Proof earth isn't flat! (All you troglodytes read)

Check your image link.  Diagram's not showing up for me.

Uploaded as a bmp instead and added a link.  Maybe that will work.

Quote from: Alchemist21 on September 02, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Check your image link.  Diagram's not showing up for me.

Uploaded as a bmp instead and added a link.  Maybe that will work.

image is squished...

image is squished...

It's 200x30,000 pixels.  Start scrolling to the right and you'll see the black start to drop away and the lines of sight separating.

If it appears as a thin black line, zoom in, then scroll.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 02, 2013, 10:21:16 AM

image is squished...

It's 200x30,000 pixels.  Start scrolling to the right and you'll see the black start to drop away and the lines of sight separating.

If it appears as a thin black line, zoom in, then scroll.

oh it worked.... I had to click the image once it was on my screen cause chrome zoomed out to fit it in the tab.

Looks very nice. I'm sure FE will take this very seriously.

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 24, 2013, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: frozen_berries on August 24, 2013, 04:33:29 AM

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

Funny, when I look out my window I see so much evidence supporting a round earth, and next to nothing to support a flat earth, apart from the appearance of flatness, which could just be (is) due to the earth being a really big ball.

so what evidence do you see that supports the RET when you look our your window?

That this Earth is so big that I cannot determine the shape of it just by looking outside my window.

While we wait for jroa's diagram, here's the rough 200x30,000 pixel diagram I did.  I plotted out points along the curvature from a straight and level line working from the table in ENaG, and then went from point to point connecting them. 

Red= zero elevation line of sight
Green = slight elevation line of sight
Blue = higher elevation line of sight

These lines are straight and don't take refraction into account.
(scroll to the right)

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1945/fbdl.png

How is yours coming along jroa?

What table in ENaG is this?

What table in ENaG is this?

This one.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

For my thousandth post I present the following model of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan. For a refresher, this is the photo I modeled:
That is Chicago, viewed from New Buffalo, around 73 kilometers from the Chicago city center. The positioning of that pier indicates the photo was taken from somewhere around 41.80138° N 86.74707° W from an unknown height of around 11 meters above the surface of the lake.

Note: While completely to-scale, the diagram does make a few approximations. For instance, it assumes the Earth is 6371 km in radius at the plane of the diagram and 40009 km in circumference.

Here's also a key to the diagram:

• The green arc is the Earth.
• Horizon Lines
  • The solid black (the middle) horizontal line is the horizon line for an observer 11 meters above Lake Michigan.
  • The dotted blue (the lowest) horizontal line is the horizon line for an observer ~30 meters above Lake Michigan.
  • The dotted green (the highest) horizontal line is the horizon line for an observer on the surface of Lake Michigan.
• Buildings
  • Buildings are represented by a line segment from their tops to the Earth.
  • Solid lines are buildings whose identities are assured.
  • Dashed lines are buildings whose identities I had to guess and may not reflect actual buildings.
  • Labels
    • The first field is the order in which the buildings appear in the above picture, left to right, followed by a colon ( : )
    • The second field is the identity of the building (see footnotes for explanation of building identities)
    • The third field is the height of the top of the building above the surface of Lake Michigan. This does take into account the fact that the buildings' foundations start on different elevations.
  • Buildings' distances from the observation point are accurate to within a few dozen meters.
• Point T is the point of horizon for the observer O at 11 meters above the lake.
• Point T₁ is the point of horizon for the observer O₁ at ~30 meters above the lake.
• Point O₂ is the point of horizon for the observer O₂ at 0 meters above the lake.

Please click on the images for a full view. Alternatively, right-click and select 'View picture in new tab'.

---

Building Identities
The four tallest buildings in the photo are very easy to identify, and thus have earned the solid line in the diagrams. The smaller buildings are much more difficult, and I really have no clue as to their actual identities. It should be noted that the third building from the left (Franklin Center) appears shorter than the first from the left (311 South Wacker Drive) even though the diagram positions it the other way around. This means that either I have the identities very wrong or there exists some optical effect that distorts the true building sizes.

Note that the dotted green line also acts as a 'horizontal' for Observer O at 11 meters above the lake. Anything below that line means the buildings are actually beneath the photographer.

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

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?

This is because the buildings are so close together. If they were very,very,very far away from each other than you would be able to see them lean away from each other.

This is because the buildings are so close together. If they were very,very,very far away from each other than you would be able to see them lean away from each other.

I disagree with you phoenix. Its just too far away too notice and the difference in curvature isn't enough to notice such an effect.

The reason why the horizon doesn't appear to curve is because well... that really doesn't make any sense. No matter where you look at that horizon you are equidistant away from it. If what scepti was proposing were to occur then the horizon behind you would have to be much lower. You can imagine an ant on a basketball and notice that from the ants view, the horizon is always equidistant from the ant. Alex created a nice model in a geometry program that shows the altitudes which you should be able to see the curvature. You can find it the debates section.

This is because the buildings are so close together. If they were very,very,very far away from each other than you would be able to see them lean away from each other.

I'm not buying that for one second. You can't harp on about the curved earth and disappearance and then come up with, "oh they are too close together" to lean, left and right, when you should see an offset from that distance.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 10, 2013, 04:39:32 PM

This is because the buildings are so close together. If they were very,very,very far away from each other than you would be able to see them lean away from each other.

I disagree with you phoenix. Its just too far away too notice and the difference in curvature isn't enough to notice such an effect.

The reason why the horizon doesn't appear to curve is because well... that really doesn't make any sense. No matter where you look at that horizon you are equidistant away from it. If what scepti was proposing were to occur then the horizon behind you would have to be much lower. You can imagine an ant on a basketball and notice that from the ants view, the horizon is always equidistant from the ant. Alex created a nice model in a geometry program that shows the altitudes which you should be able to see the curvature. You can find it the debates section.

Cool! Thanks for that. But either way you would not see the buildings leaning away from each other.

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

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?

You're right, they should. But how much? Assuming each building is built perfectly perpendicular to the Earth's surface, than each should appear to another to be listing away just a little bit.

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 10, 2013, 04:34:22 PM

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

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?

You're right, they should. But how much? Assuming each building is built perfectly perpendicular to the Earth's surface, than each should appear to another to be listing away just a little bit.

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

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

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

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

---

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

Meh, my answer was easier. Just kidding. Thanks for that very precise answer. Keep it up.

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

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 10, 2013, 04:34:22 PM

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

They may be spirit level straight up when your a mile away or a bit more, but not from that distance. Any reason why they are bolt upright, if the earth is a globe?

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

Incorrect goat boy. If it was flat,the entire building would be visible. If its a sphere then any part of the building could be missing and however much that is just depends on the amount of curvature which is derived by the size of the sphere. It's basic geometry.

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

I have no idea why you think they should be under water.

Besides, if you insist on stuff disappearing then it makes no sense that the top of the building is still there.

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

So why are the smaller portions of the buildings visible, but the larger portions not?

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 07:59:18 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

I have no idea why you think they should be under water.

Besides, if you insist on stuff disappearing then it makes no sense that the top of the building is still there.

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 08:05:40 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 07:59:18 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

I have no idea why you think they should be under water.

Besides, if you insist on stuff disappearing then it makes no sense that the top of the building is still there.

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

Exactly. That proves it is round. It says a lot that you can't understand.

Do this for me please. Grab a basketball. Now grab something relatively short like half a tooth pick. Put your up close to the ball and tooth pick. Now, while keeping the tooth pick on the ball like a building to the earth rotate the ball away from but keep your eye right on the surface. You'll notice the tooth leaving your view starting from the bottom.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 08:05:40 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 07:59:18 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

I have no idea why you think they should be under water.

Besides, if you insist on stuff disappearing then it makes no sense that the top of the building is still there.

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

You do know that that is because of distance right?  The curve makes the bottoms disappear before the tops. As you get further away the ground drops more and more and you see less of the buildings (from the bottom up) until you can't see the buildings at all.

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

Actually, Hoppy, I recently did a post that conclusively shows that at least five buildings should be clearly visible above the water. If you have problems with the model please bring them up. The math has been explained about 4 pages back, so you can look there, too, for ideas on where I've obviously messed up.

If buildings disappeared because they were too small to see, why are the thinner tops visible when the thick bottoms have vanished?

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 08:12:27 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 08:05:40 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 07:59:18 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 10, 2013, 07:27:26 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 06:58:08 PM

The biggest problem for me is the fact that, all but one of those buildings should be completely under water. If the earth were a sphere.

The biggest problem for me is (and always has been with these photos) that on a flat earth, the entire skyline should be clearly visible, not just this handful of buildings, which are clearly partially obscured, despite the viewer's elevated position (which would allow him/her to see more of the building than you might think, as has been explained).

Things disappear into the distance. You watch a plane fly by, a couple of minutes later you can't see it. You saw stay up in the air, it just disappears because our vision is not good enough to see something the size of a plane at that distance. Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

I have no idea why you think they should be under water.

Besides, if you insist on stuff disappearing then it makes no sense that the top of the building is still there.

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

You do know that that is because of distance right?  The curve makes the bottoms disappear before the tops. As you get further away the ground drops more and more and you see less of the buildings (from the bottom up) until you can't see the buildings at all.

The only problem with the curve covering up the bottom, is that same curve should have covered the whole building, if it was there.

Quote from: hoppy on September 10, 2013, 08:12:27 PM

Because RET states that they are under water.

It makes no sense to see any part of those buildings, if you think the earth is a sphere.It is similar to ships disappearing in the distance, the bottom disappears first and you can still see the top.

Actually, Hoppy, I recently did a post that conclusively shows that at least five buildings should be clearly visible above the water. If you have problems with the model please bring them up. The math has been explained about 4 pages back, so you can look there, too, for ideas on where I've obviously messed up.

If buildings disappeared because they were too small to see, why are the thinner tops visible when the thick bottoms have vanished?

I already have done the math here, I don't know where you made your mistake. According to RET those buildings would not be visible at all.

I don't understand why you think it would all disappear at once.

---

Building Identities
 It should be noted that the third building from the left (Franklin Center) appears shorter than the first from the left (311 South Wacker Drive) even though the diagram positions it the other way around. This means that either I have the identities very wrong or there exists some optical effect that distorts the true building sizes.

Very nice. 

About that building appearing a different size, is it possible it's a different building?  I'm not sure what year that picture was taken, but the other picture of Chicago from New Buffalo was taken in quite a while ago, and I noticed some newer buildings when I was doing some identification of my own.

Also, was the building elevation above the lake factored into those diagrams?  They average about 20 feet I think.  Or probably not enough to matter?

Now if jroa could post his diagram.

I already have done the math here, I don't know where you made your mistake. According to RET those buildings would not be visible at all.

Thanks for posting that so we can check it! It's really helpful, and conducive to cooperation. Though you may be right. I remember when I was walking down a hill, the moment the base of a tree was covered by the hill the entire thing vanished.