that you can try for yourself the next time you fly in a plane.

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30kcurvatureaaoh7.png



This doesn't prove either way that the earth is flat or round, but it does prove that if the earth is round, you can see the curvature at 30,000 feet.

This is a simple rendering of a sphere with a 90 degree field of vision with the camera located at 1.001261626r, looking horizontally (duh)

Note that 90 degrees is much less than a human field of vision, so this picture sees less horizon but still shows a distinct curvature.

Nice job! I'll lift that image into the RE Primer on the next version or so. Thanks.

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 23, 2007, 11:51:18 PM

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30kcurvatureaaoh7.png



This doesn't prove either way that the earth is flat or round, but it does prove that if the earth is round, you can see the curvature at 30,000 feet.

This is a simple rendering of a sphere with a 90 degree field of vision with the camera located at 1.001261626r, looking horizontally (duh)

Note that 90 degrees is much less than a human field of vision, so this picture sees less horizon but still shows a distinct curvature.

Nice job! I'll lift that image into the RE Primer on the next version or so. Thanks.

Thanks!!

More importantly, it proves that it is an experiment for RE that you can try for yourself the next time you fly in a plane.

You forgot the fact the the real world has this thing called an 'atmosphere' and a 'sun' which can make the variables far too high to make out curvature.  That's why the 60 000ft is there, because things shouldn't interfere enough for you to not make out curvature.

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 23, 2007, 11:51:18 PM

More importantly, it proves that it is an experiment for RE that you can try for yourself the next time you fly in a plane.

You forgot the fact the the real world has this thing called an 'atmosphere' and a 'sun' which can make the variables far too high to make out curvature.  That's why the 60 000ft is there, because things shouldn't interfere enough for you to not make out curvature.

How so?  How would the sun interfere?  Can't look directly into it?

You seem to think that atmospheric haze would completely obscure the shape of the horizon.  It doesn't.  The shape is still there.  It's just not as sharp.

http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL916/486919/8101425/128478415.jpg

There's a picture with both variables (I don't see how they are going to cause that much of a problem with seeing the horizon anyway)  Hold a ruler up to the picture.  You see curvature.  Then, hold the same ruler up to a reference straight line, like the farmland.

Of course, one could say that the photo has been doctored, or the camera lens is causing the curve.  It doesn't mean you can't still see the horizon's shape, whether it be flat or curved.

Of course, one could say that the photo has been doctored, or the camera lens is causing the curve.

There is no need, this only proves the horizon appears curved.

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 24, 2007, 07:40:30 AM

Of course, one could say that the photo has been doctored, or the camera lens is causing the curve.

There is no need, this only proves the horizon appears curved.

Wrong, it says more than that. It says that once again that the predictions of RE are correct and that the predictions of FE are wrong. This bolsters our confidence that RE is a better, more useful, theory than FE.

ETF: Tags

Once again.

The shape of the horizon is immaterial.  The horizon is nothing more than the furthest one can see in any direction.  It will appear around the observer in the shape of a circle.  Therefore it will be curved.  As long as a horizon exists, it has to be curved.  This is basic logic and geometry here.

Once again.

The shape of the horizon is immaterial.  The horizon is nothing more than the furthest one can see in any direction.  It will appear around the observer in the shape of a circle.  Therefore it will be curved.  As long as a horizon exists, it has to be curved.  This is basic logic and geometry here.

non sequitur. Roundy, you're not making any sense, pal.

Wrong, it says more than that. It says that once again that the predictions of RE are correct and that the predictions of FE are wrong. This bolsters our confidence that RE is a better, more useful, theory than FE.

I'm going to assume that this was meant for me and you just messed up the quote. As for this post by you, I'd like to know how it says that the predictions of the RE are correct? What is there to predict? You're just looking at the horizon, that appears to be curved. I think you're trying to hinge too much on a simple observation.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 24, 2007, 11:19:01 AM

Wrong, it says more than that. It says that once again that the predictions of RE are correct and that the predictions of FE are wrong. This bolsters our confidence that RE is a better, more useful, theory than FE.

Fer

I'm going to assume that this was meant for me and you just messed up the quote. As for this post by you, I'd like to know how it says that the predictions of the RE are correct? What is there to predict? You're just looking at the horizon, that appears to be curved. I think you're trying to hinge too much on a simple observation.

Ferrucio posted the prediction, which will be in the next version of the RE Primer. We see the predicted curve. We conclude the RE is doing a better job. FE sits around making excuses and no predictions. (You can't see the curve. Even if you see the curve it's part of FE too. No one can see the curve. The curve is caused by the curvature of the spotlight of the Sun. and on and on and on ...)

Ferrucio posted the prediction, which will be in the next version of the RE Primer. We see the predicted curve. We conclude the RE is doing a better job. FE sits around making excuses and no predictions. (You can't see the curve. Even if you see the curve it's part of FE too. No one can see the curve. The curve is caused by the curvature of the spotlight of the Sun. and on and on and on ...)

So because of a lack of general consensus, you conclude RE wins? That seems sound.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 24, 2007, 12:42:02 PM

Ferrucio posted the prediction, which will be in the next version of the RE Primer. We see the predicted curve. We conclude the RE is doing a better job. FE sits around making excuses and no predictions. (You can't see the curve. Even if you see the curve it's part of FE too. No one can see the curve. The curve is caused by the curvature of the spotlight of the Sun. and on and on and on ...)

So because of a lack of general consensus, you conclude RE wins? That seems sound.

Glad you agree. Any theory whose community can't reach consensus is suspect. In this case, we must be particularly critical of FE for failing to make a prediction.

Glad you agree. Any theory whose community can't reach consensus is suspect. In this case, we must be particularly critical of FE for failing to make a prediction.

I suppose I should have colored my text to indicate my sarcasm.

I guess with the recent article regarding the existence of black holes, the scientific community is suspect now.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 24, 2007, 01:17:50 PM

Glad you agree. Any theory whose community can't reach consensus is suspect. In this case, we must be particularly critical of FE for failing to make a prediction.

I suppose I should have colored my text to indicate my sarcasm.

I guess with the recent article regarding the existence of black holes, the scientific community is suspect now.

* divito giggles gleefully

You've misread. The theory becomes suspect, not the community.

The theory becomes suspect, not the community.

Oh, so the FET cannot be suspect then, the whole community has to be? That's a shame. I wish logic worked both ways.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 24, 2007, 12:42:02 PM

Ferrucio posted the prediction, which will be in the next version of the RE Primer. We see the predicted curve. We conclude the RE is doing a better job. FE sits around making excuses and no predictions. (You can't see the curve. Even if you see the curve it's part of FE too. No one can see the curve. The curve is caused by the curvature of the spotlight of the Sun. and on and on and on ...)

So because of a lack of general consensus, you conclude RE wins? That seems sound.

Works for me!

Of course RE wins.  Everyone supports RE.  No one off this site considers us anything more than a joke.

Once again.

The shape of the horizon is immaterial.  The horizon is nothing more than the furthest one can see in any direction.  It will appear around the observer in the shape of a circle.  Therefore it will be curved.  As long as a horizon exists, it has to be curved.  This is basic logic and geometry here.

That's some pretty sharp fog!  The sun's intersection with the horizon near the middle is sort of a give-away with regards to figuring out whether that picture is a true horizon or not, instead of just a visible horizon.

In fact, that whole horizon looks pretty sharp.  Wouldn't haze and fog give a more pronounced gradient, instead of that immediate "sky.. earth" line?