How you can know for sure Earth is round and concave!

Okay look at these pictures.





First notice the clouds also notice the top left to bottom right is the motion that these images travel from. Okay look at the clouds now and look at the picture left to right, top to bottom. Notice that the clouds higher in the image are closer to you and then also notice that as the clouds get closer to parallel to the observer that the closer clouds travel higher then the further clouds like this image demonstrates:



Notice that in the above images of the clouds when the viewer gets closer to parallel with the clouds the clouds travel higher in the sky. This means greater distance as clouds closer to you will be higher and more closer to directly above your head. This would mean when the cloud is parallel to you more then there is more distance between you then when the cloud is more in front or behind of you.

The reason that clouds move higher when they move parallel to you of course is that when they are at your 10:30 or 1:30 o'clock positions they are physically higher in the sky and the clouds and even the whole sky moves up in comparison to you when they move to your 3 or 9 o'clock positions.

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense, but bear with me, the clouds that are higher in your picture frame are closer to you, this means that they will move more then the farther away clouds, this means that the closer clouds move MORE then the farther away clouds. This means the higher clouds move faster then the lower clouds. Just take a look at those pictures and notice that, also notice that because all clouds move higher when moving more parellel to you. Also notice that the big puffy clouds seem to be much lower and closer to you then the long plainer clouds.

TLDR? Basically the higher (Closer) clouds move quicker then the (lower) farther clouds but all clouds MOVE UP as they get close to parallel. What this means is that your distance INCREASES and as your DISTANCE increases the clouds seem to get CLOSER to you. Make sense to you? Probably not just yet but think over it a few times and it may click. 

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense...

It sounds that way because you're not making any sense.

Without knowing the clouds' actual altitude and distance from the camera, your entire premise is unfounded and worthless.

Sorry.   

Quote from: Sculelos on November 05, 2014, 10:13:47 PM

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense...

It sounds that way because you're not making any sense.

Without knowing the clouds' actual altitude and distance from the camera, your entire premise is unfounded and worthless.

Sorry.   

All clouds that are closer move more higher then the far clouds which also move higher but not as much higher as the closer clouds because they are farther away. If the Earth was round shouldn't clouds be moving lower when they are moving closer to parallel when moving from say your 1:30 position to your 3 position the cloud moves higher like these images show.

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

Some fake pictures of clouds prove nothing!


See, that's what a typical flat earth hypothesiser would respond. (Can't call them theorists because they've no evidence)

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

I was going uphill at the time but the clouds were still moving higher faster then I was. And lol no, Ijusthadto the pictures aren't fake, I took them myself matter of fact. I was travelling straight and the clouds were on my 1:30 position moving to my 3 position. The clouds indeed did go higher in the sky the more parellel I was and the closer (higher) clouds went higher faster then the farther (lower clouds). I think this is only possible if the Earth is curved. I think it means there is a upward curvature as if there is an upward curvature that means that if the clouds are anything other then parallel they will actually be even farther away from you which would make them appear lower in the sky cause remember farther clouds are lower clouds.

Edit: And no the hill didn't have anything to do with the experiment I repeated it going downhill and the results were still the same as going uphill, in both cases the closer clouds rose more then the farther clouds even when going both downhill and uphill. If the clouds seem to rise going from your 1:30 to 3 o'clock positions then that is going to make me thing the Earth curves upward because that means the clouds are getting closer to me when they are getting more parallel to me even though the clouds were running to the side of me and I wasn't increasing nor decreasing in my distance to or from the clouds as I was only running parallel to the clouds themselves. 

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 04:21:23 PM

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

I was going uphill at the time but the clouds were still moving higher faster then I was. And lol no, Ijusthadto the pictures aren't fake, I took them myself matter of fact. I was travelling straight and the clouds were on my 1:30 position moving to my 3 position. The clouds indeed did go higher in the sky the more parellel I was and the closer (higher) clouds went higher faster then the farther (lower clouds). I think this is only possible if the Earth is curved. I think it means there is a upward curvature as if there is an upward curvature that means that if the clouds are anything other then parallel they will actually be even farther away from you which would make them appear lower in the sky cause remember farther clouds are lower clouds.

Edit: And no the hill didn't have anything to do with the experiment I repeated it going downhill and the results were still the same as going uphill, in both cases the closer clouds rose more then the farther clouds even when going both downhill and uphill. If the clouds seem to rise going from your 1:30 to 3 o'clock positions then that is going to make me thing the Earth curves upward because that means the clouds are getting closer to me when they are getting more parallel to me even though the clouds were running to the side of me and I wasn't increasing nor decreasing in my distance to or from the clouds as I was only running parallel to the clouds themselves.

I guess my "concave" comment went over your head, like the clouds.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 08, 2014, 04:37:27 PM

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 04:21:23 PM

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

I was going uphill at the time but the clouds were still moving higher faster then I was. And lol no, Ijusthadto the pictures aren't fake, I took them myself matter of fact. I was travelling straight and the clouds were on my 1:30 position moving to my 3 position. The clouds indeed did go higher in the sky the more parellel I was and the closer (higher) clouds went higher faster then the farther (lower clouds). I think this is only possible if the Earth is curved. I think it means there is a upward curvature as if there is an upward curvature that means that if the clouds are anything other then parallel they will actually be even farther away from you which would make them appear lower in the sky cause remember farther clouds are lower clouds.

Edit: And no the hill didn't have anything to do with the experiment I repeated it going downhill and the results were still the same as going uphill, in both cases the closer clouds rose more then the farther clouds even when going both downhill and uphill. If the clouds seem to rise going from your 1:30 to 3 o'clock positions then that is going to make me thing the Earth curves upward because that means the clouds are getting closer to me when they are getting more parallel to me even though the clouds were running to the side of me and I wasn't increasing nor decreasing in my distance to or from the clouds as I was only running parallel to the clouds themselves.

I guess my "concave" comment went over your head, like the clouds.

I'm just too smart to believe that we live on a ball you see too many inconsistencies. We live in a ball for sure but whats on the outside... Outer Earth, now what's past outer Earth, I have no idea really probably nothing.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 05, 2014, 10:13:47 PM

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense...

It sounds that way because you're not making any sense.

Without knowing the clouds' actual altitude and distance from the camera, your entire premise is unfounded and worthless.

Sorry.   

It doesn't just "sound that way." You are not making any sense. I have come to the conclusion that sculelos and sceptimatic are either of the same mind or they just may be the same person.

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense, 

It doesn't help when we don't know when one of your sentences stops and the next begins.

Anyway, something about lower/closer clouds moving by faster than low/distant clouds and high/distance clouds.  Is that right?  It's to be expected on any model of Earth.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 05, 2014, 10:13:47 PM

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense, 

It doesn't help when we don't know when one of your sentences stops and the next begins.

Anyway, something about lower/closer clouds moving by faster than low/distant clouds and high/distance clouds.  Is that right?  It's to be expected on any model of Earth.

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

So the test of course is to look at the clouds and see if they get higher and higher when coming closer to you and if they get lower and lower while going away from you or is it the opposite? Find the answer to that question and you have found the true shape of Earth.

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 05:02:52 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on November 08, 2014, 04:37:27 PM

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 04:21:23 PM

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

I was going uphill at the time but the clouds were still moving higher faster then I was. And lol no, Ijusthadto the pictures aren't fake, I took them myself matter of fact. I was travelling straight and the clouds were on my 1:30 position moving to my 3 position. The clouds indeed did go higher in the sky the more parellel I was and the closer (higher) clouds went higher faster then the farther (lower clouds). I think this is only possible if the Earth is curved. I think it means there is a upward curvature as if there is an upward curvature that means that if the clouds are anything other then parallel they will actually be even farther away from you which would make them appear lower in the sky cause remember farther clouds are lower clouds.

Edit: And no the hill didn't have anything to do with the experiment I repeated it going downhill and the results were still the same as going uphill, in both cases the closer clouds rose more then the farther clouds even when going both downhill and uphill. If the clouds seem to rise going from your 1:30 to 3 o'clock positions then that is going to make me thing the Earth curves upward because that means the clouds are getting closer to me when they are getting more parallel to me even though the clouds were running to the side of me and I wasn't increasing nor decreasing in my distance to or from the clouds as I was only running parallel to the clouds themselves.

I guess my "concave" comment went over your head, like the clouds.

I'm just too smart to believe that we live on a ball you see too many inconsistencies. We live in a ball for sure but whats on the outside... Outer Earth, now what's past outer Earth, I have no idea really probably nothing.

so, what? You think we live in a ball? and on a disc that's inside that ball? Please clarify your belief.

As I'm sure you know, being "too smart" to believe we live on a sphere, that concave curves inward, like the interior of a ball. Maybe you mean convex? I really don't know exactly what you mean.

Try reading this thread again, starting with your subject line. I must be too stupid to understand you, since you are too smart. I hope you can explain it to a simpleton, like me. Thanks!

edit: sorry, I didn't notice your most recent post where you say "on a globe (convex)...", but It still doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 08, 2014, 05:43:04 PM

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 05:02:52 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on November 08, 2014, 04:37:27 PM

Quote from: ijusthadto on November 08, 2014, 04:21:23 PM

there are some concave craters, valleys, etc... no?

btw, please learn the word "than"

I was going uphill at the time but the clouds were still moving higher faster then I was. And lol no, Ijusthadto the pictures aren't fake, I took them myself matter of fact. I was travelling straight and the clouds were on my 1:30 position moving to my 3 position. The clouds indeed did go higher in the sky the more parellel I was and the closer (higher) clouds went higher faster then the farther (lower clouds). I think this is only possible if the Earth is curved. I think it means there is a upward curvature as if there is an upward curvature that means that if the clouds are anything other then parallel they will actually be even farther away from you which would make them appear lower in the sky cause remember farther clouds are lower clouds.

Edit: And no the hill didn't have anything to do with the experiment I repeated it going downhill and the results were still the same as going uphill, in both cases the closer clouds rose more then the farther clouds even when going both downhill and uphill. If the clouds seem to rise going from your 1:30 to 3 o'clock positions then that is going to make me thing the Earth curves upward because that means the clouds are getting closer to me when they are getting more parallel to me even though the clouds were running to the side of me and I wasn't increasing nor decreasing in my distance to or from the clouds as I was only running parallel to the clouds themselves.

I guess my "concave" comment went over your head, like the clouds.

I'm just too smart to believe that we live on a ball you see too many inconsistencies. We live in a ball for sure but whats on the outside... Outer Earth, now what's past outer Earth, I have no idea really probably nothing.

so, what? You think we live in a ball? and on a disc that's inside that ball? Please clarify your belief.

As I'm sure you know, being "too smart" to believe we live on a sphere, that concave curves inward, like the interior of a ball. Maybe you mean convex? I really don't know exactly what you mean.

Try reading this thread again, starting with your subject line. I must be too stupid to understand you, since you are too smart. I hope you can explain it to a simpleton, like me. Thanks!

Okay look at clouds. If clouds are higher in the sky they are closer to overhead thus they must be closer to you. That's the basic premise, of course this is only clouds that look to be fairly low in the first place and are not too much above the horizon.

Okay on a concave Earth parallel to your direction is the lowest possible point for clouds to be, if they are in front or back of you they will naturally be higher then if they are parallel.

On a convex Earth parallel to your direction would be the highest possible point, if they are in front or back of you they will be lower.

Okay the real tricky part about this is perspective because perspective makes it that closer clouds appear higher and the farther away clouds appear lower. This is important to know because the test goes as follows.

If the Earth is concave then the clouds should be getting closer to you in elevation so if the clouds drop some then the clouds will be physically closer to you and thus appear higher.

If The Earth is convex then the clouds should be getting further from you in elevation the closer they are to parallel so if the clouds rise then they will appear lower on the horizon.

I know what I am saying sounds backwards to what people commonly think but it's because we have all been brainwashed since we were little that we were living on the top of a globe Earth when in reality we live inside of it. Do the test yourself the clouds always move higher (closer) then they started when you watch distant clouds become parallel with you. If Earth were really a ball I assure you it would be the opposite way around.

Edit: If you want to know what I believe this is a fairly close representation of course not to scale " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sculelos - Are you saying that it's your belief that the clouds do not follow the general contour of whichever shape Earth you're talking about, whether it be concave or convex? They travel in a straight line? I must agree that you do not make sense. Also, I thought this was the Flat Earth Society. You subscribe to the concave, inner Earth belief? This place is even more crazy than I thought.

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

Nope...

You continually ignore the principles of perspective.

Clouds at a distance of 100km from the observer at an altitude of 10,000m.
Clouds at a distance of 10km from the observer at an altitude of 1,000m.

The best you can do (from ground level) is guess at their altitude and distance form your observation point.

—I do thank you for taking the time to post your cloud pics and animated GIF though.  I only wish more flat earthers were inclined to post some of their own graphical stuff here in an endeavour to prove their point.

perspective makes it that closer clouds appear higher and the farther away clouds appear lower.

You just answered your own question. What are you getting at?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 08, 2014, 06:16:05 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on November 05, 2014, 10:13:47 PM

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense, 

It doesn't help when we don't know when one of your sentences stops and the next begins.

Anyway, something about lower/closer clouds moving by faster than low/distant clouds and high/distance clouds.  Is that right?  It's to be expected on any model of Earth.

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

So the test of course is to look at the clouds and see if they get higher and higher when coming closer to you and if they get lower and lower while going away from you or is it the opposite? Find the answer to that question and you have found the true shape of Earth.

I think all the clouds I've seen in the distance moving closer, passing overhead, and then moving away, started out appearing lower on the horizon, and looked highest overhead.  I guess that means we're on a globe according to your test.

I think all the clouds I've seen in the distance moving closer, passing overhead, and then moving away, started out appearing lower on the horizon, and looked highest overhead.  I guess that means we're on a globe according to your test.

I'd agree with this.  It's due to perspective—which is an optical effect that the flat earthers often rely on to support their arguments, but of which they seem to have very little actual working knowledge.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 08, 2014, 06:25:36 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 08, 2014, 06:16:05 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on November 05, 2014, 10:13:47 PM

Okay I know it really sounds like I'm making no sense, 

It doesn't help when we don't know when one of your sentences stops and the next begins.

Anyway, something about lower/closer clouds moving by faster than low/distant clouds and high/distance clouds.  Is that right?  It's to be expected on any model of Earth.

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

So the test of course is to look at the clouds and see if they get higher and higher when coming closer to you and if they get lower and lower while going away from you or is it the opposite? Find the answer to that question and you have found the true shape of Earth.

I think all the clouds I've seen in the distance moving closer, passing overhead, and then moving away, started out appearing lower on the horizon, and looked highest overhead.  I guess that means we're on a globe according to your test.

Exactly why I didn't say watch clouds as you pass them that are going directly over your head, of course the clouds will start low and go high because they get closer and closer to you then farther and farther away, that is obvious and would happen no matter what shape Earth would be as that is just a direct result of geometry.

No what I am saying is slightly different, I'm saying watch clouds to your left and right at least 45 degrees to your right of motion starting and 45 degrees behind you to your right of motion or also your left works as well but if your 12 O'Clock position is directly ahead of you it needs to be in your 10:30-9 positions or 1:30-3 Positions for the test to work.

Okay if the Earth curves upward then clouds should appear to get higher and higher in the sky even though they are to your left or right in the distance and not passing you overhead or anywhere near overhead. Look at this image it should clear things up. (Just remember Further = Lower and Closer = Higher)

Nonsense, we can measure cloud height.  Sunrise and sunset across the world proves a round earth.

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

At ground level, the very slight convexity of the earth's surface won't affect your perception of the cloud's altitude in any way.  Cloud formations are virtually useless as a means of determining the geometry of the earth's surface anyway—due to both their (unknown) altitude at any given time, and also the variation in their altitude outside of that point in time.  I think you're assuming that clouds are a "fixed" shape, and travel constantly in a horizontal plane at a specific altitude?  You can't relate a cloud's altitude to its perceived distance from your observation point, so as I've said, basing any geometry on clouds is a pointless exercise.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 09, 2014, 08:27:43 AM

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

At ground level, the very slight convexity of the earth's surface won't affect your perception of the cloud's altitude in any way.  Cloud formations are virtually useless as a means of determining the geometry of the earth's surface anyway—due to both their (unknown) altitude at any given time, and also the variation in their altitude outside of that point in time.  I think you're assuming that clouds are a "fixed" shape, and travel constantly in a horizontal plane at a specific altitude?  You can't relate a cloud's altitude to its perceived distance from your observation point, so as I've said, basing any geometry on clouds is a pointless exercise.

Well we see say 180 degrees of clouds in only about 96 miles of width. 96 miles of width is substantial and about 1.38 degrees. However that 1.38 degrees is also inflated 32 times by the measure of your perceived eyesight so in 6 miles your view changes about 44 degrees cloud-wise if you are looking at around 6 ft height eye level. In 44 degrees you will definitely see curvature one way or the other, convex view would be about a 5 degree drop while concave would be about a 5 degree rise, flat would see no difference what so ever the total height of the sky in my pictures were no more then 30 degrees high and the clouds were like half that or about 15 degrees so you could see about a 33% shift upward. To me along with the measurements taken of the actual Earth I'm 100% convinced that we live inside of an upward curving Earth and indeed the heavens are inside the Earth.

Pity that the movement of the sun and many other measurements and observations prove you completely wrong.  Why do you persist in this nonsense?

Pity that the movement of the sun and many other measurements and observations prove you completely wrong.  Why do you persist in this nonsense?

How would the movement of the Sun prove it wrong? If starting measurements are wrong then of course all measurements that are based of the starting measurements are going to be wrong as well.

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 09, 2014, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on November 09, 2014, 08:27:43 AM

Lower = Farther
Higher = Closer

If you were on a globe (convex) Earth then it would stand to reason that you would have the clouds be farthest away when they would be directly parallel with you and lower in the sky at all other times if not parallel. Parallel with what exactly? Well your direction of movement that's what. If they are getting closer to you they would be getting higher and higher until they were as high as they could get and then once they were past you they would get lower and lower as they moved away from you. If the Earth is concave it would be the exact opposite, they would be getting lower and lower until they got as low as they could get and would be higher and higher the farther away from you they moved.

At ground level, the very slight convexity of the earth's surface won't affect your perception of the cloud's altitude in any way.  Cloud formations are virtually useless as a means of determining the geometry of the earth's surface anyway—due to both their (unknown) altitude at any given time, and also the variation in their altitude outside of that point in time.  I think you're assuming that clouds are a "fixed" shape, and travel constantly in a horizontal plane at a specific altitude?  You can't relate a cloud's altitude to its perceived distance from your observation point, so as I've said, basing any geometry on clouds is a pointless exercise.

Well we see say 180 degrees of clouds in only about 96 miles of width. 96 miles of width is substantial and about 1.38 degrees. However that 1.38 degrees is also inflated 32 times by the measure of your perceived eyesight so in 6 miles your view changes about 44 degrees cloud-wise if you are looking at around 6 ft height eye level. In 44 degrees you will definitely see curvature one way or the other, convex view would be about a 5 degree drop while concave would be about a 5 degree rise, flat would see no difference what so ever the total height of the sky in my pictures were no more then 30 degrees high and the clouds were like half that or about 15 degrees so you could see about a 33% shift upward. To me along with the measurements taken of the actual Earth I'm 100% convinced that we live inside of an upward curving Earth and indeed the heavens are inside the Earth.

You forgot to divide your numbers by the Bellagio in Las Vegas. If you do that you will see how your made up numbers and identities are wrong.

Well we see say 180 degrees of clouds in only about 96 miles of width.....

Citation please.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 09, 2014, 02:48:29 PM

Well we see say 180 degrees of clouds in only about 96 miles of width.....

Citation please.

45 degrees of sky is 1/8th of 360 which is how it (the clouds and the sky) moved in 6 miles. 8x6 is 48 miles total for one direction but you see twice as wide as you see far so you times the number by 2 because I was measuring both in front and back of myself at the same time, thus you get 96 total miles of width if you move the center frame to the clouds instead of yourself because you can see both 48 miles in front of you and 48 miles behind you.

Why can you see that far? I have no real idea but I have measured planes that are moving 400 mph and I have been able to see them for a good seven minutes or so therefore I know it's possible to see at least 48 miles out one direction in the sky. 

45 degrees of sky is 1/8th of 360 which is how it (the clouds and the sky) moved in 6 miles. 8x6 is 48 miles total for one direction but you see twice as wide as you see far so you times the number by 2 because I was measuring both in front and back of myself at the same time, thus you get 96 total miles of width if you move the center frame to the clouds instead of yourself because you can see both 48 miles in front of you and 48 miles behind you.

I'm afraid this makes absolutely no sense at all.  No recognised geometry.  No recognise trigonometry.  No recognised optical theory.  No recognised meteorological theory.  You can also see much farther than 48 miles with the unaided human eye.

Why can you see that far? I have no real idea but I have measured planes that are moving 400 mph and I have been able to see them for a good seven minutes or so therefore I know it's possible to see at least 48 miles out one direction in the sky.

Unless you know the altitude and airspeed of the plane, this claim also doesn't—and cannot—make any sense.  Only the plane's pilots and the ATC's know these figures.

Quote from: Sculelos on November 10, 2014, 11:58:53 AM

45 degrees of sky is 1/8th of 360 which is how it (the clouds and the sky) moved in 6 miles. 8x6 is 48 miles total for one direction but you see twice as wide as you see far so you times the number by 2 because I was measuring both in front and back of myself at the same time, thus you get 96 total miles of width if you move the center frame to the clouds instead of yourself because you can see both 48 miles in front of you and 48 miles behind you.

I'm afraid this makes absolutely no sense at all.  No recognised geometry.  No recognise trigonometry.  No recognised optical theory.  No recognised meteorological theory.  You can also see much farther than 48 miles with the unaided human eye.

Quote

Why can you see that far? I have no real idea but I have measured planes that are moving 400 mph and I have been able to see them for a good seven minutes or so therefore I know it's possible to see at least 48 miles out one direction in the sky.

Unless you know the altitude and airspeed of the plane, this claim also doesn't—and cannot—make any sense.  Only the plane's pilots and the ATC's know these figures.

FlightAware.com posts "live" flight information including altitude and ground speed (which is what you want instead of airspeed). It's not real-time for what should be obvious reasons, and runs about 20 mins behind. The problem is, you have to know which flight it is you're looking at to see its particulars, although you can probably note flights in a particular part of the sky and ID it by searching airline schedules based on origin, destination, and time of day, or by looking for flights into and out of particular airports if you're on one of their corridors.

That said, Sculelos' description still doesn't make a lot of sense.