Flying on an airplane I can see the curvature or Earth

You and ausGeoff are just as capable as I am to get this data.

I'm afraid I can't "get this data" jroa.  I've used Google and Wiki, and exhausted both those sources.

Which is why I said to you earlier re the distance for the apparent disappearance of the Antarctic continent (or ice wall):

"Can you state unequivocally that the rim continent WILL just "fade away"?  Or are you making a calculated guess?  How much further away would this observer need to be for the rim continent to disappear TOTALLY?  1km, 100km, 1,000km?"

So... as I can't locate any illustrative data, all I'm asking you to do is to provide this information—which I'm sure is in your possession.

Here is a picture of the rim continent from a very far distance.  It is not hard to imagine that just a short distance farther, it will just fade away. 

Ahh, too far away to make out well. How convenient. How convenient indeed. Like so many a bigfoot sighting. Psh, hogwash.

You seriously mean to tell us that with all the people in the world who own planes NO one has ever gotten close enough to get a picture that proves your case? Of course not. Your 'case' is utterly vapid. Devoid of substance.

Seriously, if the FE model were true there'd be pictures all over the internet SHOWING this "insurmountable" magical land of snowmen and lollipops.

And why is it that we cannot shine a laser beam the top of a New York skyscraper and detect it at the top of some skyscraper in Dubai of China? We already KNOW that a laser beam will in fact transmit that far (and farther) and remain in a remarkably straight path.

Quote from: jroa on June 13, 2014, 08:32:08 AM

Here is a picture of the rim continent from a very far distance.  It is not hard to imagine that just a short distance farther, it will just fade away. 

Ahh, too far away to make out well. How convenient. How convenient indeed. Like so many a bigfoot sighting. Psh, hogwash.

You seriously mean to tell us that with all the people in the world who own planes NO one has ever gotten close enough to get a picture that proves your case? Of course not. Your 'case' is utterly vapid. Devoid of substance.

Seriously, if the FE model were true there'd be pictures all over the internet SHOWING this "insurmountable" magical land of snowmen and lollipops.

And why is it that we cannot shine a laser beam the top of a New York skyscraper and detect it at the top of some skyscraper in Dubai of China? We already KNOW that a laser beam will in fact transmit that far (and farther) and remain in a remarkably straight path.

Are you somehow trying to claim that the rim continent does not exist? 

Are you somehow trying to claim that the rim continent does not exist?

Of course Big Blue Marble is not claiming that Antarctica doesn't exist jroa!  You're either being willfully disingenuous or you're misinterpreting the content of his posting.

His questions are purely rhetorical, and he's asking you for answers.  He's not claiming anything one way or the other.

He's asking you why nobody with private planes has ever (apparently) flown any closer than the distance indicated in your image in order to get a more accurate image.

He's also asking you why there aren't literally hundreds of photographic images on the interwebs, showing far more clearly the Antarctic continent than does your image.

—Both perfectly legitimate questions I would've thought.

Big Blue Marble is also asking you why is it that we can't shine a laser beam from the top of a skyscraper in one continent and hit a skyscraper in another continent.  Monochromatic (single wavelength) lasers can easily travel tens of thousands of kilometres in space; why can't they do this on the surface of the planet?  The round earth answer is simply because of the curvature of the earth's surface.

So... what's the flat earth answer?

Quote from: jroa on June 16, 2014, 03:13:33 AM

Are you somehow trying to claim that the rim continent does not exist?

Of course Big Blue Marble is not claiming that Antarctica doesn't exist jroa!  You're either being willfully disingenuous or you're misinterpreting the content of his posting.

His questions are purely rhetorical, and he's asking you for answers.  He's not claiming anything one way or the other.

He's asking you why nobody with private planes has ever (apparently) flown any closer than the distance indicated in your image in order to get a more accurate image.

He's also asking you why there aren't literally hundreds of photographic images on the interwebs, showing far more clearly the Antarctic continent than does your image.

—Both perfectly legitimate questions I would've thought.

Big Blue Marble is also asking you why is it that we can't shine a laser beam from the top of a skyscraper in one continent and hit a skyscraper in another continent.  Monochromatic (single wavelength) lasers can easily travel tens of thousands of kilometres in space; why can't they do this on the surface of the planet?  The round earth answer is simply because of the curvature of the earth's surface.

So... what's the flat earth answer?

Why is it that only we round Earthers have the ability to read and comprehend simple posts? I'm somewhat certain that jroa is merely playing his usual diversion tactics to avoid answering an honest, meaningful question.

Seriously, jroa: Why are there NO pictures of this ice ring that SHOW it's "true" form? Why are the only pictures you can muster as so-called "proof" ones that are blurry, distant and utterly ambiguous? The picture you posted means nothing. It proves nothing.

And, no... I do not deny the existence of Antarctica. People go there. There are research bases there. It's on every globe and map. Quit playing games; You're not good at them.

Who did this?
The thread is about seeing the curvature of Earth from a plane.

I'm a bit late to the party here, but a curved horizon does indeed indicate a round earth. Let's discuss a hypothetical situation here. Imagine you built a tower, a tower that was tall enough so that you could see all edges of the theoretically flat earth. You could see the entire planet. If you are not in the exact center of the "disc" that the flat earth theory would require, your perception of the curve of the earth available in your field of view would change as you spun in a circle. If you looked straight to the edge, you would see a circular curve. However, if you turned around 90 degrees or so, either direction, you would perceive an elliptical curve to the edge of the disc because of your changing field of view.
However, if you built a similarly high tower on a round earth, your perception of the ground would always be that of a circle, because a sphere appears exactly the same from any direction.
To prove this, take a quarter, and place it on a table. Look at it from straight down. The outline of the coin will be, of course, a circle. But look at it from an angle, and the outline will be an elliptical shape.
I have included pictures. These are not fantastic drawings, because this is just something I knocked out in Paint, but in the first picture the outline (in lime) is a circle. The second picture, taken from an angle, has an elliptical outline (again in lime).
Sorry if the links don't work. Hopefully you can try it yourself, and see that this is indeed the case.

http://imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img837/2690/1adz.jpg
http://imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img856/5561/3vk7.jpg

What an interesting picture of Chicago from 60 miles north over Lake Michigan! I wonder how the Sears Tower dips below the horizon like that?

Atmoplanic conditions determine how much of the buildings are visible.  You could look at a picture taken a week later and see more or less of the buildings.  Refraction causes the building to appear to sink. 

Well, interestingly, real refraction would make them rise a little. The effect of looking through a curved gradient which goes from high density at the surface to lower density above is to make the curve less apparent. We'd need the lowest density to be on the water and for density to rise as you went higher in order for refraction to cause buildings over the horizon to sink. But of course, that doesn't really happen in the actual world very often (or for very long if it did), and in either case, the difference is only a degree or so.

Sadly, the imaginary FE Refraction^TM has never been measured or even described, so we don't know how that works. Presumably, like all other FE phenomena it just does whatever you need it to.

In fact, aren't the sinking buildings being hidden behind water by FE Perspective^TM, not FE Refraction^TM?

Why are the buildings standing straight up, and not hanging or leaning over.

Atmoplanic conditions determine how much of the buildings are visible.  You could look at a picture taken a week later and see more or less of the buildings.  Refraction causes the building to appear to sink.

Yet again you are using a word that you have made up.  Unless you can point to a dictionary definition...

Why are the buildings standing straight up, and not hanging or leaning over.

How much would you expect them to be leaning on a sphere that is 24,901 miles in circumference? I can tell you before I bother doing the math that it won't be by much. Not to mention that in this case they would be leaning away from the observer and not to the sides or anything which would make any leaning even more difficult to detect.

Why they would be "hanging", I'm not sure, but they are leaning away from the camera by about half a degree (due to the curvature of the earth). That doesn't seem quite so interesting as them being mostly behind the horizon though...

Why are the buildings standing straight up, and not hanging or leaning over.

Decent building regulations and competent architects.

I'm noticing senseless throwing around of the word refraction. Mostly by the troll jroe so for that matter i don't care. Kinda like a sci fi movie likes to throw around the word radiation in forms of green goop without understanding what it really is.

Does fe'ers know what light refraction is or how it works?

I'm noticing senseless throwing around of the word refraction. Mostly by the troll jroe so for that matter i don't care. Kinda like a sci fi movie likes to throw around the word radiation in forms of green goop without understanding what it really is.

Does fe'ers know what light refraction is or how it works?

I woke up this morning and observed 3, maybe 4 threads where jroa incorrectly used the term. I don't know how many times it needs to be explained to him that refraction does not help him and that it actually works opposite of the way that he would like.

Atmoplanic conditions determine how much of the buildings are visible.

Can you please clarify the technical meaning of the phrase "atmoplanic conditions" as it's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

You could look at a picture taken a week later and see more or less of the buildings.  Refraction causes the building to appear to sink.

Nope.  Maybe two percent either way.  To the naked eye, this image would look identical.

The often-used, flat earth justification of "refraction" has nothing at all to do with half the Sears Tower "disappearing" over the curved horizon.
 


What IS caused by atmospheric refraction is the "green flash" optical phenomenon as the sun sinks below the curved horizon.
 

It's almost impossible to capture photographically, as it only lasts for a fraction of a second—which is why it's called a flash.

The short wavelengths (blue and green) refract more than longer wavelengths (red).  Hence, blue and green light should appear along the top edge of the sun.  But the blue light is scattered away by Raleigh scattering, leaving only green, and therefore the green flash which is usually too faint to see.  Atmospheric conditions need to be absolutely ideal in order to see it, including humidity and any temperature inversions.

I'd be interested to see how the flat earthers explain this phenomenon, considering that—according to their hypotheses—the sun never physically sinks below the "horizon" but simply travels far enough from an observer so as to disappear.  The flat earth sun is at a constant altitude relative to the earth's surface.


   

Why are the buildings standing straight up, and not hanging or leaning over.

Uh... why—or how—could the buildings be "leaning over"?  They're perpendicular to a tangent drawn through their vertical centreline, on the earth's mean surface, and at their base.  Extended, the buildings' centrelines pass through the earth's CoG, whilst the extended, parallel planes of the building's opposite sides miss it by half the building's width.

Pretty obvious I would've thought?

I assume he's asking why this isn't happening:



That's a massively exaggerated example of course, but to my surprise, because you see less and less of the tops of the buildings as they get further away, the apparent tilt isn't particularly pronounced even at 45° So, not only is it obviously not visible at half a degree, it seems like it would be even less apparent than you might expect.

You are incorrect.  Any commercial pilot will tell you that you can not see curvature from cruising altitude.  The Earth does not appear curved until you get above 60,000 feet.  Look it up.  Planes cruise at around 40,000.

The Concorde went to 55,000.  You need to get out of the lower atmosphere however to see the curvature of the earth.

The reflected sky makes it difficult to see where the horizon is.

The reflected sky makes it difficult to see where the horizon is.

I can plainly see the curvature of the earth here.

Ok, so I can't believe there are people who still think the earth is flat. I mean 200, 300 years ago, it's fine. But now, 2014? Really?

There is so much evidence to prove that it's round, how can you people just deny them with short reasons and "technical" proof. One thing I want to say is that I do respect FE believers, for not giving up and having faith. Seriously though, the Earth is round.

Simple experiment, Fly a plane fully tank and keep going straight, soon after days you'll realise you came back to the exact same spot, or you could fill you plane mid air, and keep flying straight forever and find that you never go anywhere.  Do not argue that the plane is rigged or something like that, do it yourself.

Another experiment, Point a levelled laser at 5 foot above sea level, point it toward a long rule which is a mile away, you will find that the laser dot will be above the 5 feet mark, since light travels straight, earth is curve, if something is curved, and has big area, it is round.

Debunking the water on 6 mile stretch experiment
Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment preformed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.

So gravity pulls the water equally at each angle, therefore creates a flat surface on the water. Similar to the sea, it pulls the sea into the center of Earth equally with the same force, therefore creating a seemingly flat ocean.

Also, to the believers, try explain why the moon and sun is round.

Quote from: Goth on June 26, 2014, 04:53:42 AM

The reflected sky makes it difficult to see where the horizon is.

I can plainly see the curvature of the earth here.

I can see that the light from the sun has become distorted and bent creating an illusion of water.

Ok, so I can't believe there are people who still think the earth is flat. I mean 200, 300 years ago, it's fine. But now, 2014? Really?

There is so much evidence to prove that it's round, how can you people just deny them with short reasons and "technical" proof. One thing I want to say is that I do respect FE believers, for not giving up and having faith. Seriously though, the Earth is round.

Your right it is round like a circle a big flat disc, not sphericle like a ball.

Simple experiment, Fly a plane fully tank and keep going straight, soon after days you'll realise you came back to the exact same spot, or you could fill you plane mid air, and keep flying straight forever and find that you never go anywhere.  Do not argue that the plane is rigged or something like that, do it yourself.

you can still circumnavigate a flat earth. if N is at the centre and you flew E you'd fly in a circle around the N. Imagine drawing a smaller circle within a bigger one.

Another experiment, Point a levelled laser at 5 foot above sea level, point it toward a long rule which is a mile away, you will find that the laser dot will be above the 5 feet mark, since light travels straight, earth is curve, if something is curved, and has big area, it is round.

if light travels in straight lines why do radio waves bend towards the ground as radio is a lightwave. don't believe me google it.

Debunking the water on 6 mile stretch experiment
Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment preformed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.

now you see why there is debate.

So gravity pulls the water equally at each angle, therefore creates a flat surface on the water. Similar to the sea, it pulls the sea into the center of Earth equally with the same force, therefore creating a seemingly flat ocean.

pour water on a football and spin it does it stick to it or run off the edges? fill a glass with water and tilt it. is it gravity or displacement that makes it level. imagine you anchored your boat on the equator at sea? is the water running downhill on both sides of the ship as water takes the path of least resistence

Also, to the believers, try explain why the moon and sun is round.

they are observably spherical and as the sun and moon move across the sky it casts light observable from all directions all over the earth

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 12, 2014, 11:13:23 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 11:10:52 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 12, 2014, 10:59:26 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 06:25:18 AM

This one is only from 30,000 ft.



Looks curved to me.

Speaking of which, at any altitude, aren't we all in agreement that the horizon is equidistant from the observer? Is that not a circle around the observer? The higher you go, the larger the circle? How much more obvious can it be that the horizon is a circle?

Even if your earth is flat, there is still an equidistant horizon around you. A round circle.

The horizon would be curved whether the Earth is round or flat (assuming a disk).
Pictures are meaningless. Let's drop this whole curvature debate.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. FE'rs go on and on about how there is no visible curvature. Now there is a visible curvature, but it would be round even on FE?

Not that I disagree, but this is bad form.

I'm also not entirely convinced here. While I do think a curve of some sort would be visible even on a flat earth, I don't think that the horizon would be as close as it is on a RE.

I started another thread, showing a wind farm in the distance being about 75% obscured by the curvature of earth. These things can't be far enough away to create your fictitious perspective terminator.

A perspective terminator  like the one described by FE'rs can only exist with the explanation that things become so small that the features of objects at or beyond the terminator are indiscernible. Yet that wind farm is clear as day, hardly small enough.

Sure, that isn't curvature in the two dimensional sense... but it sure is curvature in 3 dimensions.

Let's discuss the windfarm in the thread that's about the windfarm.
The horizon would appear curved on a flat Earth, though you'd have to be much higher up to notice.
I'm not moving goal posts. 

So arguing that curvature can't be detected and then deciding that it can, but that it doesn't prove that there is curvature isn't "moving goalposts"?

What this picture is showing is a distorted image of the earth.
#1. Peering through glass causes slight distortion. Feel free to sanity check this yourself when looking through, say, your automobile glass.
#2.  All camera lenses will produce a barrel distortion due to the lens. Surveyors account for this curve when ascertaining readings on level ground by mathematical formulas to accommodate all readings with this distortion.  Longer distances increase the perceivable curve on rendered pictures; hence your misunderstanding of what your seeing in this photo.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 11:21:00 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 12, 2014, 11:13:23 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 11:10:52 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 12, 2014, 10:59:26 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 06:25:18 AM

This one is only from 30,000 ft.



Looks curved to me.

Speaking of which, at any altitude, aren't we all in agreement that the horizon is equidistant from the observer? Is that not a circle around the observer? The higher you go, the larger the circle? How much more obvious can it be that the horizon is a circle?

Even if your earth is flat, there is still an equidistant horizon around you. A round circle.

The horizon would be curved whether the Earth is round or flat (assuming a disk).
Pictures are meaningless. Let's drop this whole curvature debate.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. FE'rs go on and on about how there is no visible curvature. Now there is a visible curvature, but it would be round even on FE?

Not that I disagree, but this is bad form.

I'm also not entirely convinced here. While I do think a curve of some sort would be visible even on a flat earth, I don't think that the horizon would be as close as it is on a RE.

I started another thread, showing a wind farm in the distance being about 75% obscured by the curvature of earth. These things can't be far enough away to create your fictitious perspective terminator.

A perspective terminator  like the one described by FE'rs can only exist with the explanation that things become so small that the features of objects at or beyond the terminator are indiscernible. Yet that wind farm is clear as day, hardly small enough.

Sure, that isn't curvature in the two dimensional sense... but it sure is curvature in 3 dimensions.

Let's discuss the windfarm in the thread that's about the windfarm.
The horizon would appear curved on a flat Earth, though you'd have to be much higher up to notice.
I'm not moving goal posts. 

So arguing that curvature can't be detected and then deciding that it can, but that it doesn't prove that there is curvature isn't "moving goalposts"?

What this picture is showing is a distorted image of the earth.
#1. Peering through glass causes slight distortion. Feel free to sanity check this yourself when looking through, say, your automobile glass.
#2.  All camera lenses will produce a barrel distortion due to the lens. Surveyors account for this curve when ascertaining readings on level ground by mathematical formulas to accommodate all readings with this distortion.  Longer distances increase the perceivable curve on rendered pictures; hence your misunderstanding of what your seeing in this photo.

Did you happen to notice that the wing of the plane isn't curved? Are you arguing that the horizon is not curved? For the horizon to not be curved then that would mean that in any direction you look, the horizon would have to be closer to you than anywhere else. Absurd.

What this picture is showing is a distorted image of the earth.

Nope.  There's no distortion.  You're just making this guess to support your claim.

#1. Peering through glass causes slight distortion. Feel free to sanity check this yourself when looking through, say, your automobile glass.

Again, this is incorrect.  There is no optical theory that says observing a straight line through a sheet of flat glass will alter its appearance to that of a curved line.  If looking through your car's window causes you to see straight lines as curved lines, then you need to see your ophthalmologist ASAP.

#2.  All camera lenses will produce a barrel distortion due to the lens.

Totally erroneous.  You're obviously not a photographer. Only wide-angle lenses produce noticeable barrel distortion towards the perimeter of the image frame.  At the vertical and horizontal optical axes, there will be zero barrel distortion, as per this (exaggerated) representation:





This is an actual test image captured with a Canon EF-M 11-22mm F/4-5.6 IS STM lens:


This is considered an ultra-wide angle lens.  Do you see any barrel distortion?  I don't.  These images totally destroy the repeated claims made by flat earthers that it's inevitably the camera lens's alleged "distortion" that shows the earth's horizon to be curved.

Surveyors account for this curve when ascertaining readings on level ground by mathematical formulas to accommodate all readings with this distortion.

No they don't.  They currently use sweeping laser levels, not dumpy levels.

Longer distances increase the perceivable curve on rendered pictures; hence your misunderstanding of what your seeing in this photo.

Wrong again.  Longer "distances" decrease the incidence of barrel distortion.  You really need to read up on optical theory.