Earth shadows show a small Sun and concave Earth.

Watch this video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Well Concave Earth Moon vs Convex Earth Moon should be enough to show you as this picture is still valid but yeah all planets would have to be equal and yet opposite to the Earth to be true layered copies so all planets would need to be convex but Earth is not a planet, Earth is the casing to the entire known universe! (but there is also outer-earth with what I think is blue skies and a nice greenhouse effect, I just think it would be impossible to escape this as if you tried you would melt in the presence of the energy outside of the universe)

Watch this video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The video went agaisnt itself a few times and then at around 4:10 claimed that the southern hemisphere sees the other side of the moon. This is known to be false. Also the author can't seem to figure out the moon's orbit is 29.5 days.

Well Concave Earth Moon vs Convex Earth Moon should be enough to show you as this picture is still valid but yeah all planets would have to be equal and yet opposite to the Earth to be true layered copies so all planets would need to be convex but Earth is not a planet, Earth is the casing to the entire known universe! (but there is also outer-earth with what I think is blue skies and a nice greenhouse effect, I just think it would be impossible to escape this as if you tried you would melt in the presence of the energy outside of the universe)

Those pictures are possible with a round moon. Not quite sure why you can't figure this out.
I think you need to buy a globe, small ball, and a flashlight. You seem to not be able to visualize anything in your head.

I just told you something that doesn't make sense, in fact the horizon doesn't make any sense at all whatsoever on a spherical Earth as you would think the the horizon should be below your eye level if the world really had downward curvature.

It is.  From eye level the downward angle to the horizon is so small you don't notice it. As you go higher above the surface the downward angle increases as acos(Re / (Re+h)) where  Re is the radius of the earth, h is the observation height above the surface, acos is the inverse cosine function.

At 2m above a sphere of 6,378 km radius (that's approximately eye level above the ocean from a beach, and mean earth radius), the horizon is about 0.05 degrees below level.  At 1,000m above the surface it's about 1 degree down. At 10,000m (typical jet airliner) it's just over 3.2 degrees down. From 250 km (ISS), it's almost 16 degrees below level. From the moon (400,000 km), the earth's horizon (edge) is just shy of 0.9 degrees from a line through the center, or a bit over 89.1 degrees below level (perpendicular to the center line), making it subtend almost 2 degrees in the (moon's) sky, which it does.

No special cases, no magic, just a smooth, well-understood function of radius and height above it.

You can say that but today I seen a Moon that was about 40 degrees east in the sky at sunset and it was like 90% full.

The US Naval Observatory predicts the moon 91% illuminated on Sep 6 (not sure what time), so that sounds about right. 40 degrees from the zenith (50 above the eastern horizon) at sunset is roughly 130 degrees elongation (angle between sun and moon), so that that's kind of in the ballpark. When was that observation (date and time) and how did you measure that 40 degrees, though?

In concave Earth theory angle is most important to full moons so if the Moon is 45 degrees from the Sun it should be 100% illuminated. 70 degrees would be about 58% illuminated from our viewing angle my picture shows 58% illumination, I am not lying to you when I say in this picture the Moon was 70 degrees East and the Sun was 0 degrees East.

In conventional celestial mechanics, the sun-earth-moon angle is equally important for all phases of the moon.  In fact, the moon phase is the angle. I don't see why the moon would become less illuminated as the angle between it and the sun increases.

You may not be lying, but I believe you are mistaken. How sure are you of those 70-degree and zero-degree angles? It's really hard to estimate angles in the sky without instruments. What did you use to measure them? The moon in your picture is more than 90 degrees from the sun. Period. Either the sun isn't where you said it was, or the moon isn't, or both - for whatever reason.

In my scenario we are always below the Moon as we are inside the Earth and the Moon is orbiting inside the Earth, yes the Moon is a layer of Earth but that layer is the Moon and the Moon is above our heads which up points to the center of the universe as long as you are level on the Earth no matter where you are.

I don't see how the moon can be a layer of earth and also orbiting inside the earth.  Is the moon a sphere concentric with the (hollow) earth?  If so, why can't people on the opposite side of the earth as me see the back side of it while I can see the familiar side? If it's a smaller body orbiting the center of the hollow earth, how is it a layer?

For the last part if you are more then 45 degrees from the Sun you will actually see less then a full Moon because 45 degrees is the perfect angle for 100% illumination, if you are more then 45 degrees you will be less illuminated and if you are more then 180 degrees from the Sun you won't be able to see the Moon at all,

What do you mean by "45 degrees from the sun"?  To me, that means the angle between the sun and moon from my vantage point is 45 degrees, but I'm not sure that's the same thing you're talking about.  Why is 45 degrees perfect for 100% illumination?

this is why you only see the Moon 14-15 days out of it's 27-29 day cycle.

You can see the moon for almost all of its 27-29 day cycle, you just have to be up in the early morning for part of it; it's difficult to see for a couple days around new moon because it appears close to the sun and very thin. It rises progressively later after sunset for the second half of the cycle, and you have to be up after midnight to see the final quarter of the cycle in the dark.

So 45 degrees is actually the same as 135 degrees except for opposite sides will show the light as anything over 90 or under 90 degrees will change the shadows direction.

We must be measuring angles differently.

As my definition of under is anything under an object elevation wise to the Earth so we are all under Mt. Everest for example unless we are more then 5.5 miles above sea level for example.

Fair enough. I wanted to know what you meant by "under".

I guess I'm just not so sure how size changes perspective that much. On a flat Earth that was an infinite plane you would see 3 parts sky and 1 part Earth and one a 20 mile Earth this perspective would still be the same. Convex Earth should show even more Sky so you should have 1 part Earth to 6.28 parts sky. Size doesn't seem to effect the ratio any as it's a ratio so it doesn't matter if it's 1 trillion miles or 20 miles the ratio should remain the same.

My September 5th observation was around 9pm eastern standard time and I measured it using visual estimates using my hands so yea not the most accurate tools but still I usually get within 5% accuracy or so with bad tools and with better tools have better accuracy.

Right now I measured the Moon and it was about 40 degrees East about 95% full at 11:09 PM EST. Sunset was 9:29 EST so Sun should be about +115 degrees West so total degrees about 155 degrees difference so it should be about 88% full by my calculations adjust for -23.5 degrees tilt and you get around 50% fuller so 88% should look like 94% which is what I seen almost exactly today. Side unlit was west side about 4%.

On my location of Earth I should have about -6.85 degrees of eastern tilt which would give me 148 degrees which should show about 91% of the Moon but the shadow should be at the east side cause 149 degrees (East to West) would be completely illuminated on the west side but about 80% illumination or total of 100% on East side. Projection would be 90 degrees west illuminated and 66 degrees East as Sun should be about -18 degrees with the earths tilt adjusted in respect with the Moon so you would think the shadow should be on the east side not west side.

45 degrees is ground to distance to eye level. 45 degrees is 9 o'clock position when sitting at 6 o'clock. 90 degrees would be 3 o'clock when sitting at 9 o'clock.

As far the the far-side and back-side of the Moon are concerned the near side is the only side that is visible because the Moon is a reflection of Earth and the farside is away from us and the nearside is toward us. However because light bends the farside will always be behind the near side and the Moon's light reaches us so quickly that the Aether has had no chance to mix it's light together.



 

 

I just told you something that doesn't make sense, in fact the horizon doesn't make any sense at all whatsoever on a spherical Earth as you would think the the horizon should be below your eye level if the world really had downward curvature.

This question of what constitutes "eye level" is always one that seems to confuse the flat earthers.

Eye level is defined as the level of the eyes when looking straight ahead.  Therefore the eye level of a 6'-5" person is totally different to that of a 5'-4" person.  Eye level does not refer to some magical constant that relates human vision to the geometric horizon.

This horizon varies between being both above your eye level, and below your eye level—depending on the direction you choose to look.  Obviously if you're looking directly at a tree top, earth's horizon is below your eye level, whilst when looking at your feet it's above your eye level.

The distance to the horizon, d, from an observer is given by the formula d = 1.22 x h^½ where d is miles and h is feet above earth's surface of the observer's eye level.

On a flat Earth that was an infinite plane you would see 3 parts sky and 1 part Earth and one a 20 mile Earth this perspective would still be the same. Convex Earth should show even more Sky so you should have 1 part Earth to 6.28 parts sky.

FFS, why the hell do you keep saying this? No, it does not work like that. Do you not understand elementary geometry? If you take a look on a flat surface(let's say it is perpendicular to your line of sight etc), how much of your total FOV it takes is determined by two things: its absolute size and its distance from you. On an infinitely large flat Earth we would get exactly 50:50 ratio, barring effects like slight refraction and light diffusion on atmosphere. Where does your 1:3 come from? And round 1:6,28 is even weirder...

I guess I'm just not so sure how size changes perspective that much. On a flat Earth that was an infinite plane you would see 3 parts sky and 1 part Earth and one a 20 mile Earth this perspective would still be the same. Convex Earth should show even more Sky so you should have 1 part Earth to 6.28 parts sky. Size doesn't seem to effect the ratio any as it's a ratio so it doesn't matter if it's 1 trillion miles or 20 miles the ratio should remain the same.

My September 5th observation was around 9pm eastern standard time and I measured it using visual estimates using my hands so yea not the most accurate tools but still I usually get within 5% accuracy or so with bad tools and with better tools have better accuracy.

Right now I measured the Moon and it was about 40 degrees East about 95% full at 11:09 PM EST. Sunset was 9:29 EST so Sun should be about +115 degrees West so total degrees about 155 degrees difference so it should be about 88% full by my calculations adjust for -23.5 degrees tilt and you get around 50% fuller so 88% should look like 94% which is what I seen almost exactly today. Side unlit was west side about 4%.

OK, it's obvious you're just making these numbers up. 10:29 PM EDT sunset in September?  Really?

It can be fun to answer this stuff (up to a point) and maybe someone can actually learn something useful in the process, but you can make bunches of things up much faster than I and others can work out a response that has a chance of being factually correct.

Scuelos may have meant ET, but regardless sunset in Toronto tonight is 7:42pm. Around the solstice it is about 9:30pm.

Well it was actually about 7:29 Mountain standard time which 9:29 EST.

Well I'm not making up the stuff about the Moon granted I could use more accurate tools to tell exactly what I am looking at but when I take and measure photographs they measure pretty accurately.

As for eye level I am aware that a 5.5 ft tall person will have a slightly different line of sight compared to a 6.5ft tall person. (hint your eye level is about 4 inches below the top of your head) However my point being if you use a spirit level and line it up with your eyes you will always see the horizon unless something is physically blocking your view and this is true no matter if your 300 ft up or laying on the ground at 1 ft high. If you go to the empire state building and climb to the top at 1250 ft it will take a observer at the top 2 minutes 22 seconds longer to see the Sun set at the top of the building this is not because of the curvature of the Earth because if you use a telescope 45 power you can extend sunset 1 hour 52 minutes however if you go above 45 power you actually start to revert back to base time again as 45 power is the most optimal for viewing sunlight's bend. However use the same 45 power telescope while sitting at the base and you will see sunset only extend by 3.81 minutes.

About standard geometry. If I stand on a plane while eyes are perfectly level with the ground but above the ground I will see the ground only take up 45 degrees of my viewing angle while the sky will take up 135 degrees. The farther away you are from something the greater your field of view increases but your viewing angle can't increase more then 180 degrees due to the way that you can't see behind you when looking forward but sides will become more front the farther you are away from an object so you see 180 degrees.

So 45/180=4 so you should see 1 part ground to 3 parts sky if Earth was flat. On a round Earth this would be less, because you can divide Pi by infinity aspect ratio of 3.1416 doesn't change. Because you are only on half of the ball you take 4x1.5708=6.2832 so a sphere should always be about 28.64 degrees of your 180 degree distant fov or about 1 part ground to 5.2832 parts sky. or a 1:6.2832 ratio.

So ratios are:
Flat: 1:4 or 3 parts sky 1 part ground.
Ball: 1:6.2832 or 5.2832 parts sky to 1 part ground.
Concave: 1:2 or 1 part ground to 1 part sky.

Reason this is on concave Earth is because you can only see geometrically below you 50% because if objects are higher then you light bends away from you so you only see that which is above you and above you is always higher then you using a spirit level. This is also the reason why we only see one side of the Moon because Moon is the height map of Earth so we see everything above sea level on the nearside and everything below sea level on the far-side. I think reason why we side more then one side of Sun is that Sun is more like heat-map and Earth varies considerably in heat per year but not so much in elevation.

You are clueless.

Well it was actually about 7:29 Mountain standard time which 9:29 EST.

Well I'm not making up the stuff about the Moon granted I could use more accurate tools to tell exactly what I am looking at but when I take and measure photographs they measure pretty accurately.

As for eye level I am aware that a 5.5 ft tall person will have a slightly different line of sight compared to a 6.5ft tall person. (hint your eye level is about 4 inches below the top of your head) However my point being if you use a spirit level and line it up with your eyes you will always see the horizon unless something is physically blocking your view and this is true no matter if your 300 ft up or laying on the ground at 1 ft high. If you go to the empire state building and climb to the top at 1250 ft it will take a observer at the top 2 minutes 22 seconds longer to see the Sun set at the top of the building this is not because of the curvature of the Earth because if you use a telescope 45 power you can extend sunset 1 hour 52 minutes however if you go above 45 power you actually start to revert back to base time again as 45 power is the most optimal for viewing sunlight's bend. However use the same 45 power telescope while sitting at the base and you will see sunset only extend by 3.81 minutes.

About standard geometry. If I stand on a plane while eyes are perfectly level with the ground but above the ground I will see the ground only take up 45 degrees of my viewing angle while the sky will take up 135 degrees. The farther away you are from something the greater your field of view increases but your viewing angle can't increase more then 180 degrees due to the way that you can't see behind you when looking forward but sides will become more front the farther you are away from an object so you see 180 degrees.

So 45/180=4 so you should see 1 part ground to 3 parts sky if Earth was flat. On a round Earth this would be less, because you can divide Pi by infinity aspect ratio of 3.1416 doesn't change. Because you are only on half of the ball you take 4x1.5708=6.2832 so a sphere should always be about 28.64 degrees of your 180 degree distant fov or about 1 part ground to 5.2832 parts sky. or a 1:6.2832 ratio.

So ratios are:
Flat: 1:4 or 3 parts sky 1 part ground.
Ball: 1:6.2832 or 5.2832 parts sky to 1 part ground.
Concave: 1:2 or 1 part ground to 1 part sky.

Reason this is on concave Earth is because you can only see geometrically below you 50% because if objects are higher then you light bends away from you so you only see that which is above you and above you is always higher then you using a spirit level. This is also the reason why we only see one side of the Moon because Moon is the height map of Earth so we see everything above sea level on the nearside and everything below sea level on the far-side. I think reason why we side more then one side of Sun is that Sun is more like heat-map and Earth varies considerably in heat per year but not so much in elevation.

The sun sets approximately two hours later in Mountain Time Zone than Eastern Time Zone. You know that right?  The sun set at 7:46 in Toronto on September 6th. Use local time for your "calculations".

Well it was actually about 7:29 Mountain standard time which 9:29 EST.

Then why didn't you say 7:29 MST instead of using some random other time zone? And even that seems an hour late. 7:29 MDT (6:29 MST) would be more like it for this time of year unless you're in the little piece of Mountain Time in far eastern Oregon. Maybe. If you are in that area, there are other inconsistencies with your descriptions.

If you don't want to reveal your own time zone for whatever reason, why not use the commonly-used world time, UTC (sometimes still called GMT)?

Well I'm not making up the stuff about the Moon granted I could use more accurate tools to tell exactly what I am looking at but when I take and measure photographs they measure pretty accurately.

Accurate compared with what?

As for eye level I am aware that a 5.5 ft tall person will have a slightly different line of sight compared to a 6.5ft tall person. (hint your eye level is about 4 inches below the top of your head) However my point being if you use a spirit level and line it up with your eyes you will always see the horizon unless something is physically blocking your view and this is true no matter if your 300 ft up or laying on the ground at 1 ft high.

Did you read where the horizon is less than 1/20 degree below level when viewed from 2m (about 79" or 6' 7") above the surface? Do you have questions or concerns about how that was calculated? It'll be an even smaller angle than that from a height of 5' 2" (5.5 ft less 4 inches). How precise (and accurate, for that matter) is that spirit level? You'd want to use a good surveyor's theodolite or transit for measurements like this.

If you go to the empire state building and climb to the top at 1250 ft it will take a observer at the top 2 minutes 22 seconds longer to see the Sun set at the top of the building this is not because of the curvature of the Earth because if you use a telescope 45 power you can extend sunset 1 hour 52 minutes however if you go above 45 power you actually start to revert back to base time again as 45 power is the most optimal for viewing sunlight's bend. However use the same 45 power telescope while sitting at the base and you will see sunset only extend by 3.81 minutes.

Have you actually tried this 45-power trick from atop the Empire State Building?  I still say you're making this up.  45 degrees is optimal. 45 power is optimal. Coincidence? 

You do realize that dividing a circle into 360 parts is a human convention and has no basis in nature whatsoever, don't you?  1/8 of a full circle being expressed as 45 degrees is arbitrary. Expressed in radians, which is a natural measure of angle, it's pi/4 [see below]. 45 power is the ratio of the telescope objective lens focal length to the eyepiece focal length. It has no relation to degrees.

About standard geometry. If I stand on a plane while eyes are perfectly level with the ground but above the ground I will see the ground only take up 45 degrees of my viewing angle while the sky will take up 135 degrees. The farther away you are from something the greater your field of view increases but your viewing angle can't increase more then 180 degrees due to the way that you can't see behind you when looking forward but sides will become more front the farther you are away from an object so you see 180 degrees.

Do you have 180 degrees of vertical peripheral vision?  Your eyes would have to bug out of your head for that to be possible. Think about it.

If your eyes are six feet above ground level, and the earth were flat, and you stared at the vanishing point waaaay off in the distance, your sightline would be level, and you'd see half sky and half ground (presuming the same peripheral vision upward and downward).  Why do you think it would be different?

So 45/180=4 so you should see 1 part ground to 3 parts sky if Earth was flat. On a round Earth this would be less,

From 6 feet above the surface, it wouldn't be much less (remember that 0.05 degrees below level to the horizon?), assuming that the 1 and 3 assertion was correct, which it isn't.

because you can divide Pi by infinity aspect ratio of 3.1416 doesn't change.

pi divided by numbers approaching infinity approaches zero. For practical purposes, pi divided by infinity is zero.

Because you are only on half of the ball you take 4x1.5708=6.2832 so a sphere should always be about 28.64 degrees of your 180 degree distant fov or about 1 part ground to 5.2832 parts sky. or a 1:6.2832 ratio.

Not sure at all what you're doing here except slamming numbers together to see what pops out.  Why are you multiplying pi/2 by four? Half a circle (180 degrees) is pi radians; one quarter of that is pi/4 (about 0.7854) radians, which is 45 degrees.   28.64 degrees is half of one radian and has no significance in this context.

So ratios are:
Flat: 1:4 or 3 parts sky 1 part ground.
Ball: 1:6.2832 or 5.2832 parts sky to 1 part ground.
Concave: 1:2 or 1 part ground to 1 part sky.

Nope.  See above.

Reason this is on concave Earth is because you can only see geometrically below you 50% because if objects are higher then you light bends away from you so you only see that which is above you and above you is always higher then you using a spirit level. This is also the reason why we only see one side of the Moon because Moon is the height map of Earth so we see everything above sea level on the nearside and everything below sea level on the far-side. I think reason why we side more then one side of Sun is that Sun is more like heat-map and Earth varies considerably in heat per year but not so much in elevation.

All this is a lot easier to visualize and explain if we live on the outside of a large (to us) sphere with distant celestial objects and straight rays of light. It's very simple, consistent, and explains all observed phenomena well.

Yeah I was mistaken, It was actually MDT but it changes to MST depending on what time of year it is so that's why I got confused about what time-zone I was in.

If true horizon = Miles = 1.22 x Feet Height Square Root then at 6 feet eye level I should always see about 3 miles away however this is only 4% of 1 degree so even if this is true then the Earth should look flat -4% to me which means that the ground should occupy the lower 44.96 degrees of my view and the sky should occupy the top 135.04 degrees of my view. This is not what happens in reality though. Even with refraction this would only be adjusted 8%, so take 1.3176 x 6ft h squared = 3.22 miles which if I'm being generous 3.227/2.988 would bring 45 degrees up to 48.6 degrees so I'd still have 131.4 degrees of Sky. It should literally looks like this picture: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130517073335/gtawiki/images/e/ef/MotorbikeChase-GTAV.jpg

EDIT: to add to that GTA5 was rendered on a perfect spheroid shape this rendering of Kate Upton used the in-game engine to render and perspective is exactly the same but look at your horizon lines and how they are different from a concave Earth on the most left side and middle to a convex Earth on the right side: http://www.gameplorer.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gta-5-kate-upton.jpg

Edit: Actually the model on the right is not the model of Kate Upton it was  Shelby Welinder but she looks almost exactly the same but the perspective is still identical.

Yeah I was mistaken, It was actually MDT but it changes to MST depending on what time of year it is so that's why I got confused about what time-zone I was in.

If true horizon = Miles = 1.22 x Feet Height Square Root then at 6 feet eye level I should always see about 3 miles away however this is only 4% of 1 degree so even if this is true then the Earth should look flat -4% to me which means that the ground should occupy the lower 44.96 degrees of my view and the sky should occupy the top 135.04 degrees of my view. This is not what happens in reality though. Even with refraction this would only be adjusted 8%, so take 1.3176 x 6ft h squared = 3.22 miles which if I'm being generous 3.227/2.988 would bring 45 degrees up to 48.6 degrees so I'd still have 131.4 degrees of Sky. It should literally looks like this picture: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130517073335/gtawiki/images/e/ef/MotorbikeChase-GTAV.jpg

EDIT: to add to that GTA5 was rendered on a perfect spheroid shape this rendering of Kate Upton used the in-game engine to render and perspective is exactly the same but look at your horizon lines and how they are different from a concave Earth on the most left side and middle to a convex Earth on the right side: http://www.gameplorer.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gta-5-kate-upton.jpg

Edit: Actually the model on the right is not the model of Kate Upton it was  Shelby Welinder but she looks almost exactly the same but the perspective is still identical.

Stand on the ground and look at the supposed 45 degrees you claim. You will see around 6 feet away. So obviously your math sucks. Why don't you tell me what the real angle is for a triangle with side A=6 feet Side B=15840 feet and angle A-90 degrees.

Quote from: Sculelos on September 07, 2014, 05:34:48 PM

Yeah I was mistaken, It was actually MDT but it changes to MST depending on what time of year it is so that's why I got confused about what time-zone I was in.

If true horizon = Miles = 1.22 x Feet Height Square Root then at 6 feet eye level I should always see about 3 miles away however this is only 4% of 1 degree so even if this is true then the Earth should look flat -4% to me which means that the ground should occupy the lower 44.96 degrees of my view and the sky should occupy the top 135.04 degrees of my view. This is not what happens in reality though. Even with refraction this would only be adjusted 8%, so take 1.3176 x 6ft h squared = 3.22 miles which if I'm being generous 3.227/2.988 would bring 45 degrees up to 48.6 degrees so I'd still have 131.4 degrees of Sky. It should literally looks like this picture: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130517073335/gtawiki/images/e/ef/MotorbikeChase-GTAV.jpg

EDIT: to add to that GTA5 was rendered on a perfect spheroid shape this rendering of Kate Upton used the in-game engine to render and perspective is exactly the same but look at your horizon lines and how they are different from a concave Earth on the most left side and middle to a convex Earth on the right side: http://www.gameplorer.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gta-5-kate-upton.jpg

Edit: Actually the model on the right is not the model of Kate Upton it was  Shelby Welinder but she looks almost exactly the same but the perspective is still identical.

Stand on the ground and look at the supposed 45 degrees you claim. You will see around 6 feet away. So obviously your math sucks. Why don't you tell me what the real angle is for a triangle with side A=6 feet Side B=15840 feet and angle A-90 degrees.

I get 0.00000661deg

Stand on the ground and look at the supposed 45 degrees you claim. You will see around 6 feet away. So obviously your math sucks. Why don't you tell me what the real angle is for a triangle with side A=6 feet Side B=15840 feet and angle A-90 degrees.

Okay your triangle is 6ft high -1 ft per 2640 ft of length so 15840 ft ends up being as measured -15 degrees per 2640 feet which is -1 degree every 176 feet. If the triangle was any longer you wouldn't be able to see more of it as you can't see more then 90 degrees field of vision on any single side of any object at a time if it's below eye level and away from you.

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2014, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on September 07, 2014, 05:34:48 PM

Yeah I was mistaken, It was actually MDT but it changes to MST depending on what time of year it is so that's why I got confused about what time-zone I was in.

If true horizon = Miles = 1.22 x Feet Height Square Root then at 6 feet eye level I should always see about 3 miles away however this is only 4% of 1 degree so even if this is true then the Earth should look flat -4% to me which means that the ground should occupy the lower 44.96 degrees of my view and the sky should occupy the top 135.04 degrees of my view. This is not what happens in reality though. Even with refraction this would only be adjusted 8%, so take 1.3176 x 6ft h squared = 3.22 miles which if I'm being generous 3.227/2.988 would bring 45 degrees up to 48.6 degrees so I'd still have 131.4 degrees of Sky. It should literally looks like this picture: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130517073335/gtawiki/images/e/ef/MotorbikeChase-GTAV.jpg

EDIT: to add to that GTA5 was rendered on a perfect spheroid shape this rendering of Kate Upton used the in-game engine to render and perspective is exactly the same but look at your horizon lines and how they are different from a concave Earth on the most left side and middle to a convex Earth on the right side: http://www.gameplorer.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gta-5-kate-upton.jpg

Edit: Actually the model on the right is not the model of Kate Upton it was  Shelby Welinder but she looks almost exactly the same but the perspective is still identical.

Stand on the ground and look at the supposed 45 degrees you claim. You will see around 6 feet away. So obviously your math sucks. Why don't you tell me what the real angle is for a triangle with side A=6 feet Side B=15840 feet and angle A-90 degrees.

I get 0.00000661deg

You need to work on your math. Triangles add up to 180 degrees.

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2014, 07:18:47 PM

Stand on the ground and look at the supposed 45 degrees you claim. You will see around 6 feet away. So obviously your math sucks. Why don't you tell me what the real angle is for a triangle with side A=6 feet Side B=15840 feet and angle A-90 degrees.

Okay your triangle is 6ft high -1 ft per 2640 ft of length so 15840 ft ends up being as measured -15 degrees per 2640 feet which is -1 degree every 176 feet. If the triangle was any longer you wouldn't be able to see more of it as you can't see more then 90 degrees field of vision on any single side of any object at a time if it's below eye level and away from you.

I didn't draw a picture but I thought it was obvious that angle A was at the persons feet. I want the angle that the person is looking at. That angle isn't close to 90 degrees. You like math, are you going to calculate it correctly? What you said is incorrect.

I didn't draw a picture but I thought it was obvious that angle A was at the persons feet. I want the angle that the person is looking at. That angle isn't close to 90 degrees. You like math, are you going to calculate it correctly? What you said is incorrect.

Well if you flip it you get +1 ft per 2640 ft so +1 degree every 176 ft. Your eye to feet level is 90 degrees so if you where standing on this object but facing away from it, it wouldn't be visible but slowly as it got more distance from you it would go up and up until it was at eye level at 15,840 ft. Eye distance should be able to see about 15,778 ft at that distance so you actually wouldn't see the tip of the triangle of the last 62 ft.

Edit: I realize I might not have answered your question as you intended it because if you have an angle that is -90 degrees that starts at your feet you will NEVER be able to visually see it even if you are straight over it because from the first inch it will be underground.

On a slightly different topic what is day length anyways? 23 hours 56 minutes or 24 hours?

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2014, 08:30:41 PM

I didn't draw a picture but I thought it was obvious that angle A was at the persons feet. I want the angle that the person is looking at. That angle isn't close to 90 degrees. You like math, are you going to calculate it correctly? What you said is incorrect.

Well if you flip it you get +1 ft per 2640 ft so +1 degree every 176 ft. Your eye to feet level is 90 degrees so if you where standing on this object but facing away from it, it wouldn't be visible but slowly as it got more distance from you it would go up and up until it was at eye level at 15,840 ft. Eye distance should be able to see about 15,778 ft at that distance so you actually wouldn't see the tip of the triangle of the last 62 ft.

Edit: I realize I might not have answered your question as you intended it because if you have an angle that is -90 degrees that starts at your feet you will NEVER be able to visually see it even if you are straight over it because from the first inch it will be underground.

This was a simple triangle question and you couldn't do it. Here is what you have to use.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-solving-sas-triangles.html

I'll do the math if you can't figure it out.

On a slightly different topic what is day length anyways? 23 hours 56 minutes or 24 hours?

Day length doesn't cause seasons, orbit does.

On a slightly different topic what is day length anyways? 23 hours 56 minutes or 24 hours?

Yes! 

The earth rotates once in 23h 56m 4s.  This is called a sidereal day because it is measured with respect to the stars. During that period of rotation, earth also progressed along its orbit around the sun a little, so it has to rotate a little more to bring the sun back to the same position.  This is called a solar day.  The average length of the solar day is 24h, which is called the mean solar day, or civil day.


Image courtesy Case Western Reserve University

The length of the solar day varies slightly over the year because the axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the orbital plane and earth's orbit isn't a perfect circle. See Equation of Time and Analemma.

Watch this video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That video is not very accurate.  The phases are opposite depending on where the moon is in it's orbit, and it does in fact appear upside down in the southern hemisphere versus the northern hemisphere.

if you use a telescope 45 power you can extend sunset 1 hour 52 minutes however if you go above 45 power you actually start to revert back to base time again 

No, telescopes don't visually restore an object that is hidden from view below the horizon to a position above the horizon.  Have you even tried doing this?

Not sure at all what you're doing here except slamming numbers together to see what pops out. 

It's all basic Sculelos math.  Or what I like to think of as BS math for short.

Yes! 

The earth rotates once in 23h 56m 4s.  This is called a sidereal day because it is measured with respect to the stars. During that period of rotation, earth also progressed along its orbit around the sun a little, so it has to rotate a little more to bring the sun back to the same position.  This is called a solar day.  The average length of the solar day is 24h, which is called the mean solar day, or civil day.

  Now you'll really confuse him.

Well the actual real answer for the triangle question is easy. 15840 ft length, 6 ft height 90 degrees 6 ft angle = 15,840 having only 1/90th of a negative degree angle. So if triangle is 15,840=6ft=-90 degrees then 15,840 = 1/90th of a degree negative angle.

As Earth's rotating if we really have side-real days of 23h 56m compared to 24h then bearing angle should always be gaining 1 degree per day or 361 degrees meaning mid-day should become mid-night after 182 days or am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?

   

am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?

Yes.

Well the actual real answer for the triangle question is easy. 15840 ft length, 6 ft height 90 degrees 6 ft angle = 15,840 having only 1/90th of a negative degree angle. So if triangle is 15,840=6ft=-90 degrees then 15,840 = 1/90th of a degree negative angle.

Doing the math while drunk I got 63.4 degrees for the angle. I didn't use BS math so I think it is correct. I linked to a website that told you how to calculate the angle, why couldn't you follow? The 63.5 degrees would be correct only in perfect world, but it's still correct enough to show just how stupid your 45 degree answer is. You will also see that you can extend the triangle quite a ways, and still get a value.(infinite ways) This is contrary to your claim that the furthest triangle you would make is the 3 miles before the angle turned into 90 degrees. Overall though I know you will not learn anything from this.



As Earth's rotating if we really have side-real days of 23h 56m compared to 24h then bearing angle should always be gaining 1 degree per day or 361 degrees meaning mid-day should become mid-night after 182 days or am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?


[/quote]

I think I was trying to calculate a right triangle which was the difference.

As for days I think counter-clockwise rotation should have you viewing Sun as East to West movement when below you but West to East when above you. Why is this not observed? Probably because Earth is not a globe...

I think I was trying to calculate a right triangle which was the difference.

As for days I think counter-clockwise rotation should have you viewing Sun as East to West movement when below you but West to East when above you. Why is this not observed? Probably because Earth is not a globe...

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, wherever you are, as you know.

... am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?

As 29silhouhette has already said... yes... yes you are.  Very, very wrong.

As Earth's rotating if we really have side-real days of 23h 56m compared to 24h then bearing angle should always be gaining 1 degree per day or 361 degrees meaning mid-day should become mid-night after 182 days or am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?

As far as what stars we can see at night, that's exactly what happens.  This is the reason we see one set of constellations at midnight in winter and a different set at midnight half a year later.  The stars that are up at midnight in winter are in the same position at noon in summer and vice-versa.

Simple.

Quote from: sokarul on September 08, 2014, 10:00:16 PM

As Earth's rotating if we really have side-real days of 23h 56m compared to 24h then bearing angle should always be gaining 1 degree per day or 361 degrees meaning mid-day should become mid-night after 182 days or am I completely wrong in thinking what I'm thinking in this image?

As far as what stars we can see at night, that's exactly what happens.  This is the reason we see one set of constellations at midnight in winter and a different set at midnight half a year later.  The stars that are up at midnight in winter are in the same position at noon in summer and vice-versa.

Simple.

I know but because stars are considered to be very far away rotation about the Sun would be considered irrelevant to the bearing angle which means you have a dilemma, because we should be facing 180 degrees away from the stars every 182 solar days exactly like this image demonstrates:

we should be facing 180 degrees away from the stars every 182 solar days(...)

And we do. That's the exact reason why the night sky looks rotated(around the celestial south or north pole, depending where one Earth you are when looking at the sky) at different times in a year.

If you for example looked up every Sunday night at midnight, you would realise that each following week, the star map would seem to have rotated around the central star/constellation(Ursa Minor for northern hemisphere or the Octans for the Southern) by a small but noticable and constant amount each time. A full rotation takes a single year.

It is even easier to notice around the equator. At midnight, different stars and constellations present themselves directly above your head at different times of the year. And again, a full cycle takes a single year to complete.