The Horizon On A Flat Earth

Hey guys, someone posted a USN calculation for lookouts to spot the horizon distance or something along those lines, and one of the things was a constant, can someone explain to me how the constant was derived because it's it's about curvature then you can easily adapt that Equation for flat earth, but replacing it with either a 1 if the constant is a ratio, or zero if it's just a number

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

Then why don't the sun and moon change size as they "move" towards the horizon and then appear to sink behind it?
 
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!


Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!


And the moon does the same thing, as in The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon, « on: September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

The sun and moon are just as much subject to perspective as all other objects,
Any logical Flat Earth explanations.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

Then why don't the sun and moon change size as they "move" towards the horizon and then appear to sink behind it?
 
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

And the moon does the same thing, as in The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon, « on: September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

The sun and moon are just as much subject to perspective as all other objects,

but being so large and so far away, their apparent change in size is very small.

Any logical Flat Earth explanations.

This is the best I can come up with -
the sun and moon shrink a little on the way to the horizon, mostly as they near it.
The reason why they don't continue to shrink into a dot before fading from view is twofold.

One, gravity + refraction.
Gravity has a tendency to pull light down.
The reason why we don't normally notice this is because earthbound objects are never visible for more than several miles away from us, because they're relatively small and low, where as the sun and moon are relatively big and high.
The further an object gets, the further its light has to travel through the atmosphere against gravity on the way to your eyes, the more it gets weighed down by gravity, until its light doesn't reach your eyes at all, and disappears from view, bottom first.
The same principle might apply to boats appearing to sink beneath the horizon.

The second reason why it doesn't shrink into a dot is because of how big it is, even if the light emanating from it weren't gradually pulled down by gravity and obfuscated by atmospheric refraction, which mind you is thicker nearer to the ground, because the sun is so big, and because it doesn't travel far enough, it would never appear as a dot in the sky, same with the moon, perhaps it'd appear two to three times smaller than it does at the horizon, but not hundreds or thousands of times smaller.

So how can we verify this?
You could fire a laser beam, one that could be visible for miles, at a target several miles away, make sure everything is level and see if the laser is off target, several inches or feet below where it ought to be.
Of course you could use the same experiment to detect curvature directly, and apparently many people have, making it kind of moot.
If a laser can be pulled down a little bit by gravity across a distance of a few kilometers, thousands of kilometers, which is how far the sun and moon are traveling from us + the effect might be multiplicative.

So this theory would suggest that light has mass, and be pulled down by gravity overtime, just a hell of a lot less than even air, and that's why it can be affected by black holes, assuming what they say about black holes can be trusted.

Hey guys, someone posted a USN calculation for lookouts to spot the horizon distance or something along those lines, and one of the things was a constant, can someone explain to me how the constant was derived because it's it's about curvature then you can easily adapt that Equation for flat earth, but replacing it with either a 1 if the constant is a ratio, or zero if it's just a number

I think it would be a ratio, but replacing it for FE makes it infinite, as it is a measure of curvature like 8 inches per mile squared (but inverse). For the FE that would be 0 per mile squared.

Here is an example of some calculators and their derivations, relying upon a right angle triangle to the horizon.
Option 1 - pythagorous
(r+h)^2=r^2+d^2
r^2+2rh+h^2=r^2+d^2
2rh+h^2=d^2
2h(r+h)=d^2

h>>r, thus r+h~=r.
Thus d^2~=2hr
d=sqrt(2hr).

Option 2 (trig)
d straight line between you and horizon (note: theta in radians).
sin(theta)=d/(r+h)
For small theta, sin(theta)~=theta (and from above r+h~=h), thus
theta=d/r.
Thus d=theta*r
Alternatively, from the ground below following the arc (using properties of a circle and radians):
d=theta*r.
also, cos(theta)=r/(r+h).
For small theta, cos(theta)~=1-(theta^2)/2
Thus 1-(theta^2)/2=r/(r+h)
Thus theta^2=2-2r/(r+h)=(2r+2h-2r)/(r+h)=2h/(r+h)~=2h/r.
Thus theta=sqrt(2h/r).
Thus d=sqrt(2h/r)*r=sqrt(2h/r)*(sqrt(r^2))=sqrt((2h/r)*r^2)=sqrt(2hr)

Which matches the first.

Also note that it can be broken apart:
d=sqrt(2hr)=sqrt(2r)*sqrt(h).
And as you are on Earth, sqrt(2r) is a constant.


The issue with applying that to a FE is that there is no r.

You can approximate it by having r go to infinity, but that then becomes sqrt(2*infinity)=infinity.
Thus the distance to the horizon should be infinite on a flat Earth (or to the edge of Earth).

Also math was CREATED by humans. It isn't something that existed before our existence.

I disagree, someone on the other side of the universe would come to the same conclusion; that if you have one of something, then pick up another one you now have two.

The rest comes from that realisation,
1+1=2 and 1-1=0.

theories are called theories because they are exactly that, just us trying to explain observations.

Don't forget that 1+1 can also equal 1. 

This is the best I can come up with -
the sun and moon shrink a little on the way to the horizon, mostly as they near it.

No where near the amount expected if Earth was flat.

One, gravity + refraction.
Gravity has a tendency to pull light down.

Which would make it appear higher, not lower.
It would also allow much more distant objects to be seen much higher than normal.

This is because the light would initially be heading in an upwards trajectory and would curve down.

So this would require Earth to be curved more than it already is.

The second reason why it doesn't shrink into a dot is because of how big it is

Nope. That doesn't help at all.
The shrinkage isn't based upon size. The shrinkage is relative to size.
If it was bigger, then it would appear bigger when it was closer, but it isn't.

because the sun is so big, and because it doesn't travel far enough, it would never appear as a dot in the sky

So it would always be visible, well above the horizon and you would never have night time. It would also be much bigger when it is directly overhead than it was when it was very far away.

perhaps it'd appear two to three times smaller than it does at the horizon, but not hundreds or thousands of times smaller.

Firstly that doesn't really make sense. You wouldn't have it 2 times smaller. You would have it half the size.
But more importantly, that isn't observed.

So how can we verify this?
You could fire a laser beam, one that could be visible for miles, at a target several miles away, make sure everything is level and see if the laser is off target, several inches or feet below where it ought to be.

The issue with that is assumptions about the shape of Earth.

A better way is to observe more distant objects which are much larger, like black holes, and observe the gravitational lensing from them.
We know gravity bends light. We know that on the scale of Earth it is insignificant. We also know it works against the flat Earth.

So this theory would suggest that light has mass, and be pulled down by gravity overtime, just a hell of a lot less than even air, and that's why it can be affected by black holes, assuming what they say about black holes can be trusted.

Not quite. Even without mass it can be pulled. Gravity is distortion of space time.

Yes but hundreds of RE people claim that NASA is grounds for the theory of a round earth and they provide FACTS.

NASA is only part of it. We knew Earth was round long before NASA.

But this is evidence that they clearly do not and no one can ever explain why his helmet swiveled.

Because it is attached in a manner that allows it to swivel, with bearings. You are yet to explain why it can't, you just assert it can't.

The scientific approach dictates that it a series of methods that incorporates dozens of methods before reaching a conclusion. History has taught us otherwise since theories have been accepted and used in textbooks when they are only the OPINION of one person. That is very unscientific don't you think? Here I'll even use wikipedia which you REs like to do so much to debunk the truth that they themselves know nothing about.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

FE is pretty much the same thing but explored and approached from thousands of different areas. Which in turn is more scientific than believe the ideas of a single person. Which in turn makes it more scientific than say Newton's law of universal gravitation. Which was turned into Principia Mathematica which in turn became every instance of math on the subject, before debate or further inquiry into the principles that the man put forward. There are countless other examples of this over history. It isn't science when you say "the math explains it all" when there is so much evidence that this math was invented solely to promote the word and research of one person. Explain this to us please? Also stop dodging the fact I was pointing out about the inability for the astronaut's head to swivel

You seem to not know the history of RE and FE (and Gravity).
Gravity has been observed countless times, it has also been experimentally verified numerous times, even calculating G.
It isn't just one person with one opinion and that being taken as fact.

Similarly RE has plenty of different methods.
They have the dip angle to the horizon, the horizon itself, objects disappearing below the horizon, pictures from space, the shadow of Earth on the moon, large scale weather systems, Foucault's pendulum, laser ring gyroscopes, satellites, the apparent position/motion of stars and planets, and so on.

So I would say that is pretty scientific.
On the other hand FE appears to just be:
"It looks flat, so it must be"
as well as piles of refuted bullshit, like lies about numbers, dismissing evidence as fake and so on.

Also math was CREATED by humans. It isn't something that existed before our existence. Nobody can use math to explain everything in the universe. Countless have tried and that's why there are THEORIES instead of facts. Stephen Hawking has a theory that wormholes and blackholes exist based solely on "math" but no one has ever been able to stand next to one in order to prove it. We even spent billions building the LHC only to come up with more questions than answer just based on the "math" of other people.

Sure, math was created by humans, just like words.
However, what the math represents is real, it exists independently of humans.
If you take a grid of objects, with m rows and n columns, you will have m*n objects.
If you get a p objects and share it equally amount q entities, each will have p/q. And so on.

No. That isn't why we have theories. Every theory is an explanation for part of the universe.
The reason it isn't fact is because of the kind or reasoning used.
The only way you can truly arrive at facts is to start from facts and use logical, deductive reasoning.
This is reasoning of the form:
If A, then B.
A, therefore B.
or:
If A, then B.
Not B, therefore not A.
This can be used in science and is used to show hypotheses to be false.

But the theories are from deductive reasoning of the form:
If A, then B.
B repeatedly in many varieties, and never not B, therefore A is quite likely.

That is why it is a theory, because it uses inductive reasoning.
It has nothing to do with guess work or being unable to explain things.

Wormholes are hypothetical concepts, not theoretical ones. They aren't a theory, they are a hypothesis.
Blackholes have been observed.

What you are saying is akin to saying the sun might not really exist, people just have math and the like to show that it does, but they can't prove it does as no one has ever stood next to one to prove it.

It is childish crap. Grow up.

No it's caused by perspective.

No. It isn't. If it was, it would be level with your eyes, rather than below it. If you had 2 parallel lines, they would meet at the horizon, not appear to meet above it if they were continued.

But the bigger issue is the sky isn't some object above you.

If Earth was flat the horizon would be limited by the atmosphere absorbing/scattering/refracting light.
This means it would end up as a blur as you can no longer distinguish the different things.
Instead it appears a sharp line.

Furthermore, refraction could be causing the sun to appear to sink below the horizon, when it's really just moving further and further away from the observer.

No. It can't.
Refraction will cause things to appear higher in the sky than they are, not lower.

Show me a photograph of a long hallway that doesn't have this effect.

No one is saying perspective isn't real.
They are saying it doesn't cause the horizon or objects to drop below it.

Show me a picture of a hallway or the like which has a clear horizon from the roof and the floor merging rather than just a blur.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 11, 2017, 06:24:14 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

Then why don't the sun and moon change size as they "move" towards the horizon and then appear to sink behind it?
 
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

And the moon does the same thing, as in The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon, « on: September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

The sun and moon are just as much subject to perspective as all other objects,

but being so large and so far away, their apparent change in size is very small.

Any logical Flat Earth explanations.

This is the best I can come up with -
the sun and moon shrink a little on the way to the horizon, mostly as they near it.
The reason why they don't continue to shrink into a dot before fading from view is twofold.

One, gravity + refraction.
Gravity + refraction has a tendency to pull light down.
The reason why we don't normally notice this is because earthbound objects are never visible for more than several miles away from us, because they're relatively small and low, where as the sun and moon are relatively big and high.
The further an object gets, the further its light has to travel through the atmosphere against gravity on the way to your eyes, the more it gets weighed down by gravity, until its light doesn't reach your eyes at all, and disappears from view, bottom first.
Well, the same principle might apply to boats appearing to sink beneath the horizon.

Yes, gravity does bend light. Even Newton's theory predicted that light would be deflected by gravitation.
Newton could not do the calculation because he did not know the velocity of light,
but his theory predicted that even the huge mass of the Sun would deflect light by only 0.87 arc seconds (or 0.00024°).
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted double this figure, still to only 1.75 arc seconds (or 0.00049°).

I tried to estimate what the deflection on the Flat Earth would be for the sun 14,000 km from the observer.
My "guestimate" was that the sun would appear only about 1 cm higher - absolutely negligible!

The second reason why it doesn't shrink into a dot is because of how big it is, even if the light eminating from it weren't gradually pulled down by gravity and obfuscated by atmospheric refraction, which mind you, is thicker nearer to the ground, because the sun is so big, and because it doesn't travel far enough, it would never appear as a dot in the sky, same with the moon, perhaps it'd appear two to three times smaller than it does, but hundreds or thousands of times.

You must realise that from pure geometric considerations, the sun 5,000 km high and 14,000 km horizontal distance away would still be about 20° above the horizon.
Not only that. but gravity makes the sun appear minutely higher and in almost all cases refraction also makes the sun appear about 0.6° higher. I say "in almost all cases", because refraction can vary and occasiionaly even go a little the other way.

So how can we verify this?
You could fire a laser beam, a strong one that could travel for miles, at a target several miles away, make sure everything is level and see if the laser is off target by several inches or feet.
Of course you could use the same experiment to detect curvature directly, and apparently many people have, making it kind of moot.
If a laser can be pulled down a little bit by gravity across a distance of a few kilometers, perhaps this effect is amplified across distances of thousands of kilometers.

You say "If a laser can be pulled down a little bit by gravity across a distance of a few kilometers", but the amount would be quite immeasurable.

So this theory would suggest that light has mass, just a hell of a lot less than even air, and that's why it can be affected by black holes, assuming what they say about black holes can be trusted.

It is misleading to "suggest that light has mass". It does have finite momentum, but since photons travel (in a vacuum) at " the speed of light  ", photons have no "rest mass" - the "never rest".

There are two "devastating problems" with your guesses.

• The gravity of the Globe or Flat earth (if it's caused by UA) cannot bend light enough to even notice.
  Refraction at the horizon does bend light a lot more, but still only about 0.6° - nowhere near enough.
  
  
• And worse still. Both of these deflections make the sun appear higher, not lower!

And to top it off, none of these ideas explains why the sun and moon do not change in size even though their distance from the observer varies by thousands of kilometres from when they are overhead till when they are setting.

I have only one explanation for this. They are both so far away that this variation in distance makes little relative change.
This fits well with the moon about 348,000 km away and the sun about 150,000,000 km away.
 

Don't forget that 1+1 can also equal 1.

Maybe if you are dealing in Boolean logic and "1" = TRUE and "+" is the "OR" function.
But I thought that only "sloppy engineers" (like me) did that sort of thing!

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 27, 2017, 09:27:20 AM

The horizon is where it has always been. It's what you see.

This isn't the proper section of the forum to cry about the other FES.

Well, if you don't get results on one website , try , try, try again on the other one. LOL

The question was just this ?
Where is the horizon on a flat earth and how do you estimate the distance to the horizon ?

Vanishing point. You get the distance the same way they get it now, because all along, they've been living on a motionless plane earth. See, not so complicated, and you were obviously banned for other reasons.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

Then why don't the sun and moon change size as they "move" towards the horizon and then appear to sink behind it?
 
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

And the moon does the same thing, as in The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon, « on: September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

The sun and moon are just as much subject to perspective as all other objects,

but being so large and so far away, their apparent change in size is very small.

Any logical Flat Earth explanations.

"The sun does not appear to change size till sunset." There you go, and I bet it gets smaller, right? Sure it does, as it disappears into the vanishing point.

"The sun does not appear to change size till sunset." There you go, and I bet it gets smaller, right? Sure it does, as it disappears into the vanishing point.

i bet against it.
how much do you bet on it.

Quote from: Googleotomy on March 27, 2017, 09:45:22 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 27, 2017, 09:27:20 AM

The horizon is where it has always been. It's what you see.

This isn't the proper section of the forum to cry about the other FES.

Well, if you don't get results on one website , try , try, try again on the other one. LOL

The question was just this ?
Where is the horizon on a flat earth and how do you estimate the distance to the horizon ?

Vanishing point. You get the distance the same way they get it now, because all along, they've been living on a motionless plane earth. See, not so complicated, and you were obviously banned for other reasons.

Please help Physical Observer.  I'm trying to win an argument with some indoctrinated filthy globularists about the horizon and not sure I understand the vanishing point well enough to refute their nonsense. I think I bought myself some time by pointing out that math in a book doesn't prove anything and there are no physical signs/clues from earth's condition that the earth is moving.   I mentioned the vanishing point is where the horizon occurs and they said you can calculate the distance to the horizon on earth but that calculation is based on the geometry of the globe.  They asked "if the earth were flat why would a calculation based on a circle/sphere happen to correspond to the distance to the horizon on a flat earth?"  I don't know but of course it's not because the earth is round, my gawd!

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes. 

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.  If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 12, 2017, 09:03:27 AM

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes. 

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.  If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

with the spinning merry-go-round: we already explained it lots of time to PO, you have to spin the merry-go-round with 1 revolution per day, than the effect is a very different one.
i even showed him the calculation about the force the the 1 day revolution of the earth creates on a body, it was 0.3kg on a 100kg body.
that is really not much.

also to see the curvature from side to side is explained a lot of times.
calculate yourself the height difference that you should be able to see on a distance on 20km. (Thats is the max what he is showing in his pictures)

if you what to know about something, ask the people that can explain the topic and show evidence and not somebody that does not show any evidence.

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:43:20 AM

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

How about make your own thread for it, rather than derailing this one?

It's truly astonishing that the moment I present something that proves without the slightest doubt that according to an engineering standpoint and the actual FACTS of pressurization is considered derailment. Then countless posts try to derail my FACTS with utter nonsense and gibberish about hitler and secret bases etc. RE people sure need to grow up and pick one side of how they perceive and debate. You didn't even include everything I said in your quote afterwards.

It's truly astonishing that the moment I present something that proves without the slightest doubt that according to an engineering standpoint and the actual FACTS of pressurization is considered derailment. Then countless posts try to derail my FACTS with utter nonsense and gibberish about hitler and secret bases etc. RE people sure need to grow up and pick one side of how they perceive and debate. You didn't even include everything I said in your quote afterwards.

i could not find one post in this thread that talks about hitler or secrete bases.
it is always the FEIB that come up that the NASA is controlled by nazis.

i also have never seen any evidence from a flatard that proves their claims.

i ask you one time where did you get the design details about the astronaut helmets, but you seem to simply ignore that request.
i see often that if somebody ask for the source of information from FEIB they get ignored. That tell me that 99% of that information got pulled out their ass.

Vanishing point. You get the distance the same way they get it now, because all along, they've been living on a motionless plane earth. See, not so complicated, and you were obviously banned for other reasons.

No, only the flaties have been lying.

The current way to get the distance is based upon curvature.
If Earth is flat, the distance to the horizon should be infinite, as the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
That also means that the atmospheric haze would be the limiting factor and you wouldn't get a nice sharp horizon and instead get a blur.
It would also mean it should be at eye level, not below it as is observed.

So no, what is obvious is that the flat Earth can't explain it at all.

"The sun does not appear to change size till sunset." There you go, and I bet it gets smaller, right? Sure it does, as it disappears into the vanishing point.

Nope. It changes by a tiny amount. It doesn't disappear into the vanishing point, it appears to drop below the horizon.
It is clearly very far away, and thus not sitting above Earth.

It's truly astonishing that the moment I present something that proves without the slightest doubt that according to an engineering standpoint and the actual FACTS of pressurization is considered derailment. Then countless posts try to derail my FACTS with utter nonsense and gibberish about hitler and secret bases etc. RE people sure need to grow up and pick one side of how they perceive and debate. You didn't even include everything I said in your quote afterwards.

No. This thread is meant to be for the horizon.
If you wanted, you could have started your own thread for this, but instead, you choose to try and derail this one, to hide from the fact that RE can't explain the horizon.

Even if you show that NASA lied (which you haven't even come close to), you still haven't come close to refuting the horizon showing a round Earth.

If you want to discuss that, start your own thread.

Yes, even facts about pressure are derailment in a thread concerning the horizon, as pressurisation has nothing to do with the horizon.

It is a common FE tactic, have a debate about one topic, and when the FE side is shown to be full of crap, try and bring up something completely different to hide the fact that you were refuted.

So like I said, start your own thread.

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Don't ask for his help. He has no interest in honest explanations. He will run away from any attempt to make an honest explanation of what is happening, dismissing it as goobly gloop or the like.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes.

It isn't quite the lowest point. It is the lowest apparent point, based upon the apparent gravitational potential which takes that spinning into consideration.
For a ball, the lowest point is the centre.
A sphere has each point being equally distant from the centre and thus equally high.
Physically, the equator is over 20 km higher than the poles. This is a result of the spinning.

As for spinning a merry go round, you don't spin it with the same tangential velocity to make it an honest comparison, nor would you do it with the same angular velocity.
The acceleration required to remain in a circular path around a point =omega^2*r=omega*v=v^2/r.
That means if you take Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, with a rotational speed of roughly 15 degrees an hour, you need an acceleration (at the equator) of 0.03 m/s^2, which is much much smaller than that provided by gravity, 9.8 m/s^2.
To scale this down keeping the acceleration constnat, based upon the acceleration being equal to v^2/r, this means r needs to be kept proportional to v^2.
So scaling it down to 6.371 m (the radius by a factor of 1 million (1000 squared)), the velocity needs to drop to 1 mile per hour (a factor of 1000).

So for an honest comparison, try spinning a merry go round with a radius of 6.371 m, such that the outside goes at a speed of 1 mile per hour. That is less than walking pace.

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.

No. You wouldn't.
You don't see the great circle of Earth as the horizon. Instead the horizon is a small circle centred on you with the same angle of dip all around.
Thus if you followed it all around, you would see a circle, at some slight (potentially undetectable) distance below you.

In order to see the curve of this circle, you need to be at a very great height.

As an example, try and find a surface that you can stick your head through, or get a camera and tripod.
Draw a large circle on this surface.
Now, position your eyes/camera in the centre of the circle, at a height such that the circle is just a half of a degree or so below level (in reality, the horizon is actually at a much smaller angle of depression for most cases, it is 5-10 km away from you, depending on your height, with you only being 1.5-2 m above the ground at your spot). Take a look at it and it should appear quite flat, especially with a low FOV like in a camera.
It is only when you get up higher and can see much more of the curve that it appears as a circle.

If Earth was flat, the horizon would be based upon your limit of vision to the atmosphere not allowing smooth passage of light and thus it would be a blur.

If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

This actually argues against you and shows a flaw in your reasoning.
We know circular objects exist.
We know that you can look at the "horizon" from them.
We know that turning around doesn't magically make you higher.
As such, you conclusion about spherical objects contradicts reality, showing there should be some flaw in your reasoning.

Your key flaw is your assumption that it should curve, and that if you turn that curve should just continue.

The horizon should be at the same angle of depression all around, thus if you turn, it should still be at that angle, not curving down.

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 10:49:17 AM

Also math was CREATED by humans. It isn't something that existed before our existence.

I disagree, someone on the other side of the universe would come to the same conclusion; that if you have one of something, then pick up another one you now have two.

The rest comes from that realisation,
1+1=2 and 1-1=0.

theories are called theories because they are exactly that, just us trying to explain observations.

As thingy as a thing is, it could always be infinitely more thingy, and as nonthingy as a nonthing is, it could always be infinitely more nonthingy.

What is a thing?

Take a chair, is a chair a thing, a whole, or is it part of the earth?
Is a chair molecule a thing, a whole, or is it part of the chair?

Is a chair a chair with three legs?
Is a chair a chair with one?

Are things made up of particles, or waves, or wavy particles?

At what point does an apple, cease being an apple?
After it's rotted for a day, for two days?
How many wavy particles does it have to lose, gain?
Which kinds?

Is an apple a solid, or is solidity a ghost, a spook?
Is not every wavy particle in flux?
Is an apple not constantly gaining masses and losing them?
Does it not comprise liquids and trapped gasses?
And things in betwixt, like juices, creams and dew?

What are the borders of an orange?
Is it round?
But within every round shape there are straight lines, and within every straight line there are curves.
How can some, 'thing', with so much empty space, its components and their components all in flux, constantly exchanging materials between itself and its environment, have a shape?

What is round?
As round as a thing is, it could always be infinitely more/less.

Are things made up of particles, or waves, or wavy particles?

Everything is made of particles, however particles have wave nature, often which isn't observable.

You seem to have just spouted a bunch of philosophy. Do you have anything to address the topic at hand?

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 12, 2017, 03:43:28 PM

Are things made up of particles, or waves, or wavy particles?

Everything is made of particles, however particles have wave nature, often which isn't observable.

You seem to have just spouted a bunch of philosophy. Do you have anything to address the topic at hand?

You and Rabinoz are saying that even if gravity was causing light to fall, that it would actually make the sun appear higher, not lower.
I'm going to have to think that over, and get back to you.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 11, 2017, 06:24:14 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

Then why don't the sun and moon change size as they "move" towards the horizon and then appear to sink behind it?
 
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

And the moon does the same thing, as in The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon, « on: September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

The sun and moon are just as much subject to perspective as all other objects,

but being so large and so far away, their apparent change in size is very small.

Any logical Flat Earth explanations.

"The sun does not appear to change size till sunset." There you go, and I bet it gets smaller, right? Sure it does, as it disappears into the vanishing point.

No it appears it increase in size due to the refraction of passing through different increasing densities of atmosphere.  The exact opposite of the vanishing point argument.  You need to give your forum persona a bit more intelligence, this is getting too easy.  It's like fighting an unconscious three year old that has no arms.

Hey guys, someone posted a USN calculation for lookouts to spot the horizon distance or something along those lines, and one of the things was a constant, can someone explain to me how the constant was derived because it's it's about curvature then you can easily adapt that Equation for flat earth, but replacing it with either a 1 if the constant is a ratio, or zero if it's just a number

"Constants" are numerical values used in equations. I guess you might call them shortcuts to solve a complicated problem. Quite a bit of complicated mathematics is involved in the derivation of these Constants. The final result is the number 1.22 in this case.
The equation for estimating the distance to the horizon is : d=1.22 x square root of h
Where d is the distance to the horizon, in  miles
1.22 is the Constant
h is the height of the observer above the earth or sea, in feet
For a person , 6 feet tall, standing up in a life boat, the distance is about 3 miles
A typical crow's nest mìght be 100 feet above the level of the sea. The distance would be about 12.2 miles.

For example of "pi" ( I don't have a Greek alphabet on this keyboard)
 The Constant  pi = 3.141259....

Quote from: physical observer on April 12, 2017, 07:25:13 AM

"The sun does not appear to change size till sunset." There you go, and I bet it gets smaller, right? Sure it does, as it disappears into the vanishing point.

No it appears it increase in size due to the refraction of passing through different increasing densities of atmosphere.  The exact opposite of the vanishing point argument.  You need to give your forum persona a bit more intelligence, this is getting too easy.  It's like fighting an unconscious three year old that has no arms.

Our physical observer has been rechristened to either Physical Obfuscator or Physical Eyes-wide-shut Non-observer,
All he seems to do is trawl YouTube for the videos that are least likely to prove his point, and he's very successful at that.

He comes up with picture after picture and video after video proving that there is no curvature when the should be no curvature and he's proved that one so well  !

Quote from: Canadabear on April 12, 2017, 09:03:27 AM

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes. 

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.  If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

Piesigma, think about these things regarding the Sun:

If the diameter of the flat Earth is 25,000, then the half that's lit must have a radius of 12,500 miles. A "spotlight Sun" centered in that half must be shining in a circle half of that, about 6,250 miles. FE often places the Sun 3,000 miles up. The radius of the cone of light and the altitude of the Sun make a right triangle. Using the inverse tangent function, the Sun must always be at about 29 degrees or higher. Not sure about trigonometry? Try drawing a right triangle with one side three cm (or inches--won't matter) and the other about 6.25. The smallest of the three angles would be about right. Does the Sun ever appear lower than that? If so, then the FE model can't work. Now try to make sense of this:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/18063481/a_second_rare_shadow_sunrise_b.amp

The only way the shadow can be above the mountain is if the light source is below. The Sun is about to rise in the photo, but it is already casting a shadow--of the mountain on the cloud! Follow the edge of the shadow back to the Sun. That Sun is not 3,000 miles above the 15,000 ft mountain. It's "below" it (shining from a very low angle--below level).