Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 25, 2010, 01:12:34 PM

He still thinks magic is real despite the amount of magicians that have explained allv their tricks work.

Let him mutter his insanities in peace.

Did I ever say I think magic is real?

You do call yourself a magic specialist... 

Specializing in something does not mean that I believe in it. Not that my beliefs are relevant to this thread anyway.

Doesn't that make you a DA?

Doesn't that make you a DA?

Check his sig, he is a magic troll.

Check his sig, he is a magic troll.

Sweet! Does he grant wishes?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 25, 2010, 01:33:14 PM

Check his sig, he is a magic troll.

Sweet! Does he grant wishes?

I don't recall....

The horizon is very large so it is easy to pick out the slight fish eye effects. It is quite hard to notice it on a small strip of farmland.

I've read this three times now. All I can say is "wut".

Apparently Joannes has never played with magnifiers and distorting optics like fish-eye lenses.

Notice how when you approach the edge of the fish eye lens the distortion increases, giving the illusion of a curved earth. That is what you are seeing. Also notice how for most of the center of the image, the fish eye effect is imperceptible.

http://www.asiaphotohub.com/Jason/Images/2007pix/FishEye001xs.jpg
http://www.jasonhollister.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/polish2.jpg

Notice how when you approach the edge of the fish eye lens the distortion increases, giving the illusion of a curved earth. That is what you are seeing. Also notice how for most of the center of the image, the fish eye effect is imperceptible.

Now, notice how the lens used to make this picture is made of very curved lenses, each one of which is a lot thinner or a lot thicker in the middle than in its border.

Then look at an airplane window and tell me if the glass or plastic is thinner in the middle. There is a field of science called Optics. You are redefining it completely to give some possibility to your hypothesis.

Also notice that the lens produces curves in both directions, and is easily detectable as a fish eye photo.

Johannes fails so that all of TFES might fail. Is he not glorious?

Notice how when you approach the edge of the fish eye lens the distortion increases, giving the illusion of a curved earth. That is what you are seeing. Also notice how for most of the center of the image, the fish eye effect is imperceptible.

And notice also that both the building and the dock, both objects in the near field, are visibly distorted as well. For your hypothesis to work, near objects near the edges of the window frame would also be visibly distorted.  Since they are not, massive fail.

In my second picture, everything above the horizon is distorted as well. Not sure what your point is. RE'ers just rely on pseudo-scientific assertions to prove bizzare points...

Notice how when you approach the edge of the fish eye lens the distortion increases, giving the illusion of a curved earth. That is what you are seeing. Also notice how for most of the center of the image, the fish eye effect is imperceptible.

I would even suggest that in the second picture there's a noticeable flattening effect in the center.

In my second picture, everything above the horizon is distorted as well. Not sure what your point is. RE'ers just rely on pseudo-scientific assertions to prove bizzare points...

You must be trolling.
bizzare points? so i guess anti-moon, burnt wood genetic engineering, thinking that an object in orbit will gain kinetic energy ad infinitum, the black hole in front of the moon, the harmful moonlight, and all the other BS that's been spouted is not bizzare. Wow even Gene Ray would think this is crazy

Gene Ray

You bring the time cube up way too often.

The shape of the lens you assumed makes no sense to begin with.

Which you'll read is one of my points.  A bulge (which Levee claims from the differing air pressures) wouldn't create such an effect at all, but even if it did we wouldn't observe what we do.  He's doubly wrong.

I'm not exactly a supporter of this idea, but if you placed the bulge below the line of sight and left the half of the window above it flat, it could work.

True, though that wouldn't explain why people with upward-facing windows never report any strangely upward-curving horizon, and still leaves the problem of why there isn't any distortion (which would be plainly evident) when the plane leans into turns.

I'm not exactly a supporter of this idea, but if you placed the bulge below the line of sight and left the half of the window above it flat, it could work.

Glass and the materials used in making airplane windows are viscous liquids, and over time the slight bulge below the line of sight you described occurs in windows. If you had a brand new airplane window, chances are the earth would appear flat. This effect is easily observable when you look at old glass windows.

I can attest:
There is no visible distortions from airplane windows.

Unfortunately, the flowing rate of glass is so slow you'd need 10 million years for any perceptible change at all. 
Also, the fact that the Earth still demonstrates that curve in new airplanes is detrimental to the FE argument here.

Unfortunately, the flowing rate of glass is so slow you'd need 10 million years for any perceptible change at all.  
Also, the fact that the Earth still demonstrates that curve in new airplanes is detrimental to the FE argument here.

This is not correct information. Old vertical glass sheets are visibly thicker at the base than they are at the top.

This is not correct information. Old vertical glass sheets are visibly thicker at the base than they are at the top.

No, those imperfections are due to old glassblowing techniques of the time.  In a Science News Magazine, June 1999, the time estimation was made by Yvonne Stokes of the University of Adelaide, who reported it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society the following month.  It's also not very relevant anyway, considering passenger airplane windows aren't glass in the first place.

I can attest:
There is no visible distortions from airplane windows.

Proof or go home.

Quote from: Johannes on June 27, 2010, 05:08:01 PM

This is not correct information. Old vertical glass sheets are visibly thicker at the base than they are at the top.

No, those imperfections are due to old glassblowing techniques of the time.  In a Science News Magazine, June 1999, the time estimation was made by Yvonne Stokes of the University of Adelaide, who reported it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society the following month.  It's also not very relevant anyway, considering passenger airplane windows aren't glass in the first place.

Glass is part of window.

Yvonne Spokes is part of the conspiracy, the Royal Society is a propaganda machine.

Quote from: Ellipsis on June 27, 2010, 05:13:21 PM

Quote from: Johannes on June 27, 2010, 05:08:01 PM

This is not correct information. Old vertical glass sheets are visibly thicker at the base than they are at the top.

No, those imperfections are due to old glassblowing techniques of the time.  In a Science News Magazine, June 1999, the time estimation was made by Yvonne Stokes of the University of Adelaide, who reported it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society the following month.  It's also not very relevant anyway, considering passenger airplane windows aren't glass in the first place.

Glass is part of window.

Yvonne Spokes is part of the conspiracy, the Royal Society is a propaganda machine.

Step one: Deny everything.
check

Sadly, that's the best they can do.   

"Here's some evidence to back up my claims.  What do you have to refute it?"
"It's all propaganda and conspiracy!  My tin foil hat itches!"

Also:

Yvonne Spokes is part of the conspiracy, the Royal Society is a propaganda machine.

In your own words:

Proof or go home.