How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 02:36:40 PM

Nope. For an infinite Earth, the horizon will be at eye level, regardless of altitude. For a finite one it will be slightly below.

Infinate - If your eye is stuck to the floor yes.  If im 1 mile up the horizion can NOT at my eye level as my eye level is one mile up and the horizion is one mile below me..

So you don't understand angles?
The apparent angle of the horizon can be calculated using simple math (more complex when dealing with a round Earth and measuring height off it).
If you are at a height of h, and the horizon is d distance away (same units), then the angle of depression to the horizon is given by atan(h/d).

So even with a height of 100 million miles, d, by virtue of being infinite will still be much much much much larger, and you will end up with atan(0)=0.

So for an infinite flat Earth, it doesn't matter how high you are, the horizon will always be at an angle of 0, i.e. at your eye level.

For a finite flat Earth, the horizon will vary depending on your location, and thus wont be a perfect circle all around unless you are at the pole in the centre.

Nope want a drawing your confusing eye level with angle of sight. if eye is ABOVE height of horizon looking parallel to ground then its pointing out to SPACE not towards the floor, out to space eg infinity,black, dark which creates a horizion BELOW eye level. 

Draw it.

Nope want a drawing your confusing eye level with angle of sight. if eye is ABOVE height of horizon looking parallel to ground then its pointing out to SPACE not towards the floor, out to space eg infinity,black, dark which creates a horizion BELOW eye level. 

Draw it.

So you want me to draw something that is infinite distance?

I'm not confusing anything.
If an object is at "eye-level" it means the angle to the eye is 0. If the angle to the eye is 0, it means it is at eye-level.
It means you don't need to look up or down for it to be in your centre of vision.

Thus, the horizon, on an infinite plane Earth, will be at eye level, aka at an angle of depression of 0.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 03:19:42 PM

Nope want a drawing your confusing eye level with angle of sight. if eye is ABOVE height of horizon looking parallel to ground then its pointing out to SPACE not towards the floor, out to space eg infinity,black, dark which creates a horizion BELOW eye level. 

Draw it.

So you want me to draw something that is infinite distance?

I'm not confusing anything.
If an object is at "eye-level" it means the angle to the eye is 0. If the angle to the eye is 0, it means it is at eye-level.
It means you don't need to look up or down for it to be in your centre of vision.

Thus, the horizon, on an infinite plane Earth, will be at eye level, aka at an angle of depression of 0.

Yes the angle is 0 for something thats level never said is was not. both eye and ground are 0 CORRECT.
You said clearly with eye at ANY height the horizion will be at eye level? go read it.

here explain how the red line line of sight will ever hit the horizon, these lines will infinitely project left and right and will NEVER cross or touch ?



Distance between two parallel lines projected to infinity will NEVER = 0,  your not getting this concept.

Yes the angle is 0 for something thats level never said is was not. both eye and ground are 0 CORRECT.
You said clearly with eye at ANY height the horizion will be at eye level? go read it.

Yes, I said that. And that means the angle between the eye and the horizon will be 0 and you will not need to look down to see the horizon.

here explain how the red line line of sight will ever hit the horizon, these lines will infinitely project left and right and will NEVER cross or touch ?

At infinite distance, they will touch, as it infinite distance, the angle between the point on the ground below you and your eyes will be 0.

Distance between two parallel lines projected to infinity will NEVER = 0,  your not getting this concept.

No. You aren't getting the concept of infinity and what happens to parallel lines at infinite distance.

A parabola is an ellipse with one focus at infinite distance.
This means that lines which are drawn from one focus (the close one), which reflect off the parabola will be parallel and intersect at infinite distance.

When you get to infinity, lots of normal bits of math break.

But I do notice how you are going completely off on a tangent rather than admitting your initial failure.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:04:30 PM

Yes the angle is 0 for something thats level never said is was not. both eye and ground are 0 CORRECT.
You said clearly with eye at ANY height the horizion will be at eye level? go read it.

Yes, I said that. And that means the angle between the eye and the horizon will be 0 and you will not need to look down to see the horizon.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:04:30 PM

here explain how the red line line of sight will ever hit the horizon, these lines will infinitely project left and right and will NEVER cross or touch ?

At infinite distance, they will touch, as it infinite distance, the angle between the point on the ground below you and your eyes will be 0.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:04:30 PM

Distance between two parallel lines projected to infinity will NEVER = 0,  your not getting this concept.

No. You aren't getting the concept of infinity and what happens to parallel lines at infinite distance.

A parabola is an ellipse with one focus at infinite distance.
This means that lines which are drawn from one focus (the close one), which reflect off the parabola will be parallel and intersect at infinite distance.

When you get to infinity, lots of normal bits of math break.

But I do notice how you are going completely off on a tangent rather than admitting your initial failure.

I am not going off topic you are ? Two parallel lines will never touch end of story forget the math as like you said strange things happen.

Use logic not math. Any man at any point in infinity can get a tape measure out and measure those lines and the distance between them will be the same, they DO NOT touch ever and because they dont touch you are wrong.

Math is not the answer to everything and on this problem it fails. lots of normal bits of math break

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on March 28, 2017, 08:12:26 AM

Wow this is bullshit. Four pages in, and the answer I get is...

Me: How high do I have to fly to see the curve of Earth.

Paid shills: Yes, you can.

No comment on the picture above?

An image of a curved horizon proves nothing, all it shows is part of a bigger circle that is fixed due to the limit of the cameras cone or field of view, this could be an image of a ball,disc,bowl, and a few more funny shapes.

A single image with a curved horizion could be an image of FE or BE and in NO way proves ball earth.

BUT
A series of images of ball earth spinning pretty much seals the deal for BE win as the image set will eventually wrap around and repeat in a never ending loop eventually no matter how far you are from earth. 

Getting my bro who is OXBridge to help me on the distance but I think we are 100% abusing our use of the word horizon and applying it in the wrong context when we look at ball earth and curvature. BE FE and HE Horizonless earth    

I am not going off topic you are ?

Yes, you are.
You claimed that a finite and infinite plane Earth and a ball Earth would look identical.
That is wrong.
Rather than address that, you instead focus on what happens to parallel lines at infinity.

Two parallel lines will never touch end of story forget the math as like you said strange things happen.

Two FINITE paralel lines will never touch, but we are not dealing with finite. I'm not going to forget the math just because you don't like it.

It has an angle of depression of 0 degrees. That means the line connecting your eye to the horizon is parallel to the line connecting the ground to the horizon. That is because there is no angular offset between them.
The line connecting your eye to the horizon must touch the line connecting the ground to the horizon.
As such, at infintie distance these parallel lines must touch.
If they didn't the line to the horizon couldn't be at an angle of 0.
Yes, it is strange.

Use logic not math. Any man at any point in infinity can get a tape measure out and measure those lines and the distance between them will be the same, they DO NOT touch ever and because they dont touch you are wrong.

Except infinity is yet to be shown to exist in reality.
Math is also what is used to describe parallel lines and angles and distances and so on.
So you want me to forget that the lines are parallel and distances. But then how are they measuring distances.

Also, at any distance, this person is still only a finite distance away. They will never reach an infinite distance to be able to see if they touch, there will always be more to go.

So no, you are the one that is wrong here.

Math is not the answer to everything and on this problem it fails. lots of normal bits of math break

So how about you get back to the topic rather than going off on a tangent?

An image of a curved horizon proves nothing, all it shows is part of a bigger circle that is fixed due to the limit of the cameras cone or field of view, this could be an image of a ball,disc,bowl, and a few more funny shapes.

No. It doesn't simply show it is part of a bigger circle.
It is not due to the limit of the cameras FOV.
It could be the image of a disc, if it was the entire disc. But it isn't.
Yes, it could be some other shapes, such as the back of a curved bowl, but it couldn't be one of a flat Earth.

A single image with a curved horizion could be an image of FE or BE and in NO way proves ball earth.

No. It couldn't. If it was an image of the FE it would show all of it up to the edge.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:37:16 PM

I am not going off topic you are ?

Yes, you are.
You claimed that a finite and infinite plane Earth and a ball Earth would look identical.
That is wrong.
Rather than address that, you instead focus on what happens to parallel lines at infinity.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:37:16 PM

Two parallel lines will never touch end of story forget the math as like you said strange things happen.

Two FINITE paralel lines will never touch, but we are not dealing with finite. I'm not going to forget the math just because you don't like it.

It has an angle of depression of 0 degrees. That means the line connecting your eye to the horizon is parallel to the line connecting the ground to the horizon. That is because there is no angular offset between them.
The line connecting your eye to the horizon must touch the line connecting the ground to the horizon.
As such, at infintie distance these parallel lines must touch.
If they didn't the line to the horizon couldn't be at an angle of 0.
Yes, it is strange.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:37:16 PM

Use logic not math. Any man at any point in infinity can get a tape measure out and measure those lines and the distance between them will be the same, they DO NOT touch ever and because they dont touch you are wrong.

Except infinity is yet to be shown to exist in reality.
Math is also what is used to describe parallel lines and angles and distances and so on.
So you want me to forget that the lines are parallel and distances. But then how are they measuring distances.

Also, at any distance, this person is still only a finite distance away. They will never reach an infinite distance to be able to see if they touch, there will always be more to go.

So no, you are the one that is wrong here.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:37:16 PM

Math is not the answer to everything and on this problem it fails. lots of normal bits of math break

So how about you get back to the topic rather than going off on a tangent?

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 05:11:51 PM

An image of a curved horizon proves nothing, all it shows is part of a bigger circle that is fixed due to the limit of the cameras cone or field of view, this could be an image of a ball,disc,bowl, and a few more funny shapes.

No. It doesn't simply show it is part of a bigger circle.
It is not due to the limit of the cameras FOV.
It could be the image of a disc, if it was the entire disc. But it isn't.
Yes, it could be some other shapes, such as the back of a curved bowl, but it couldn't be one of a flat Earth.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 01, 2017, 04:37:16 PM

A single image with a curved horizion could be an image of FE or BE and in NO way proves ball earth.

No. It couldn't. If it was an image of the FE it would show all of it up to the edge.

Your wrong and you 100% know why, dont muddy a simple problem with parabola crap where its not needed.

your unwilling to accept logic over a broken equation you are 100% aware of so fine. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)

In geometry, parallel lines are lines in a plane which do not meet; that is, two lines in a plane that do not intersect or touch each other at any point are said to be parallel. By extension, a line and a plane, or two planes, in three-dimensional Euclidean space that do not share a point are said to be parallel. However, two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines. Parallel planes are planes in the same three-dimensional space that never meet.

Its your unwillingness to accept reality in the real world (adopting your elipticle geometry/math to a nonelliptical problem)  that has lengthened this post somewhat.

on your logic an infinite FE with a crust 1 Mile thick will eventually taper off to  0 ? lol get a grip and admit your wrong,
Tangent ? The whole reason we needed to go through this was YOU raised the need for it with your insane reasoning about what a 180POV Image would look like on a Infinite FE at high alt.

I say you would 100% see a circle, you claim we would see no circle.  one of us is wrong and its all down to how parallel lines work in the real world NOT a mathematically insane conclusion that results in your IMPOSSIBLE outcome. 

your version: eye level = horizon level. This new magic line is at 90 deg and so is the limit of the 180 camera, so you have NO horizon on your image? your image must be completely full of land with no sky. ?

my version = A ring like this >> 
The only way to get that ring is if the Eye level is above the horizon.

Im proper worried you are turning to the darkside with your broken logic and crappy formula which does not even apply to the problem at hand, perhaps your spending too much time on this forum?

Your wrong and you 100% know why, dont muddy a simple problem with parabola crap where its not needed.

No. I'm right and you just keep coming up with excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong.
You were even the one that brought up parallel lines where they weren't needed.

your unwilling to accept logic over a broken equation you are 100% aware of so fine. 

Nope. Not a broken equation, and I am willing to accept logic, logic which you reject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)

Considering you want to use wikipedia, how about this, a method of generating a parallel line to l:
"Property 2: Take a random line through a that intersects l in x. Move point x to infinity."

So to make a parallel line, you start with the lines intersecting and move the point of intersection to infinity.

In geometry, parallel lines are lines in a plane which do not meet; that is, two lines in a plane that do not intersect or touch each other at any point are said to be parallel.

Any point you try to make will be finite and thus it does not describe infinity.

Its your unwillingness to accept reality in the real world (adopting your elipticle geometry/math to a nonelliptical problem)  that has lengthened this post somewhat.

No. It is your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong over a simple point that is causing you to bring up so much crap.
I was using ellipses and parabolas to indicate that parallel lines do meet at infinity.

on your logic an infinite FE with a crust 1 Mile thick will eventually taper off to  0 ?

No. Eventually is not infinity. There is a difference.

lol get a grip and admit your wrong,

Good advice. Perhaps you should follow it and admit you were wrong about where the horizon is for an infinite plane Earth?

Tangent ? The whole reason we needed to go through this was YOU raised the need for it with your insane reasoning about what a 180POV Image would look like on a Infinite FE at high alt.

Nope. Not my insane reasoning at all. It is your determination to try and back up your false claim we can't learn what shape Earth is from a picture rather than admit you were wrong.

There is nothing insane about my reasoning at all.
Did you notice that your entire attack has been focused on my comment about eye-level, parallel and so on, rather than trying to deal with the actual argument at all?

I say you would 100% see a circle, you claim we would see no circle.  one of us is wrong and its all down to how parallel lines work in the real world NOT a mathematically insane conclusion that results in your IMPOSSIBLE outcome.

Where did I say you wouldn't see a circle?
I pointed out that for an infinite flat Earth the horizon would remain at eye-level, i.e. 0 degrees angle of depression.
You claimed there would be no difference between an infinite and finite flat Earth.

In the real world there is no infinite plane, so no, it isn't about how parallel lines work in our world of finite objects. 

your version: eye level = horizon level. This new magic line is at 90 deg and so is the limit of the 180 camera, so you have NO horizon on your image? your image must be completely full of land with no sky. ?

Yes. For a 180 degree image, centred straight down, for an infinite plane, there would be no sky. That is because regardless of where you looked in that 180 FOV, there would be land.
And that remains the case, regardless of if the camera is 1 mm above Earth, or 1 light year above it.

my version = A ring like this >> 
The only way to get that ring is if the Eye level is above the horizon.

Then that isn't an accurate depiction of an infinite flat Earth. Also notice how it says 360 FOV. Got one which is just 180? It also says ball, not infinite flat disc.
If it was a 180 degree projection of an infinite plane, the edge of the circle would be the edge of the camera's FOV, it would touch the edge of the picture.

Im proper worried you are turning to the darkside with your broken logic and crappy formula which does not even apply to the problem at hand, perhaps your spending too much time on this forum?

Nope. That would be you, with you irrational defence of your insane claims.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

Your wrong and you 100% know why, dont muddy a simple problem with parabola crap where its not needed.

No. I'm right and you just keep coming up with excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong.
You were even the one that brought up parallel lines where they weren't needed.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

your unwilling to accept logic over a broken equation you are 100% aware of so fine. 

Nope. Not a broken equation, and I am willing to accept logic, logic which you reject.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)

Considering you want to use wikipedia, how about this, a method of generating a parallel line to l:
"Property 2: Take a random line through a that intersects l in x. Move point x to infinity."

So to make a parallel line, you start with the lines intersecting and move the point of intersection to infinity.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

In geometry, parallel lines are lines in a plane which do not meet; that is, two lines in a plane that do not intersect or touch each other at any point are said to be parallel.

Any point you try to make will be finite and thus it does not describe infinity.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

Its your unwillingness to accept reality in the real world (adopting your elipticle geometry/math to a nonelliptical problem)  that has lengthened this post somewhat.

No. It is your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong over a simple point that is causing you to bring up so much crap.
I was using ellipses and parabolas to indicate that parallel lines do meet at infinity.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

on your logic an infinite FE with a crust 1 Mile thick will eventually taper off to  0 ?

No. Eventually is not infinity. There is a difference.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

lol get a grip and admit your wrong,

Good advice. Perhaps you should follow it and admit you were wrong about where the horizon is for an infinite plane Earth?

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

Tangent ? The whole reason we needed to go through this was YOU raised the need for it with your insane reasoning about what a 180POV Image would look like on a Infinite FE at high alt.

Nope. Not my insane reasoning at all. It is your determination to try and back up your false claim we can't learn what shape Earth is from a picture rather than admit you were wrong.

There is nothing insane about my reasoning at all.
Did you notice that your entire attack has been focused on my comment about eye-level, parallel and so on, rather than trying to deal with the actual argument at all?

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

I say you would 100% see a circle, you claim we would see no circle.  one of us is wrong and its all down to how parallel lines work in the real world NOT a mathematically insane conclusion that results in your IMPOSSIBLE outcome.

Where did I say you wouldn't see a circle?
I pointed out that for an infinite flat Earth the horizon would remain at eye-level, i.e. 0 degrees angle of depression.
You claimed there would be no difference between an infinite and finite flat Earth.

In the real world there is no infinite plane, so no, it isn't about how parallel lines work in our world of finite objects. 

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

your version: eye level = horizon level. This new magic line is at 90 deg and so is the limit of the 180 camera, so you have NO horizon on your image? your image must be completely full of land with no sky. ?

Yes. For a 180 degree image, centred straight down, for an infinite plane, there would be no sky. That is because regardless of where you looked in that 180 FOV, there would be land.
And that remains the case, regardless of if the camera is 1 mm above Earth, or 1 light year above it.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

my version = A ring like this >> 
The only way to get that ring is if the Eye level is above the horizon.

Then that isn't an accurate depiction of an infinite flat Earth. Also notice how it says 360 FOV. Got one which is just 180? It also says ball, not infinite flat disc.
If it was a 180 degree projection of an infinite plane, the edge of the circle would be the edge of the camera's FOV, it would touch the edge of the picture.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 02, 2017, 06:13:59 PM

Im proper worried you are turning to the darkside with your broken logic and crappy formula which does not even apply to the problem at hand, perhaps your spending too much time on this forum?

Nope. That would be you, with you irrational defence of your insane claims.

insane claims    get you finger out.
No i posted proof of your error by way of image and a wiki link. It takes a pretty sad person to right click an image and then pretend i used that "360" somewhere in ANY way. I state 180 very clearly. bizarre I should of named it "grass-hole" 

You are  twisting words instead of agreeing my two lines I drew will NEVER touch and my image of what a 180POV Image on an infinite plane based on my two lines that will never touch would look like is 100% correct.

I dont care about math in this situation, your abusing math to win in a situation where it CANT WIN it fails.
 
You failed I seriously can think of no good reason you would keep it up ?

dont skim read, read.
In geometry, parallel lines are lines in a plane which do not meet; that is, two lines in a plane that do not intersect or touch each other at any point are said to be parallel. By extension, a line and a plane, or two planes, in three-dimensional Euclidean space that do not share a point are said to be parallel. However, two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines. Parallel planes are planes in the same three-dimensional space that never meet.

Parallel lines are the subject of Euclid's parallel postulate.[1] Parallelism is primarily a property of affine geometries and Euclidean space is a special instance of this type of geometry. Some other spaces, such as hyperbolic space, have analogous properties that are sometimes referred to as parallelism.

Thanks -   one more time just for fun 180 FOV Infinite fe, 1pico m above FE.
 


(except for people with big cars, they would not see a circle)

insane claims    get you finger out.
No i posted proof of your error by way of image and a wiki link.

Except the wiki supports me. So no, you didn't post proof of your error, you have been avoiding your own error.

It takes a pretty sad person to right click an image and then pretend i used that "360" somewhere in ANY way. I state 180 very clearly. bizarre I should of named it "grass-hole" 

I don't care what you state. That doesn't change the fact that it is either not a 180 degree FOV image of a infinite plane, or it has extra black added around it.
I didn't right click it. I saw it when I quoted it.

How about instead of using a crappy image you actually try and respond to what I have said?

You are  twisting words instead of agreeing my two lines I drew will NEVER touch and my image of what a 180POV Image on an infinite plane based on my two lines that will never touch would look like is 100% correct.

They will never touch after a finite distance. They will converge/intersect at infinite distance.
If your image was based upon your ignorance of how lines behave it will likely be wrong.

I dont care about math in this situation, your abusing math to win in a situation where it CANT WIN it fails.

Then don't bother discusing images with any FOV, taken at any altitude or anything of the like, as it all uses math.
Don't bother discussing parallel lines or geometry or the like, as it all uses math/is math.
I'm not abusing math, I'm just explaining what it indicates. You are ignoring it and doing whatever you can to hide from it so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
 

You failed I seriously can think of no good reason you would keep it up ?

Because unlike you, I care about the truth, and thus will keep refuting your bullshit.

dont skim read, read.

I did. Did you?

Here it is again:
"The problem: Draw a line through a parallel to l."
"Take a random line through a that intersects l in x. Move point x to infinity."
Lots of properties people discuss about things will only hold in finite terms, not infinite terms.

In general planes and spaces, there is no infinity.
As the plane does not have a point at infinity (each point is finite) parallel lines drawn in it wont meet.

Thanks -   one more time just for fun 180 FOV Infinite fe, 1pico m above FE.
 


(except for people with big cars, they would not see a circle)

And what constitutes 180 degrees here? Is it the edge of the white circle? If so, why is there black space around it?
Are you sure it isn't a 360 degree FOV?

And why wouldn't people with big cars see a circle?

Seems like you're both kind of wrong.  Or more generously, both kind of right.

One of you says two parallel lines will never meet.  The other says they will meet at an infinite distance.  It's the same thing.  Granted, "meeting at an infinite distance" is only one particular way for lines to "never meet", but that's the one you're talking about--parallel lines.

That said, it means the horizon on a flat earth would be not exactly at eye level, but infinitely close to it.  Again same thing in practical terms, though perhaps not in mathematically rigorous terms.

Seems like you're both kind of wrong.  Or more generously, both kind of right.

One of you says two parallel lines will never meet.  The other says they will meet at an infinite distance.  It's the same thing.  Granted, "meeting at an infinite distance" is only one particular way for lines to "never meet", but that's the one you're talking about--parallel lines.

That said, it means the horizon on a flat earth would be not exactly at eye level, but infinitely close to it.  Again same thing in practical terms, though perhaps not in mathematically rigorous terms.

Using plain geometry the lines never meet, hes applying math that does not apply to parallel planes in the real world as we know it and applying them to math which joins them at some point "infinity" the 0 point at infinity is only used to clean the math up and make impossible calcs resolve in other branches of geometry, else the calc would never end.

I have said from the start hes abusing math and applying it where its not necessary or needed to come to a valid answer.
 Any person knows its incorrect just based on logic alone,

In my world i can measure the distance between those lines at any distance and it will be the same, in his world they will decrease slowly over (X) unknown distance and eventually touch, which is mathematical nonsense.

Which world do we live in his or mine ?   

 

That said, it means the horizon on a flat earth would be not exactly at eye level, but infinitely close to it.  Again same thing in practical terms, though perhaps not in mathematically rigorous terms.

The issue is that we were discussing an infinite flat Earth, not a finite one.

Yes, discussing infinities can get tricky.

Using plain geometry the lines never meet, hes applying math that does not apply to parallel planes in the real world as we know it and applying them to math which joins them at some point "infinity" the 0 point at infinity is only used to clean the math up and make impossible calcs resolve in other branches of geometry, else the calc would never end.

Using finite space, the lines never meet. But we are not discussing finite space. We are discussing a hypothetical infinite Earth.

I was using geometry from planes, just allowing them to be infinite planes. It is all in the same branch of geometry.

You also keep bringing up the real world when we are discussing something that isn't in the real world. The real world consists of finite objects, not infinite objects.

And remember, you were the one that decided to bring all the math into it.

I have said from the start hes abusing math and applying it where its not necessary or needed to come to a valid answer.
 Any person knows its incorrect just based on logic alone,

Not quite. The correct answer uses math as it is a mathematical answer, but it can be found based primarily based upon logic. For an infinite plane Earth, whatever finite distance you are above it, the horizon will always have an angle of depression of 0.

You were the one that ignored that and decided to bring more math into it.

In my world i can measure the distance between those lines at any distance and it will be the same,

And at any spot you do so, you will still only be a finite distance away from the centre. There will always be more distance to go. It will be impossible to reach the point at infinity where they finally intersect.

in his world they will decrease slowly over (X) unknown distance and eventually touch, which is mathematical nonsense.

Nope. In "my world" they remain the same distance apart at any finite distance and eventually touch at infinity. It is no more mathematical nonsense than infinity itself.

Which world do we live in his or mine ?

Neither.
We live in a world which has a finite round Earth, not an infinite plane Earth.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 03, 2017, 01:24:29 PM

Using plain geometry the lines never meet, hes applying math that does not apply to parallel planes in the real world as we know it and applying them to math which joins them at some point "infinity" the 0 point at infinity is only used to clean the math up and make impossible calcs resolve in other branches of geometry, else the calc would never end.

Using finite space, the lines never meet. But we are not discussing finite space. We are discussing a hypothetical infinite Earth.

I was using geometry from planes, just allowing them to be infinite planes. It is all in the same branch of geometry.

You also keep bringing up the real world when we are discussing something that isn't in the real world. The real world consists of finite objects, not infinite objects.

And remember, you were the one that decided to bring all the math into it.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 03, 2017, 01:24:29 PM

I have said from the start hes abusing math and applying it where its not necessary or needed to come to a valid answer.
 Any person knows its incorrect just based on logic alone,

Not quite. The correct answer uses math as it is a mathematical answer, but it can be found based primarily based upon logic. For an infinite plane Earth, whatever finite distance you are above it, the horizon will always have an angle of depression of 0.

You were the one that ignored that and decided to bring more math into it.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 03, 2017, 01:24:29 PM

In my world i can measure the distance between those lines at any distance and it will be the same,

And at any spot you do so, you will still only be a finite distance away from the centre. There will always be more distance to go. It will be impossible to reach the point at infinity where they finally intersect.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 03, 2017, 01:24:29 PM

in his world they will decrease slowly over (X) unknown distance and eventually touch, which is mathematical nonsense.

Nope. In "my world" they remain the same distance apart at any finite distance and eventually touch at infinity. It is no more mathematical nonsense than infinity itself.

Quote from: Semnomic on April 03, 2017, 01:24:29 PM

Which world do we live in his or mine ?

Neither.
We live in a world which has a finite round Earth, not an infinite plane Earth.

Nope you came up with the 0 angle thing not me, you brought math into it. go check
I say it will never be 0.
We live in a world which has a finite round Earth, not an infinite plane Earth.
You then backtrack change the topic constantly  I am CLEARLY talking about infinite plain earth and what very amusing is so are you, your 100% aware then you flip flop.? pretty dishonest.

 
How many times are you going back track ?

Your abusing the math in an attempt to be right, its so obvious.

I have only ever come across this once before, it was a guy who gave me a diameter of a circle and asked me to work out the circumference.
I gave him the answer, he sad "NOPE!!"

he then went on to explain the circumference of the circle is an infinite number as TT is used to resolve it and because TT is infinite so is the answer.

This is the very reason we round up/down, to stop moronic suggestions of this nature   

reverse the problem, lets see how you would cope with two parallel lines touching at infinity separating themselves @ infinity in opposite direction.

If you show me that math i will stand down.

Nope you came up with the 0 angle thing not me, you brought math into it. go check
I say it will never be 0.

Yes, I pointed out the angle would be 0.
You then brought in a bunch of math rather than just admit that.

We live in a world which has a finite round Earth, not an infinite plane Earth.
You then backtrack change the topic constantly  I am CLEARLY talking about infinite plain earth and what very amusing is so are you, your 100% aware then you flip flop.? pretty dishonest.

No. I'm not back tracking. I'm pointing out you cannot use facts from the real world of finite objects to discuss a hypothetical world with infinite objects.

Stop trying to bring reality into this fictional world.

How many times are you going back track ?

None.

Your abusing the math in an attempt to be right, its so obvious.

Nope. I'm not abusing it at all.
You are abusing it and trying to apply math which works in finite space to something that is infinite.

This is the very reason we round up/down, to stop moronic suggestions of this nature   

And how do you plan to round infinity?
Rounding means the angle will be 0 and thus the horizon will be at eye level.

reverse the problem, lets see how you would cope with two parallel lines touching at infinity separating themselves @ infinity in opposite direction.

Why would they separate themselves @ infinity in the opposite direction?

You really don't understand parallel lines and infinity do you?

? Why would they separate themselves @ infinity in the opposite direction?

Because you have them touching in one direction I would expect the formula to work in reverse? no ? I guess it has a flaw.
you are using the wrong branch of geometry, dont know which one? 

I will leave it at that as your never going to back off so - magic shrinking man whos eyeball hits the floor at infinity it is. Wait a minute that creates a new problem when he looks back how tall is his wife?


 

? Why would they separate themselves @ infinity in the opposite direction?

Because you have them touching in one direction I would expect the formula to work in reverse? no ? I guess it has a flaw.

Nope. It works exactly the same in the opposite direction.
In the opposite direction, the angle between the ground at your feet and your eye, at infinite distance, is 0.
The parallel lines intersect in both directions.
It is akin to an isosceles triangle, where the equal angles are 0 degrees, the remaining angle (at your eye) is 180 degrees and the lines are of infinite length. (it being an isosceles triangle with lines of infinite length is enough).

you are using the wrong branch of geometry, dont know which one?

Nope. That would be you.
You are using geometry which deals with finite objects only to try and deal with an infinite object.

I am using geometry which allows infinite lengths and accepts the consequences of them.
 

I will leave it at that as your never going to back off so - magic shrinking man whos eyeball hits the floor at infinity it is. Wait a minute that creates a new problem when he looks back how tall is his wife?

No. Not a magic shrinking man.
It will only intersect at infinite distance, a distance which is impossible to reach.
Wherever this man is, he will always have further to go.


If you want to leave it at that, then perhaps we can get back to the main point?

Do you accept that with a 180 degree FOV image, pointing straight down at an infinite plane Earth, you will just see land as the horizon will be at an angle of 0 degrees all around, unlike a finite flat Earth or round Earth where you will see at least a small section of sky (which may be imperceptible or not captured by the resolution of the camera) as the angle of depression will be greater than 0?

You can't go 990km high. You can use sensitive equipment to measure the dip. The angle of dip of the horizon as seen from the top of mount Everest is just over 3 degrees. The earth is huge. You really need to get out of earth to observe its curvature.

You give me a height and I'll give you by what angle the horizon will drop. You can then do careful measurements to come to an answer.

This is one of the fundamental problem with FEers. They don't understand that the curvature of the earth isn't obvious from the surface of the earth. You need to go very high to see it.

My wife took this yesterday flying at about 38,000 feet.  Doesn't look flat to me but I can already hear the curved window skeptics.

Wow.

Walls of texts saying NOTHING!

So who else thinks a balloon launched from sea level to 38,000 ft will capture the curve of Earth?

Walls of texts saying NOTHING!

So who else thinks a balloon launched from sea level to 38,000 ft will capture the curve of Earth?

No. They can say quite a lot.
You just don't seem to want to comprehend them.
It will depend on a multitude of factors, including things like FOV.
If you are viewing Earth through a tiny window from some distance, you aren't going to see the curve.

More evasion.

Earth is flat.

There is no height you can see the Earths curve, it doesnt exist.

You're not going to see curvature on the horizon anywhere on earth. In fact that's not even possible. When we look out at the horizon, we're not seeing the edge of the globe (yes, even flying at 100k ft). We're not even seeing a straight line that runs left to right. What we're seeing is simply part of a continuous horizontal circle called the "horizon" that extends around us for 360 degrees. It may look like we're seeing a straight line that runs left and right perpendicular to us when we're viewing it, say from a shoreline (where there are natural barriers that give it the appearance of a straight line). But that notion of the left-to-right straight line quickly vanishes once we take a row boat out to open sea -- or a plane to 100k ft -- where it becomes clear the horizon is just a flat, continuous 360-degree circle around us.

Regardless of where you are geographically on a sphere, you will always be standing (or flying) at the top-center of that sphere. As such, all curvature for 360 degrees around you necessarily extends OUTWARD and AWAY from that top-center point. And since that curvature eventually enters the "hidden area" (the area beyond the vertical and downward curvature) there is no way to view anything beyond it.

Let's say you are standing on a flat plain with unobstructed views for 360 degrees. And lets assume for the sake of argument that we should be seeing curvature if the earth is a sphere:

Now you face east and see curvature at the horizon -- viz., the line of the horizon resembles an "arc" with the peak of that arc at the center of the horizon, with the north and south ends of that horizon line "dipping" downward ...

So you follow the "downhill" end that heads north to see just where that line "ends." To do so you must turn to your left to follow it (remember, the horizon is a 360 circle), and now that same horizon line is traveling west.

Now let's stop and think for a moment: If the earth is a sphere, should you expect to see a second curve that runs east and west as you face north? (here's a simple pictorial to help illustrate the attendant physical dilemma this creates): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3HCADUuWwrMd1JrSm80UlFKM0E)

If so, we now have a problem. We now have TWO "arcs" -- one as we face east, and another as we face north. So now we should have a "valley" in the NE corner between those two hills, shouldn't we?

As you ponder what you should be seeing in the NE corner it occurs to you to turn in that direction and face NE. So now you're looking at the NE horizon with lines traveling NW and SE, and since (according to the FE lynchpin argument) you should be able to see curvature on the horizon no matter which direction you turn, you now see a third "arc" -- a NE-horizon arc, in addition to the earlier east-horizon arc and north-horizon arc.

In other words, what you logically "expected" to see was a valley but it turned out to be another arc. So now you're stuck with THREE arcs with TWO valleys separating them. But then as soon as you turn to one of those valleys you now have created a brand new horizon line and -- oops -- what you thought would be a valley is just another "arc." In fact, at every point where you think you should be seeing the "downhill" lines of an arc, it becomes part of the arc itself as soon as you turn in that direction, effectively cancelling out any possibility of "seeing" an arc-shaped curvature on the horizon.

It's impossible to see "arc" curvature on the horizon when you are standing on or even flying over top-dead center of a giant sphere because you're not actually seeing the edge of the sphere -- all you're seeing is a VERY small 360-degree horizontal circular area at the top-center of the sphere that we call the "horizon."  It will simply appear to be a flat plain to you.

To illustrate that point, just imagine yourself standing atop a domed surface (say the Houston Astrodome). Now shrink yourself down to one-millionth your current size. Now scan the horizon around you in every direction. What do you think you would see?

Curvature?

Nope.

You would simply see a 360-degree view of a giant flat plain, period. It would appear to you that the surface is flat in all directions. You're simply too tiny to see the descending curvature of the dome even though you know it's there.

So, when an FEer asks to see curvature on the horizon, I always respond by asking, Which horizon? The one in the east? West? North? South? NE? NNE? NNNE? NEE? NEEE? Which one exactly, because the minute you identify a direction I'm just going to ask you to turn 1 degree to your left to create a new horizon, and whatever "arc" you've created with your horizon will quickly be canceled out by creating 359 rival arcs on 359 rival horizons. Claiming that because we don't see curvature on the horizon is frankly a silly argument because it assumes a physical absurdity.

The fact that you can see an increased distance the higher up you go proves the earth is not flat. If the earth were flat, you would see the same distance, whether your on the ground or 50km up or whatever

Easy there, they have "reasons" for that too.  Air density decreasing as you increase in altitude supposedly allows you to see farther.

More evasion.

Earth is flat.

There is no height you can see the Earths curve, it doesnt exist.

No. Not more evasion, just simple facts.

Try viewing it from 150 000 km, you will be able to see it then.

Regardless, you can notice the effects of curvature from quite low.
The mere existence of the horizon, with it being a sharp line, instead of Earth just fading into the distance as you look further away, is one such effect.
So no, it does exist, it is real, Earth is curved.

More evasion.

Earth is flat.

There is no height you can see the Earths curve, it doesnt exist.

More evasion.

Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

You claim with no justification "There is no height you can see the Earths curve, it doesnt exist", but a little can be seen in this video
This one has a bit of curvature,  and it is from this society's Wiki:
And this shows a complete circle!
 Of course, like all totally Indoctrinated Flat Earthers, you will claim that all evidence against you pet theory is faked!

Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 13, 2017, 03:55:57 AM

Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.

i never saw one evidence here that is true