Getting disappear on the horizon: Airplanes explain "true horizon"

Horizon is actually a basic term shows your distance of view. But generally it has been confused on if it explains something disappearing under a round earth, or a distance your eyes can see.

You can use a binacular to see an airplane:



But your distance of view is everytime limited. For understand this issue, take a look to the "world curvature calculator".

Planes fly average altitude of 30.000-40.000 feets and we should see them to a distance. But what should be that distance:



As we see that, if horizon caused by earth curvature, or we should to continue to see the plane about 230 miles distance.

But generally we see it about 20 kms. By a good binaculars, my estimate we can see it more, but it is cleart that distance isin't 230 miles or any hundred of kms.

This means, we can't see the airplanes flying in the London with using a binaculars in Paris.

As a result, for calculating the "true horizon", follow an airplane from the point near you till it dissapeared by using a good binaculars. get the speed of airplane as 1000 kms/h, follow it till it disappeared. Note the time. Time (x) speed is "true horizon".

I believe you have your units mixed up.  Commercial planes actually fly around 30,000-40,000 feet altitude.  That would actually be around 9,000 to 12,000 meters altitude.

This gives a plane a view distance of roughly 230 miles.  Which is correct.  Think about how far you see from sitting inside most commercial airliners.

I believe you have your units mixed up.  Commercial planes actually fly around 30,000-40,000 feet altitude.  That would actually be around 9,000 to 12,000 meters altitude.

This gives a plane a view distance of roughly 230 miles.  Which is correct.  Think about how far you see from sitting inside most commercial airliners.

I'll correct the numbers but result doesn't change.

You should find the numbers change to roughly 230 miles or 370 km.  Which holds pretty accurately with what can be seen from a ship on the ocean (no obstructions), weather permitting.

You should find the numbers change to roughly 230 miles or 370 km.  Which holds pretty accurately with what can be seen from a ship on the ocean (no obstructions), weather permitting.

Horizon in the land level is less then the air. Because atmospheric stringency is stronger in the land level than the air. This causes shrinken the horizon. Horizons of aircraft flying at different altitudes can be calculated and checked for ground level vehicles like ships.

are you trying to say that you have less of a horizon distance on the great plains than on the ocean?  Perhaps it seems that way because most ocean pictures are taken from on top of a ship

Also now you have a new issue.  Scout planes during WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea.

I'll correct the numbers but result doesn't change

Yep, the results are still a fiction.
Where does the plane disappear? As a point in the distance, or appearing to go below the horizon?
If the latter, it will be that roughly 230 miles away.
If the former, that isn't the horizon.

If the horizon was merely the limit of visibility it would appear as a point, or as a blur, not as a line.

are you trying to say that you have less of a horizon distance on the great plains than on the ocean?  Perhaps it seems that way because most ocean pictures are taken from on top of a ship

Also now you have a new issue.  Scout planes during WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea.

Your Previous posts were more logical. Now you are trying to do "perception work" using "things that are not real" like the others. It's a sad situation. You look like a normal person and then. BOOM! There is no need to answer this one. Was you at there in WW2?? It stinks of perception work. This is disgusting. This is not an argument. It's just disgusting.

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 12:07:32 AM

are you trying to say that you have less of a horizon distance on the great plains than on the ocean?  Perhaps it seems that way because most ocean pictures are taken from on top of a ship

Also now you have a new issue.  Scout planes during WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea.

Your Previous posts were more logical. Now you are trying to do "perception work" using "things that are not real" like the others. It's a sad situation. You look like a normal person and then. BOOM! There is no need to answer this one. Was you at there in WW2?? It stinks of perception work. This is disgusting. This is not an argument. It's just disgusting.

Ah, I wasn't in World War 2 but I had family that was.  I was just using a common occurance in that war that would have been pretty difficult to make up given the large number of participants in that war.  But if we were to limit ourselves to self experience I'd still say that from inside an aircraft you have a view distance of around 200 miles.  Which is what you would expect according to a globe view.  In fact I'd be interested to hear why airplanes have more visual distance than ships do on a flat Earth.

Quote from: İntikam on May 08, 2017, 04:23:53 AM

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 12:07:32 AM

are you trying to say that you have less of a horizon distance on the great plains than on the ocean?  Perhaps it seems that way because most ocean pictures are taken from on top of a ship

Also now you have a new issue.  Scout planes during WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea.

Your Previous posts were more logical. Now you are trying to do "perception work" using "things that are not real" like the others. It's a sad situation. You look like a normal person and then. BOOM! There is no need to answer this one. Was you at there in WW2?? It stinks of perception work. This is disgusting. This is not an argument. It's just disgusting.

Ah, I wasn't in World War 2 but I had family that was.  I was just using a common occurance in that war that would have been pretty difficult to make up given the large number of participants in that war.  But if we were to limit ourselves to self experience I'd still say that from inside an aircraft you have a view distance of around 200 miles.  Which is what you would expect according to a globe view.  In fact I'd be interested to hear why airplanes have more visual distance than ships do on a flat Earth.

Could you follow a plane with a binoculars to 200 miles?

At sea with enough magnification, very calm weather, clear skies, and low humidity I believe so.  I couldn't say I've done that but I've easily seen planes out over 100 miles.  But I'm also just a merchant mariner.  You would probably want to talk to a Navy Radar Tech, you'll hear all about over the horizon radar detection using various techniques.

At sea with enough magnification, very calm weather, clear skies, and low humidity I believe so.  I couldn't say I've done that but I've easily seen planes out over 100 miles.  But I'm also just a merchant mariner.  You would probably want to talk to a Navy Radar Tech, you'll hear all about over the horizon radar detection using various techniques.

I'm not talking about your sea. I'm asking again. Did you ever follow an airplane with your binoculars for 200 miles or not. Yes or no. You did or you didn't.

On land I'm not sure the furthest away I've seen an airplane.  But seeing as airplanes at 200 miles of distance are basically a spec of dust floating above a flat horizon I'm sure it isn't that far.  But on the oklahoma panhandle I've seen them a good ways off.  I doubt 200 miles but probably again somewhere around 100 is no problem.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on why the horizon changes properties at sea, if you would elaborate on that. Also note the Atlantic Ocean isn't mine.

On land I'm not sure the furthest away I've seen an airplane.  But seeing as airplanes at 200 miles of distance are basically a spec of dust floating above a flat horizon I'm sure it isn't that far.  But on the oklahoma panhandle I've seen them a good ways off.  I doubt 200 miles but probably again somewhere around 100 is no problem.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on why the horizon changes properties at sea, if you would elaborate on that. Also note the Atlantic Ocean isn't mine.

I asked this question because You were talking about "WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea." But you are saying you "probably see" 100 miles. If you can't see an airplane which has distance 200 miles and 35.000 ft altitude, how can you claim aircrafts has a sight distance of 150 miles while they are in 18.000 fts; while It is neither theorically, nor practically possible.

In fact airplanes prove the earth is round.
But inti is too stupid to get it.

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 05:11:05 AM

On land I'm not sure the furthest away I've seen an airplane.  But seeing as airplanes at 200 miles of distance are basically a spec of dust floating above a flat horizon I'm sure it isn't that far.  But on the oklahoma panhandle I've seen them a good ways off.  I doubt 200 miles but probably again somewhere around 100 is no problem.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on why the horizon changes properties at sea, if you would elaborate on that. Also note the Atlantic Ocean isn't mine.

I asked this question because You were talking about "WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea." But you are saying you "probably see" 100 miles. If you can't see an airplane which has distance 200 miles and 35.000 ft altitude, how can you claim aircrafts has a sight distance of 150 miles while they are in 18.000 fts; while It is neither theorically, nor practically possible.

Most planes over the panhandle are jumpers from dallas, Or out for recreation and not flying at 40k ft.  I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make other than planes act much like you would expect on a globe earth. 

Again why does the horizon seem to get farther when you increase altitude?

I'm afraid I don't follow you...

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make...

You will get used to this feeling if you interact with Intikam very much.

Quote from: İntikam on May 08, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 05:11:05 AM

On land I'm not sure the furthest away I've seen an airplane.  But seeing as airplanes at 200 miles of distance are basically a spec of dust floating above a flat horizon I'm sure it isn't that far.  But on the oklahoma panhandle I've seen them a good ways off.  I doubt 200 miles but probably again somewhere around 100 is no problem.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on why the horizon changes properties at sea, if you would elaborate on that. Also note the Atlantic Ocean isn't mine.

I asked this question because You were talking about "WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea." But you are saying you "probably see" 100 miles. If you can't see an airplane which has distance 200 miles and 35.000 ft altitude, how can you claim aircrafts has a sight distance of 150 miles while they are in 18.000 fts; while It is neither theorically, nor practically possible.

Most planes over the panhandle are jumpers from dallas, Or out for recreation and not flying at 40k ft.  I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make other than planes act much like you would expect on a globe earth. 

Again why does the horizon seem to get farther when you increase altitude?

I Again answering the question as; horizon relevant with atmospheric stringency. High altitudes has less stringency so horizon is more. Basic and understandable.

But you can't see an airplane for a while 230 miles distance, but according to round earth hoax you should see planes flying over London from Paris. Because there is atmospheric stringency and it causes the horizon. There is no relevant with round hoax between horizon.

Perhaps at this time you should define atmospheric stringency before we continue.  I'm not certain we can come to an actual debate without a clear definition of terms.

So I ask what is atmospheric stringency?
and what causes it?

I asked this question because You were talking about "WW2 regularly flew at altitudes of around 18000 ft.  This gave them around 150 miles of vision over both land and sea." But you are saying you "probably see" 100 miles. If you can't see an airplane which has distance 200 miles and 35.000 ft altitude, how can you claim aircrafts has a sight distance of 150 miles while they are in 18.000 fts; while It is neither theorically, nor practically possible.

Because with one, you are looking at the ground, typically for large complexes, and in the other, you are looking at a tiny plane.
Even a 747, quite a large plane is basically a tube that is 70 m by 6.5 m by 10 m, with wings stuck on which is basically another section that is 60 m by a few m by less than a m.

So the main thing you will see is the fuselage, and as it is moving away, you are looking at the cross section, not the length.
So you are basically trying to find a 6.5 m by 10 m object.
At 300 km away (including the height), if it was pointing directly away from you, those 10 m would have a tiny angular size of roughly 7 arc seconds.

That is why you can hardly see it (if at all), because of just how tiny it is.

I Again answering the question as; horizon relevant with atmospheric stringency. High altitudes has less stringency so horizon is more. Basic and understandable.

Sure, something you are yet to clearly explain.

If that was going to be an issue the land would blur as it gets further away from you and rather than having a nice clear horizon, it would just be a blur.

So sure, while it is simple and understandable, it is pure bullshit which doesn't match reality.

But you can't see an airplane for a while 230 miles distance, but according to round earth hoax you should see planes flying over London from Paris. Because there is atmospheric stringency and it causes the horizon. There is no relevant with round hoax between horizon.

Complete non-sequitor.
Regardless of if you are having Earth be round or flat, the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear and will obstruct vision to some extent.
Not being able to see a tiny plane when it is very far away doesn't magically mean the horizon is caused by the same effect.

There isn't a single shred of evidence (or even a pathetic explanation) for why your atmospheric stringency (or any other nonsense, basically anything other than the curvature of Earth) causes the horizon.

Perhaps at this time you should define atmospheric stringency before we continue.  I'm not certain we can come to an actual debate without a clear definition of terms.

So I ask what is atmospheric stringency?
and what causes it?

This is an issue we have explained many times. Trust in the search.

----------

If you refuse to define it then I suppose I'll be forced to go off of what I could understand from another one of your post.  It is something about how the more atmosphere you are looking through the less distance you can see. 

Why does this not create a blurring effect?  Why is the moon in good optical range?  As you raise altitude why doesn't the earth below you start to haze out of focus.

Your unfounded explanations require you to create more unfounded explanations to substantiate them.

Your unfounded explanations require you to create more unfounded explanations to substantiate them.

I try to demolish your prejudices more than prove something.

Because you are Prejudiced and dumb. It's still a personal attack, you prefer to argue with it. Here is a personal attack, and I do it to you, does that bring you something? Did it remove the your ignorance?

The truth is easy if you are wondering the truth. But if your goal is to attack me, you will find me more aggressive than you are.

Ok. Now. behave yourself! And listen.

The altitude of the dome is 100 kms. Notice this knowledge to a paper. The altitude of the dome is 100 kms.

The atmospheric stringency decreases to high altitudes. This is a general knowledge. So total atmospheric stringency is total about 50 kms while you are looking to the moon. And you can follow an airplane to 100 kms by a binacular. Because total human view range is about 100 kms. Moon is still in the half of view of range. It is on 50 kms atmospheric range, thatever it be far or close.

Now you have been illuminated you ignorant, disrespectfull pander.

PS: Previous message is deleted by missclick.

If you refuse to define it then I suppose I'll be forced to go off of what I could understand from another one of your post.  It is something about how the more atmosphere you are looking through the less distance you can see. 

Why does this not create a blurring effect?  Why is the moon in good optical range?  As you raise altitude why doesn't the earth below you start to haze out of focus.

Your unfounded explanations require you to create more unfounded explanations to substantiate them.

But, how am I able to see stars above the horizon then? Shouldn't they be even furthey away than the nearest city?

Just sayin'. The whole "You cant see it because atmosphere" doesn't really hold up at night..

I try to demolish your prejudices more than prove something.

Because you are Prejudiced and dumb. It's still a personal attack, you prefer to argue with it. Here is a personal attack, and I do it to you, does that bring you something? Did it remove the your ignorance?

Yes, that is a personal attack. Why did you resort to it?
What is the matter, can't you honestly and rationally defend your claims?
Oh yeah, that's right, you blocked a bunch of people because you could't honestly and rationally defend your claims from their rebuttal.

Ok. Now. behave yourself! And listen.

Stop treating people like ignorant children that will kiss your ass and accept whatever you say.
We are not children, (at least most aren't). We are free to object to your claims.

The altitude of the dome is 100 kms. Notice this knowledge to a paper. The altitude of the dome is 100 kms.

This isn't knowledge. This is fantasy. We have gone past 100 km and found no dome.

The atmospheric stringency decreases to high altitudes. This is a general knowledge. So total atmospheric stringency is total about 50 kms while you are looking to the moon. And you can follow an airplane to 100 kms by a binacular. Because total human view range is about 100 kms. Moon is still in the half of view of range. It is on 50 kms atmospheric range, thatever it be far or close.

This makes no sense at all.
In some cases you are looking straight up at the moon.
In other cases you are looking at an angle, which would make the "atmospheric stringency" much greater.
For example, when the moon has an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, it's atmospheric stringency would need to be equivalent to ~70.7 km if the moon when directly overhead is 50 km.
It gets even worse when you get near the horizon, with the moon at a very low angle, such as 10 degrees, at which point it would need to be equivalent to 288 km.
At 5 degrees it becomes 573 degrees, yet it is still clearly visible.

Yet typically the horizon is less than 10 km away.

Now you have been illuminated you ignorant, disrespectfull pander.

You haven't illuminated anyone, but you have shown yourself to be very ignorant and disrespectful.

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 02:23:28 PM

Your unfounded explanations require you to create more unfounded explanations to substantiate them.

Because you are Prejudiced and dumb.

Ahh I see where this is going now.  Pointing out that your arguments are unfounded is not a personal attack.  I can back up my arguments with logic, reference, and personal experience.  While you cannot do this, I say that your arguments are unfounded.  To prove your unfounded arguments you usually point to more unfounded arguments.

This cycle becomes nothing more than circular logic in a never ending loop, but also never giving any real substance to your side of the debate.  I'm not personally attacking you, just pointing out your debate points are mostly fabricated without any support to them.

If you would like to start a name calling thread we could do so over in rants if you like.  I'm a sailor, so I'm pretty great in that realm.

Quote from: İntikam on May 09, 2017, 01:13:08 AM

Quote from: AlphaSailor on May 08, 2017, 02:23:28 PM

Your unfounded explanations require you to create more unfounded explanations to substantiate them.

Because you are Prejudiced and dumb.

Ahh I see where this is going now.  Pointing out that your arguments are unfounded is not a personal attack.  I can back up my arguments with logic, reference, and personal experience.  While you cannot do this, I say that your arguments are unfounded.  To prove your unfounded arguments you usually point to more unfounded arguments.

This cycle becomes nothing more than circular logic in a never ending loop, but also never giving any real substance to your side of the debate.  I'm not personally attacking you, just pointing out your debate points are mostly fabricated without any support to them.

If you would like to start a name calling thread we could do so over in rants if you like.  I'm a sailor, so I'm pretty great in that realm.

What seems unfounded for you can be firmly grounded in my opinion. The facts vary from point of view. I think scientific. I do theory, observation and calculations. I am an about 20 years engineer, I do this all the time and I am great on this. But what you see may be an "eye illusion". Because you are nothing but a "great" observer. But I can calculate with great accuracy what you can see and what you can not see. You can follow an object to 100 kms because this is horizon limit caused by atmospheric stringency. But according to round earth theory, you should see an airplane to 230 miles.  I hope I could tell the difference.

Do not critize me, but ask yourself who you are serving to?

What seems unfounded for you can be firmly grounded in my opinion.

If they were firmly grounded you would be able to defend them.
You can't (or are choosing not to).

The facts vary from point of view.

No. They don't.
The facts remain constant regardless of point of view. It is only the interpretation that can change.

I think scientific.

No you don't.
If you thought scientifically you would come up with an idea and test it and see how it holds and then potentially discard it.
Instead you "know" Earth is flat, and come up with various ways to "prove" that. If it doesn't work, rather than admit you were wrong and Earth isn't flat you instead just make up some excuse for why it can still be flat.

That isn't science. That is religion.

I do theory, observation and calculations.

And you throw them out the window when they don't agree with you.

I am an about 20 years engineer, I do this all the time and I am great on this.

Then why do you so often spout such nonsense, like claiming you can make a perpetual motion machine with straws in water, completely ignoring basic physics/engineering about pressure?

But what you see may be an "eye illusion".

No. It has been observed by so many people it isn't funny. More importantly, it is also observed by instruments.

But I can calculate with great accuracy what you can see and what you can not see.

No. You can calculate it with some precision, it isn't accurate at all, it is completely off and your calculations have no basis in reality.

You can follow an object to 100 kms because this is horizon limit caused by atmospheric stringency.

But we can follow them for much longer.

But according to round earth theory, you should see an airplane to 230 miles.

And you are yet to show you can't.
Regardless, even if you can't, that doesn't explain the horizon. The horizon is typically less than 10 km away. No where near your 100 km.
So how come you can see a plane for 100 km, but can't see an object on the ground 10 km away?

Do not critize me, but ask yourself who you are serving to?

Why shouldn't we criticise you? You repeatedly spout pure bullshit and expect people to just gobble it up.
We aren't mindless sheep for you to preach to.

I'm sorry but any engineer who had flat earth beliefs would be bullied out of their university, if they even managed to make it there with their predisposed ideas