The horizon is curved.

I tend to think we are seeing the actual edge of the disc

Then, would you mind telling me why we aren't seeing anything resembling your avatar? And why does the curvature look the same in all directions if I am not above the center of the disc? As I move outward (south), one side should appear closer than the rest.

The difficulty with such an assumption as you've made lies in that I don't believe the atmosphere  prevents the sun from reaching the dark areas. So it's not fairly analogous. Further, the "sea of haze" (which certainly exists) lies directly behind that more brightly lit portion of the atmosphere against the horizon. At such heights and distances (and hence angles) involved, the sea of haze (and the darkness beyond) does exist behind the lit area (or glare) of atmosphere, just as the hazy depths and inky darkness of the ocean exist behind the blue-greens of the ocean -- invisible to the viewer on the boat.

I'm sorry... what?

Please, did anyone understand this??

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2012, 12:35:11 AM

The difficulty with such an assumption as you've made lies in that I don't believe the atmosphere  prevents the sun from reaching the dark areas. So it's not fairly analogous. Further, the "sea of haze" (which certainly exists) lies directly behind that more brightly lit portion of the atmosphere against the horizon. At such heights and distances (and hence angles) involved, the sea of haze (and the darkness beyond) does exist behind the lit area (or glare) of atmosphere, just as the hazy depths and inky darkness of the ocean exist behind the blue-greens of the ocean -- invisible to the viewer on the boat.

I'm sorry... what?

Please, did anyone understand this??

There is a huge "sea of haze" which nobody sees, except Ski. Maybe it is in Ski's head? Beyond that, this is classic FE "theory". Descriptions, descriptions, descriptions. No evidence, no diagrams, not even a reason to bother reading about the hazy depths and inky darkness.

Quote from: Particle Person on April 27, 2012, 02:05:19 PM

Visible curvature at or near sea level doesn't make sense, no matter which model you're using. Just think about it.

False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.

No, that makes no sense. Where would the apex of this curve be?

Quote from: ClockTower on April 27, 2012, 02:59:11 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on April 27, 2012, 02:05:19 PM

Visible curvature at or near sea level doesn't make sense, no matter which model you're using. Just think about it.

False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.

No, that makes no sense. Where would the apex of this curve be?

The apex would be directly underneath where the observer is. 

Quote from: Particle Person on May 09, 2012, 12:27:49 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 27, 2012, 02:59:11 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on April 27, 2012, 02:05:19 PM

Visible curvature at or near sea level doesn't make sense, no matter which model you're using. Just think about it.

False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.

No, that makes no sense. Where would the apex of this curve be?

The apex would be directly underneath where the observer is.

Right. So the viewer would be surrounded by a circular termination of visibility, caused either by the earth's curvature or the atmosphere. Either way, the observer at or near sea level is surrounded by a "straight" line (no vertical deviation).

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on May 09, 2012, 12:33:49 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on May 09, 2012, 12:27:49 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 27, 2012, 02:59:11 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on April 27, 2012, 02:05:19 PM

Visible curvature at or near sea level doesn't make sense, no matter which model you're using. Just think about it.

False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.

No, that makes no sense. Where would the apex of this curve be?

The apex would be directly underneath where the observer is.

Right. So the viewer would be surrounded by a circular termination of visibility, caused either by the earth's curvature or the atmosphere. Either way, the observer at or near sea level is surrounded by a "straight" line (no vertical deviation).

You can see the earth curving, though, when stuff like clouds or ships are partially covered by the curvature.  I think that's what ClockTower was talking about.

Carry on then.

Two weeks and still no explanation has been presented, other than "it's the edge" which must falsely assume that every such photo is taken directly above the center of the disk. Tom Bishop himself has avoided the issue completely.

The horizon is curved.

Yes. that is a good observation. 

I find that those that believe everything their favorite teacher in elementary taught them.. seem to overthink things.

The reason why we PERCEIVE the horizon to be a curve... is because our EYEBALL is curved. You know, the LENS our brain uses to interepret our visible spectrum.

When you look through a drop of water, you can see an entire house in that drop. Does that REALLY MEAN that the house is a miniture tiny piece of wood?

Common Sense .. 

Yawn. If perception is distorted, the definitions of "flat" and "curved" would be normalized. Flatness is no apparent curvature and vice versa. If a ruler appears flat and the horizon does not, then the horizon is not the same shape as a ruler. If you believe the horizon is flat, then you believe the ruler is curved. You can't pick and choose when your eyes are correct.

Let us know when that favorite teacher finally lets you graduate elementary, then come back with a more sensible argument.

Because the light from the Sun shines in a spotlight therefore what is visible is a circular shape NOT spherical.

Here's the problem. Yes, the horizon is curved at high altitudes as it should be on Flat Disc shaped earth. But, the horizon is not curved at lower altitudes where curvature should be present on a Spherical earth.

The curvature observed in your original picture is not spherical curvature but circular curvature. You will notice that the curve wraps round your line of sight and does not curve downwards in all directions as if you are standing on TOP OF A BALL.

Take this high altitude picture for instance. There is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere.

It's a Flat Disc:

Get a giant ball. Place the camera to the ball at the same angle as the camera to the Earth in this picture. It would look the same. You can tell the Earth is a sphere by the curve. The middle of the horizon is higher than the edges. If Earth was a disc. That wouldn't be the case.

And still no explanation.

Because the light from the Sun shines in a spotlight therefore what is visible is a circular shape NOT spherical.

Here's the problem. Yes, the horizon is curved at high altitudes as it should be on Flat Disc shaped earth. But, the horizon is not curved at lower altitudes where curvature should be present on a Spherical earth.

Many people attest to measuring curvature at sea level.  I for one have calculated that the round earth viewed from sea level has an angular size approaching 180 degrees, and is therefore impossible to "percieve" any curvature without something for comparison, such as a ship or a cloud.  So curvature doesn't necessarily need to be visible on a Spherical Earth.

The curvature observed in your original picture is not spherical curvature but circular curvature. You will notice that the curve wraps round your line of sight and does not curve downwards in all directions as if you are standing on TOP OF A BALL.

Spheres always appear circular.  Therefore their curvatures are identical to those of circles.

Take this high altitude picture for instance. There is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere.

any amount of curvature can constitute the shape of a sphere.

It's a Flat Disc:

I see no terminator fading to red to indicate the edge of the spotlight sun, and I see no wall of ice to indicate the edge of the world.  The curvature alone, however is not enough to decide whether sphere or circle.  To calculate that we'll need the altitude and field of view for the camera, and use that to calculate the angular radius of the horizon, and decide how big both the sphere and the circle would have to be to fit that angular radius from that altitude.

Can any FE'er tell me why the horizon is curved?

The cloud appears to grow out of the horizon for the same reason a ship's mast seems to.

ok. I'm new here, and I do not know how do you guys explain this phenomena, if the earth is flat.

(while explaining this, please, have in mind that my english is awful, because I'm selftaught in it. Be gentle  )

I was browsing around in the archives and came across this thread again. I'm pretty sure I answered this a long time ago in another thread, but the night picture of the dirigible at the edge of the atmosphere is explained by the idea that we are looking at at an illuminated circle that is very far away and tilted with perspective.

A lot of the far horizon is very bright and washed out in brightness, but that brightness generally takes the shape of a circle in the far distance where it is washed out.

See the following image:

Tom, how does your BS theory explain this picture?

Tom, how does your BS theory explain this picture?

Quote

This picture was most likely taken at a low altitude near the surface, just as every other picture of half sunken things are that get posted to this forum. I would be willing to bet a sum of money that if we were able to track down the source of this, we would find that it was taken very low in altitude. In investigating these sorts of pictures over the years, we have found this to be so.

Waves on the horizon, and whatever else might not be perfectly level with the plane are ever so slightly above eye level, and provides an area to which something even further away can shrink and sink behind it. A series of waves or swells built up at the horizon can cover a mountain, a ship, or a large piece of the sky, just like a dime can obscure an elephant if you hold it out in front of you.

Thork has some nice beach pictures of distant things apparently sinking into the ocean the closer the camera got to the water's surface, obscured by a swell, which illustrates the matter, showing that relative altitude and obstructions at distance produce the "sinking ship" effect, and not the curvature of the earth.

Please learn about ocean swell.

Yours is is a picture of swell which you get with wind on all large bodies of water. Please examine the exact same phenomenom in the picture below.


Picture originally posted by a round earther. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50529.msg1241340#msg1241340

The earth does not curve by more than a foot to hide the bodies of people just 20 yards away. What has happened is a big wave is covering them, despite the water appearing near flat in the top picture. In your pictures, swell is covering the ship in exactly the same way. Greater distance, same effect.

It's the same effect, but at a larger scale.

How far away are the clouds to appear to be behind the horizon?

How far away are the clouds to appear to be behind the horizon?

Pretty far.

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

Quote from: zarg on April 26, 2012, 06:49:55 PM

I was browsing around in the archives and came across this thread again. I'm pretty sure I answered this a long time ago in another thread, but the night picture of the dirigible at the edge of the atmosphere is explained by the idea that we are looking at at an illuminated circle that is very far away and tilted with perspective.

A lot of the far horizon is very bright and washed out in brightness, but that brightness generally takes the shape of a circle in the far distance where it is washed out.

Quite apart from the shape, just how do you explain the sun right in the horizon

You have simply stated numerous times that it is just perspective, but that is rubbish!
Yes I would agree that perspective would reduce the elevation angle of the sun from as much as 90° at midday to a much lower angle at sunset (that I would claim would be around 20° - give or take a lot), but
any reduction in elevation angle must also be accompanied by a reduction in the apparent size of the sun (which we do not see at all). You claim that we do not know how perspective works or light travels over such "vast distances" (your idea of vast does not match mine, but whatever!), but you must be consistent.

You cannot claim that the atmosomething magnifies the size of the sun to quite coincidentally keep the sun exactly the same as it sets^[1] and yet perspective lowers the sun from around 20° to apparently below the visible horizon. These effects would apply largely to each.

And another critical point is that you might try to say that "refraction" at the "vacuum-air" interface might help - sorry, no such luck for two reasons:

• The largest refract from that interface is around 0.5°.
• The refraction would make the sun appear at a higher angle. This leads to the observable fact (on the Globe where these measurements are meaningful) that sunrise is about 2 minutes earlier and sunset about minutes later than the "astronomical times" would indicate.

Some claims contrary to the accepted explanation are quite justified! But, they must be backed by evidence - and we have not seen any.



[1] Mind you for most of the time the suns rays are passing through relatively little air.

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 05:28:49 PM

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height the waves make is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The waves aren't even close to allied as a dime out front blocking a mountain.  Move the dime 50 feet away, does it still block the mountain? No.

Quite apart from the shape, just how do you explain the sun right in the horizon

You have simply stated numerous times that it is just perspective, but that is rubbish!

You may as well complain that when on the deck of a boat you can look down at the water and see waves below you and then up at the horizon and see waves there, too. Waves at two different altitudes. Mysterious!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2016, 07:39:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 05:28:49 PM

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height the waves make is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The waves aren't even close to allied as a dime out front blocking a mountain.  Move the dime 50 feet away, does it still block the mountain? No.

There are no limits to the size of things which can be blocked. Even an obstruction of a millimeter in size can block something thousands of feet tall if it is far enough behind it. In fact, if you press your thumbs into your eyes, you can block out the entire observable universe.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 23, 2016, 07:13:49 PM

Quite apart from the shape, just how do you explain the sun right in the horizon

You have simply stated numerous times that it is just perspective, but that is rubbish!

You may as well complain that when on the deck of a boat you can look down at the water and see waves below you and then up at the horizon and see waves there, too. Waves at two different altitudes. Mysterious!

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 07:42:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2016, 07:39:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 05:28:49 PM

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height the waves make is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The waves aren't even close to allied as a dime out front blocking a mountain.  Move the dime 50 feet away, does it still block the mountain? No.

Even an obstruction of a millimeter in size can block something thousands of feet tall. In fact, if you press your thumbs into your eyes, you can block out the entire observable universe.

That requires the millimeter object to be right up close. This is not even close to real life.

That requires the millimeter object to be right up close. This is not even close to real life.

Why does it have to be up close?

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 07:49:13 PM

That requires the millimeter object to be right up close. This is not even close to real life.

Why does it have to be up close?

What do you mean why? Stand in a road. Throw a penny on the ground. Did it block any cars?

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 05:28:49 PM

Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2016, 07:50:57 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2016, 07:49:13 PM

That requires the millimeter object to be right up close. This is not even close to real life.

Why does it have to be up close?

What do you mean why? Stand in a road. Throw a penny on the ground. Did it block any cars?

If you adjust your eye level to the point where it is blow the edge of the penny, it can block out anything if it is far enough behind the penny.

The premise of my post was that these types of pictures are taken at a low altitude, so much that the average height of the distant waves and swells would affect the scene.