Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards

  • 32 Replies
  • 12845 Views
Here is a picture of chicago up close, looking westward from the lake, from a couple miles or less in distance


Now here is chicago viewed from a similar angle, but from across lake michigan. This picture is taken from the shoreline at Indiana Dunes State Park, about 30 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.


notice anything peculiar? aaaanything ?  ;)  ;D

The water appears to be reaching to about the 30th floor of the Willis Tower, which would be approximately 400 feet in height. I calculated that the curvature of the earth over 30 miles is approx 600 feet,  but I'm not sure how to determine the height of the bulge of earth's curvature between the observer and the object, or its apparent height against the object :-[

Anyway, these pictures show that there IS curvature of the earth's surface. And I'm sure if someone does the maths correctly, that it will and up just right.

*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • tfes.org
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2013, 07:12:22 AM »
People have submitted pictures like this multiple times.
tfes.org

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2013, 07:22:09 AM »
People have submitted pictures like this multiple times.

I wouldn't doubt it

but what's your take on the subject?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2013, 08:37:39 AM »
Here is a picture of chicago up close, looking westward from the lake, from a couple miles or less in distance


Now here is chicago viewed from a similar angle, but from across lake michigan. This picture is taken from the shoreline at Indiana Dunes State Park, about 30 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.


notice anything peculiar? aaaanything ?  ;)  ;D

The water appears to be reaching to about the 30th floor of the Willis Tower, which would be approximately 400 feet in height. I calculated that the curvature of the earth over 30 miles is approx 600 feet,  but I'm not sure how to determine the height of the bulge of earth's curvature between the observer and the object, or its apparent height against the object :-[

Anyway, these pictures show that there IS curvature of the earth's surface. And I'm sure if someone does the maths correctly, that it will and up just right.
Yeah, I notice something very peculiar with your globe thought.
You say you can clearly see the curvature right?
You accept we live on a ball right?
You also know that a ball would curve ALL ways, right?

So where's the left to right curvature?
It's fine saying the buildings dip because of the curvature in front of you, so explain why it's flat from left to right?

*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • tfes.org
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2013, 08:40:48 AM »
Shouldn't the buildings also appear to lean backwards on a round earth?  Proportionally, I'm seeing just as much of the top section of the Willis Tower in one pic as I am the other.  It should be shorter in the second pic.
tfes.org

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2013, 08:44:12 AM »
Shouldn't the buildings also appear to lean backwards on a round earth?  Proportionally, I'm seeing just as much of the top section of the Willis Tower in one pic as I am the other.  It should be shorter in the second pic.
Not only should they lean backwards a little, they should also lean a little from left to right, not to mention you should see some curvature from left to right, also, yet there is none.

His distance and dip, is mainly light issues through dense atmosphere from a horizontal view.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2013, 09:14:57 AM »
Here is a picture of chicago up close, looking westward from the lake, from a couple miles or less in distance


Now here is chicago viewed from a similar angle, but from across lake michigan. This picture is taken from the shoreline at Indiana Dunes State Park, about 30 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.


notice anything peculiar? aaaanything ?  ;)  ;D

The water appears to be reaching to about the 30th floor of the Willis Tower, which would be approximately 400 feet in height. I calculated that the curvature of the earth over 30 miles is approx 600 feet,  but I'm not sure how to determine the height of the bulge of earth's curvature between the observer and the object, or its apparent height against the object :-[

Anyway, these pictures show that there IS curvature of the earth's surface. And I'm sure if someone does the maths correctly, that it will and up just right.

This is also affected by the height of the observer. I would suggest that any Flat Earther take a cruise sometime and observe this . Also the fallacy that you can "restore the bottoms on those buildings or ships beyond the horizon with a telescope." Any old Navy veterans who would like to respond to this , just one more instance of FE nonsense ?
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2013, 09:28:22 AM »
Does anyone see any curvature of earth or any leaning of any towers?
I certainly don't.




*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2013, 09:29:44 AM »
Sceptimatic, you have been shown calculations by Alex Tomasovich which show the left-right lean would be trivial.  In fact, this whole thread is just a reiteration of old posts.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2013, 09:41:51 AM »
Shouldn't the buildings also appear to lean backwards on a round earth?  Proportionally, I'm seeing just as much of the top section of the Willis Tower in one pic as I am the other.  It should be shorter in the second pic.
Not only should they lean backwards a little, they should also lean a little from left to right, not to mention you should see some curvature from left to right, also, yet there is none.

His distance and dip, is mainly light issues through dense atmosphere from a horizontal view.
Left to right the tilt is not noticeable with a curvature of 8 inches per mile.  How much left to right distance do you think you're seeing in that picture.

As for tilting away, again, it just isn't noticeable.

This was all answered in September, complete with diagrams. Alex's diagram towards the bottom of page 5 pretty much sums it up.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=674.80

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2013, 09:54:54 AM »
Shouldn't the buildings also appear to lean backwards on a round earth?  Proportionally, I'm seeing just as much of the top section of the Willis Tower in one pic as I am the other.  It should be shorter in the second pic.
Not only should they lean backwards a little, they should also lean a little from left to right, not to mention you should see some curvature from left to right, also, yet there is none.

His distance and dip, is mainly light issues through dense atmosphere from a horizontal view.

So you have a precise value of the alleged visible curvature. Care to share it ?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2013, 10:01:03 AM »
Sceptimatic, you have been shown calculations by Alex Tomasovich which show the left-right lean would be trivial.  In fact, this whole thread is just a reiteration of old posts.
Trivial or not. Trivial is something. Trivial is not bolt upright.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2013, 10:02:34 AM »
Shouldn't the buildings also appear to lean backwards on a round earth?  Proportionally, I'm seeing just as much of the top section of the Willis Tower in one pic as I am the other.  It should be shorter in the second pic.
Not only should they lean backwards a little, they should also lean a little from left to right, not to mention you should see some curvature from left to right, also, yet there is none.

His distance and dip, is mainly light issues through dense atmosphere from a horizontal view.
Left to right the tilt is not noticeable with a curvature of 8 inches per mile.  How much left to right distance do you think you're seeing in that picture.

As for tilting away, again, it just isn't noticeable.

This was all answered in September, complete with diagrams. Alex's diagram towards the bottom of page 5 pretty much sums it up.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=674.80
Ok then, give me an estimate about the distance from left to right of that picture in miles.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2013, 10:03:14 AM »
Trivial does mean that you may not notice it without precision equipment though.  There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2013, 10:04:41 AM »
Trivial does mean that you may not notice it without precision equipment though.  There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph.
Look how high I made those buildings using the thin white lines.
Look how the white lines give a true vertical and yet they show no sign whatsoever of any deviation.

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2013, 10:08:58 AM »
Quote
So where's the left to right curvature?
It's fine saying the buildings dip because of the curvature in front of you, so explain why it's flat from left to right?

A camera isn't going to show a wide enough view to show left to right curvature.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2013, 10:09:40 AM »
Trivial does mean that you may not notice it without precision equipment though.  There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph.
Look how high I made those buildings using the thin white lines.
Look how the white lines give a true vertical and yet they show no sign whatsoever of any deviation.

There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph. 

Since you are once again too lazy to research information provided to you, that you have even read before, I will quote from the thread recently mentioned:


I have a query about this picture.
Ok, as we can see, half the buildings disappear and this is attributed to the curvature of the earth, right?
Well here's my problem with this.
If that is the case, we also are told that the earth is round, so it should curve from right to left but that line looks perfectly straight, yet my real query is.
If the buildings disappear by half, over that distance, then they should also  angle away from each other, for instance, they should be slightly leaning left and right from that distance, also.

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?
You're right, they should. But how much? Assuming each building is built perfectly perpendicular to the Earth's surface, than each should appear to another to be listing away just a little bit.

Let's calculate this list between the Willis Tower (second from left) and the camera. The distance is 74.3 km, or 0.0018557 times the circumference of the Earth. Multiply by 360 and we get a list of .668. Since that list is directly away from the camera (it's leaning backwards) really the only indication this would be happening is it would appear shorter--3.6 cm shorter to be exact. Hardly noticeable at 74.3 km.

Now, the Willis Tower and the John Hancock Center (that's the tallest building on the right, number 10 from the left). also list away from each-other, which, as you say, would be seen from the camera's perspective as them, well, leaning away from each-other. They are 2.4 kilometers apart, or .00005996 times the circumference of the Earth. Multiply by 360 for a total angular difference of 0.0216 or 1.3'. That means that the difference in the tops of a JHC parallel to the Willis Tower and the current JHC would be about 17 centimeters.

Once again, not noticeable at the 73.5 distance between the camera and the JHC.

So you're right that they should be tilted away from each-other and from the camera, but the tilt isn't visible on such a small scale. On a flat earth the Willis Tower would appear less than 4 cm taller, and the JHC would appear 17 cm closer to the Willis Tower. At this distance, such tiny variations are invisible.



Edit: For reference as to what a JHC 17 cm closer to the Willis Tower would look like, the width of the JHC visible from this photo is about 32 meters, making each pixel about 10 meters wide. The tilt away would be about 1/10th the width of a pixel. In other words, undetectable.

I bolded the part that gives you an estimate of how small the left-right list would be in this photo.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2013, 10:10:33 AM »
Quote
Does anyone see any curvature of earth or any leaning of any towers?
I certainly don't.

Those buildings are tilted away from the observer taking the picture.

Just not distinguishable to the naked eye.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2013, 10:11:58 AM »
Trivial does mean that you may not notice it without precision equipment though.  There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph.
Look how high I made those buildings using the thin white lines.
Look how the white lines give a true vertical and yet they show no sign whatsoever of any deviation.

There is no good reason to expect you would notice this in a low res photograph. 

Since you are once again too lazy to research information provided to you, that you have even read before, I will quote from the thread recently mentioned:


I have a query about this picture.
Ok, as we can see, half the buildings disappear and this is attributed to the curvature of the earth, right?
Well here's my problem with this.
If that is the case, we also are told that the earth is round, so it should curve from right to left but that line looks perfectly straight, yet my real query is.
If the buildings disappear by half, over that distance, then they should also  angle away from each other, for instance, they should be slightly leaning left and right from that distance, also.

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?
You're right, they should. But how much? Assuming each building is built perfectly perpendicular to the Earth's surface, than each should appear to another to be listing away just a little bit.

Let's calculate this list between the Willis Tower (second from left) and the camera. The distance is 74.3 km, or 0.0018557 times the circumference of the Earth. Multiply by 360 and we get a list of .668. Since that list is directly away from the camera (it's leaning backwards) really the only indication this would be happening is it would appear shorter--3.6 cm shorter to be exact. Hardly noticeable at 74.3 km.

Now, the Willis Tower and the John Hancock Center (that's the tallest building on the right, number 10 from the left). also list away from each-other, which, as you say, would be seen from the camera's perspective as them, well, leaning away from each-other. They are 2.4 kilometers apart, or .00005996 times the circumference of the Earth. Multiply by 360 for a total angular difference of 0.0216 or 1.3'. That means that the difference in the tops of a JHC parallel to the Willis Tower and the current JHC would be about 17 centimeters.

Once again, not noticeable at the 73.5 distance between the camera and the JHC.

So you're right that they should be tilted away from each-other and from the camera, but the tilt isn't visible on such a small scale. On a flat earth the Willis Tower would appear less than 4 cm taller, and the JHC would appear 17 cm closer to the Willis Tower. At this distance, such tiny variations are invisible.



Edit: For reference as to what a JHC 17 cm closer to the Willis Tower would look like, the width of the JHC visible from this photo is about 32 meters, making each pixel about 10 meters wide. The tilt away would be about 1/10th the width of a pixel. In other words, undetectable.

I bolded the part that gives you an estimate of how small the left-right list would be in this photo.
From far left to far right of that picture, how many miles would you estimate it to be. You can be conservative if you want to.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2013, 10:13:13 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2013, 10:27:32 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2013, 10:29:30 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.

Well, you have proven time and again that your math skills are terrible, so I am not surprised you are assuming the incorrect position. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2013, 10:31:51 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.
How do you know that ?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2013, 10:33:21 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.

Well, you have proven time and again that your math skills are terrible, so I am not surprised you are assuming the incorrect position.
Incorrect position?

What kind of maths do you need to visually see something true vertical?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24686
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2013, 10:34:37 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.
How do you know that ?
Because you lot keep harping on about your globe are quick to point out how it curves, ONLY when it suits you.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2013, 10:35:58 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.

Well, you have proven time and again that your math skills are terrible, so I am not surprised you are assuming the incorrect position.
Incorrect position?

What kind of maths do you need to visually see something true vertical?

You ignored the math that showed the left-right list would be less than a tenth of pixel.  You cannot even see one pixel in this photo.  Your position on this issue has been proven to be incorrect.  Read what was posted and stop wasting valuable memory on the server.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2013, 10:39:52 AM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.
How do you know that ?
Because you lot keep harping on about your globe are quick to point out how it curves, ONLY when it suits you.

Please... enough rethoric and more facts. How do YOU know that there should be a curvature on this picture?

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2013, 10:43:08 AM »
Ok then, give me an estimate about the distance from left to right of that picture in miles.
It's about 2 miles from the left most building to the Hancock building towards the right end (tall building 3rd from end with antennas on top).

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16575
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2013, 12:39:07 PM »
Many modern theories predict this behavior, most celebrated and documented being the infamous "Bendy Light".

As we saw during earlier flat earth experiments and those for hollow earth, measuring this over water is a fools errand and you are quite likely to see more or less of the city than one should given the model at hand. While one could build a model around this data and then tie to it an explanation layer that suited the modelat hand, one could just easily construct said model for the opposing view.

The best we can hope for is a model that suitably fits prediction of these.  One easily testable theory comes from the more Rowbothamic of our members, and holds that telescopes can reveal lost vision due to the law of perspective.  Bendy light would be false if this is indeed, thus making it another falsifiable candidate in opposition to Rowbothamic models and a suitable temporary model to explain a wide variety of phenomenae.

Aetheric models, which are mostly my work and little spoke of, hold this is a consequence of the shape of the higher three spacial dimensions and magnitudes. While the details of this are obscured, one can easily imagine several scenarios where this would be the case.

As always, as a zetetic one should test it themselves and make their own determination. Empiricism grew from a need to move away from priestcraft, and its about time we did.


« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 12:40:43 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Buildings disappearing below the horizon from the bottom, upwards
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2013, 05:40:35 PM »
Why don't you  just try and make the point you want to make?  I have already done a disproportional amount of your work for you.
You don't have to do any work for me. That's your choice. I'm simply asking you to give me an estimate of the distance. I'm not telling you...so it's fine if you don't want to answer it, although, to me, there should be curvature, even if it is slight.
Okay then, calculate how much curvature there should be.