Proof of curvature

  • 106 Replies
  • 49348 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2010, 03:04:47 AM »
lorddave, you are doing a deservice to the RE hoax...certainly by now you know how to find your way through the maze of any stream of photographs...



And here is the formula itself:

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth

Now, that photograph from lake Ontario PROVES NOTHING, because from 50 km distance, FOR A WORST CASE SCENARIO, FROM A HEIGHT OF 2 METERS, WE COULD SEE NOTHING UNDER 150 METERS FROM THE TORONTO SKYLINE.

Since in that photograph details were captured which are certainly well above that mark, 150 meters, no conclusion can be drawn as to the shape of the surface of the earth.

But, we have this photograph, already hotly debated, which does show the top of the roof of the Sky Dome, and that is 60 METERS BELOW THE ACCEPTED LIMIT FOR A ROUND EARTH (150 METERS):


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/

I just posted more details about the photograph taken in Burlington, Vermont at the True Believers section; in order to see the first signs of land at Montreal, ONE MUST ASCEND TO 1070 METERS.



Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2010, 03:17:34 AM »
"It makes absolutely no sense in my model, but it doesn't make sense in yours either...if we presume a completely perfect sphere and leave out numerous variables.  I am therefor right by default, even though I offer no explanation whatsoever."  lolvee

*

Lorddave

  • 18259
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2010, 03:55:18 AM »
Ahh Levee...

All you've shown is that the circumference of the Earth is not 6378.164 KM at Toronto.  And why 2m?  That's about 6 feet tall.  I'm only 5' 5" or 1.65 meters. Let's do the math with 1.65 meters AND 6,357 KM radius as that's the lower limit for the measured radius of the Earth:
I came out to -143m
Not sure if I did my math right but If I'm going to interpret the number I'd say that means that I can't see anything from 143 meters and below.

The CN tower is Well over 550m tall so that's easily visible.
The TD Canada Trust Tower is 261m tall so we can see that as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto

Here's a list of buildings in Toronto.  Tell me which ones you can see that you shouldn't be able to.

Anyway, here's my original point:
There is still curvature.  WHAT the curvature is, however, is not relevant as the curvature is clearly visible.

The second photo you've posted is the same way:
Showing curvature is the focus, not how much.  If you want to debate the exact curvature and radius of the Earth at various locations then go for it, as it's very interesting to note how different points of the Earth have different radii.

Also, I read your extra details.
Why are you saying 200 meters up?  It's clearly a picture taken in an Airplane.  How do I know?
Look at the green land: Those are trees.  How can the observer be significantly higher than trees if he's only 200 meters up?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2010, 04:13:32 AM »
I like your style, fighting for every inch...but still it does not make any difference; remember that I gave you a worst case scenario (best case for round earth) of 150 meters, why do you want to lower that to 143 meters?

Now, let us suppose you could not see anything under 143 meters (for example, for the strait of Gibraltar, even if we vary the numbers for the radius of the round earth, from 6300 to 6400 km, the difference will be in the centimeters; the same thing for lake Ontario, and the English Channel, that is why I used the 6378.164 throughout; ONLY FOR THE TUNGUSKA RIVER DOES IT COME INTO DISCUSSION, and there, I presented the calculations accordingly...); you must show me on that photograph itself the exact height under which we cannot see anymore details of those buildings; you will find it is well above 143 meters, that is why it cannot be used for a debate on curvature; only photographs which show details of the buildings found at an altitude of UNDER 143 meters, can be brought here to start the debate. The photograph with the roof top of the Sky Dome certainly proves that there is no curvature over lake Ontario.

Even if that photo (Burlington) was taken from the air, you must ascend to over 1070 METERS TO SEE THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND IN MONTREAL, and we are well below that height...
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 04:47:00 AM by levee »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2010, 05:24:55 AM »
I want to thank Levee for posting this:




This is a perfect example of a curved Earth.

If you look at the horizon, you notice how the ground seems to just cut off at the horizon?  It looks like a hill, rolling up until it hits the peak.


Also

Quote
BURLINGTON (VERMONT) - MONTREAL, 117 KM

CURVATURE: 268 METERS

HEIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHER 300 FEET = 91.4 METERS, WE ROUND OFF TO 100 METERS

TALLEST BUILDING IN MONTREAL: 225 METERS

The height of the photographer is not 300 feet.  Those trees on the land closest to the bottom edge of the picture means he's several THOUSAND feet in the air.


But hey, let's not bother with that one.  So he had no idea what the height was and guessed.

I honestly don't know what levee is trying to show in that picture but apparently he doesn't realize that there is a substantial chunk of the 117km between Burlington, Vt. and Montreal is land and his curvature calculations don't take into account any of the rolling terrain.  There are hills several hundred feet high or more between those two locations.  Why would he expect to be able to see anything regardless of the altitude?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2010, 01:42:59 PM »
FEers seem to get off on ignoring variables.  It appears to be some kind of fetish.

*

Lorddave

  • 18259
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2010, 03:15:34 PM »
I like your style, fighting for every inch...but still it does not make any difference; remember that I gave you a worst case scenario (best case for round earth) of 150 meters, why do you want to lower that to 143 meters?

Now, let us suppose you could not see anything under 143 meters (for example, for the strait of Gibraltar, even if we vary the numbers for the radius of the round earth, from 6300 to 6400 km, the difference will be in the centimeters; the same thing for lake Ontario, and the English Channel, that is why I used the 6378.164 throughout; ONLY FOR THE TUNGUSKA RIVER DOES IT COME INTO DISCUSSION, and there, I presented the calculations accordingly...); you must show me on that photograph itself the exact height under which we cannot see anymore details of those buildings; you will find it is well above 143 meters, that is why it cannot be used for a debate on curvature; only photographs which show details of the buildings found at an altitude of UNDER 143 meters, can be brought here to start the debate. The photograph with the roof top of the Sky Dome certainly proves that there is no curvature over lake Ontario.

Even if that photo (Burlington) was taken from the air, you must ascend to over 1070 METERS TO SEE THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND IN MONTREAL, and we are well below that height...

let me make sure I understand you....
A photo showing buildings being obstructed by the ocean isn't valid because i can't verify that it perfectly matches the expected view mathematically?
I can't say I'm surprised. A picture showing ANY curvature, even if it means the Earth is a different size, would disprove flat earth.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2010, 03:53:54 PM »
the edge of the suns spotlight is curved. What is so hard to understand.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2010, 04:20:58 PM »
the edge of the suns spotlight is curved. What is so hard to understand.
Not sure what this has to do with the conversation.  It would seem you are simply trying to derail the thread by changing the subject.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2010, 06:15:40 PM »
the edge of the suns spotlight is curved. What is so hard to understand.

These pictures have nothing to do with the sun's alleged spotlight. Nothing at all. The buildings appear lower than they would on a flat earth; therefore the earth is not flat.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2010, 08:00:59 PM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2010, 08:41:03 PM »
Whenever curvature is shown, FEers say it's the lens.
Whenever things seem to drop over the horizon, it's "bendy light" or silence.

Curvature has been shown, but excuses will always be made.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2010, 09:24:37 PM »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2010, 10:16:30 PM »
The finite vanishing point is ridiculous.

As objects move away, their perceived proportions decrease directly with the distance from the observer, and their perceived size decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance. That's what creates the vanishing point, and the article linked is complete rubbish, stating that "...man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations...." A load of shit.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 10:19:11 PM by Trekky0623 »

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2010, 10:38:56 PM »
Which is exactly why the "perspective effect" argument for perceived falling over the horizon isn't used by anyone with as much as half a brain.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2010, 11:32:42 PM »
the article linked is complete rubbish, stating that "...man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations...." A load of shit.

Why should we assume that a man could see an infinite distance away?

Have you seen any infinitely-distant objects recently?

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2010, 11:44:41 PM »
We can see any distance away, and we can always increase that distance ad infinitum.
You seem to be nitpicking at a strawman of your own creation with this "infinitely-distant object" business.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2010, 11:47:13 PM »
We can see any distance away

How so? Do our eyes have infinite resolution?  ???
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:50:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2010, 12:03:10 AM »
If your problem is simply "human limitation" as it applies to the cells in our eyes, you're selling ingenuity short.  Telescopes aren't in on the conspiracy.  If the object is bright enough, we can see it.  This is more difficult from sea level and within cities because of atmospheric scattering and light pollution, which is generally why major telescopes are built in high places and rural areas (or are put into geosynchronous orbit).   ::)  Judging by your citation's contesting of what the term "vanishing point" actually means, I have to agree that you don't appear to understand the concept of it continuing into infinity.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2010, 12:08:13 AM »
We can see any distance away

How so? Do our eyes have infinite resolution?  ???

Yes acutely
 Or nearly but in this case its more then needed any way maybe you need to see an eye doctor.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/01/the-resolution.html
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2010, 12:09:08 AM »
If your problem is simply "human limitation" as it applies to the cells in our eyes, you're selling ingenuity short.  Telescopes aren't in on the conspiracy.  If the object is bright enough, we can see it.  This is more difficult from sea level and within cities because of atmospheric scattering and light pollution, which is generally why major telescopes are built in high places and rural areas (or are put into geosynchronous orbit).   ::)  Judging by your citation's contesting of what the term "vanishing point" actually means, I have to agree that you don't appear to understand the concept of it continuing into infinity.

HST is in LEO just saying
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2010, 03:25:28 AM »
If your problem is simply "human limitation" as it applies to the cells in our eyes, you're selling ingenuity short.  Telescopes aren't in on the conspiracy.

I know they aren't, which is why a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

Read the Wiki Link.

Yes acutely
 Or nearly but in this case its more then needed any way maybe you need to see an eye doctor.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/01/the-resolution.html

"Yes acutely"?

We speak English on this forum.

Where in that link does it say anything like "the human eye has infinite resolution"?

Just stop posting.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 03:30:21 AM by Tom Bishop »


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2010, 04:27:30 AM »
I know they aren't, which is why a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

Then why has this phenomenon never been documented photographically?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2010, 06:08:20 AM »
I know they aren't, which is why a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

Then why has this phenomenon never been documented photographically?

Because the documentor didn't have a camera.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2010, 07:03:18 AM »
I know they aren't, which is why a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

Then why has this phenomenon never been documented photographically?

Because the documentor didn't have a camera.
Need any other evidence that Tom Bishop has become, or always has been, a troll?

He already got a lot of unjustified attention with his "my super duper telescope (a Celestron or an Orion, depending on Tom Bishop's mood) is somehow the only 5000 dollar telescope for which there has never been a camera attachment".

Please do not feed the trolls.


*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2010, 07:43:56 AM »
Humans can't see an infinite distance away, but the vanishing point does approach infinity. An object usually just becomes too small to see. That doesn't say anything about the vanishing point.

*

Lorddave

  • 18259
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2010, 07:50:06 AM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.

So what exactly DOES the flat Earth model say is the exact visible height of the buildings?  
If you can't provide that, then you have nothing to justify that flat earth shows this is possible.


-edit-

But if you REALLY want it...



Off by less than 28m is pretty damn good, don't you think?  Especially since I don't know the height of the observer, the number of pixels that may have been removed when I resized the image, and the variation of angle the two pictures are at.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 10:05:10 AM by Lorddave »
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.