Horizon curve

A few questions for those deeper into this debate than myself:

Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid, doesn't this also debunk the idea that the earth is a flat round disc? because if you were on an earth-sized circle and went up a few thousand feet in the air, you'd see the round edge, correct?

Now, even if we say that it is an infinite plane, there's still the matter of the ice shelf along the south 'pole'(not sure what the FE term for the south pole is, yet)...and that matter is almost identical to the flat disc issue, insofar as we should see a curved inner edge if we go up a few thousand feet.

On a flat plane, we should be able to go atop a mountain and see one of two things:
a)an edge--and a greater proportion of the field of view would be whatever it is that space is.
b)more of the top of whatever it is that is beyond the South pole edge.

These are the two hangups that I have with most of the FE arguments that I've encountered to date...well, aside from the constellation issue...

Thanks in advance for taking the time to make well-reasoned arguments.

You can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away.  Why would you expect to see anything hundreds or thousands of miles away?  This is one of the dumbest arguments that keeps coming up over and over. 

I live in British Columbia...I can see Dall Island, Alaska from Masset, BC over 50 miles away.

I live in British Columbia...I can see Dall Island, Alaska from Masset, BC over 50 miles away.

Wow, that totally means that you should be able to see Spain from Florida, right? 

Well, firstly, I think it is only fair that your argument be applied to both the globe earth, and the flat earth. If literally all evidence is too far away to see, then we can't argue for lack of evidence of curve for the globe, or for the edge of the flat circle.

Secondly, has anyone done an analysis of scale that might conclude just how far one would have to go up in order to see an edge?

I mean, suppose I am looking as an ant, down a 10 foot 2x4. If I go up 2-3 millimeters, I might not have a very different perspective...but if I go up 300-600 millimeters, my perspective is drastically different.
It should be straightforward to determine an adequate viewing height to analyze the earth's features. Has anyone done it? or is there some reason why it is not straightforward.

BTW, I understand if you're tired of these arguments. I don't feel hostile about any of this, though...so if you could drop the attitude and equip me with the correct thinking rather than the sass, I'd appreciate it.

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument. 

so we can't rely on our eyes. Where does one start then? Is this all about narratives? or is there a good rational starting point for questioning things which doesn't rely on conspiracy?

You can't rely on being able to see infinite distances.  Your eyes are fine. 

You can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away.  Why would you expect to see anything hundreds or thousands of miles away?  This is one of the dumbest arguments that keeps coming up over and over.

Really?
You claim that "you can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away"! This is one of the dumbest things that you keep saying over and over.

Take a look at this:

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 14, 2017, 09:36:20 PM

Here is the same mountain again. Notice the comments: "only the top third of the mountain due to curvature."

Mount Rainier is visible from Vancouver (Which is behind Seattle, 286 KMs away!)

Where in Vancouver that Rainier can be seen from:

Quote from: dleung

You can see an unobstructed view of Vancouver's skyline from the mountains of Vancouver island up to 145km northwest of downtown. The Olympic mountains in Washington State are 150+km, but have a partly obscured view due to the hill that the city of Vancouver is located. But the 280km view from Mt Rainier to Metrotown is hands-down the winner.
In conclusion, from Mt Rainier, one can actually see any building taller than ~80m in Burnaby's Metrotown.

Yep, I live at the very top of Metrotown (and hence all of Metro Vancouver) and I can confirm that your math checks out.
I can see Mount Rainier, so the opposite must also be true (although will require huge binoculars).

This photo is, of course, taken from a much higher altitude.

From Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from?

Here it is from that building:

We can also see the moon and the stars and the planets...which are relatively far away, too. Even in flat earth context, I kinda doubt they're closer than 2000km...so yeah, I can see thousands of miles.

Any FEers with deconstructions of substance to offer?

Seeing something above you is only seeing through a few miles of dense atmoplane.  Looking to the horizon is looking through many miles of dense atmoplane.  You can't compare them. 

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, if that was going to be an issue, the horizon would be a blur. Instead we often get nice clear horizons. That means we can see all the way to the edge without the air getting in the way.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, you are a jerk and no body wants you here due to your sniddy attitude.  I'll take my ban now.  Bye. 

As has been pointed out to you many times before, you are a jerk and no body wants you here due to your sniddy attitude.  I'll take my ban now.  Bye.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, if that was going to be an issue, the horizon would be a blur. Instead we often get nice clear horizons.

That means we can see all the way to the edge without the air getting in the way.

But this photo from a higher, though unknown, altitude is certainly not sharp.
And very blurred from an aircraft at cruising altitude.The distance to the horizon certainly seems to depend strongly on one's height above sea level.

Seeing something above you is only seeing through a few miles of dense atmoplane.  Looking to the horizon is looking through many miles of dense atmoplane.  You can't compare them.

Playing devils advocate here, but why do those photo's of the moon setting look pretty much as clear on details as the ones form when the moon is higher in the sky?
I don't see this as an adequate response to the question.  If it was atmosplanic density causing the distant shorlines to disapear, it would also make the moon disapear way higher in the sky, or at the very least, cause it to be very much more hazy and distorted than what I have personally seen during a moonset. 
I think I have made myself fairly clear about not believing the round Earth model and am trying to understand the flat Earth model better, but these types of dodgy answers do more harm than help.

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 09:41:55 PM

You can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away.  Why would you expect to see anything hundreds or thousands of miles away?  This is one of the dumbest arguments that keeps coming up over and over.

Really?
You claim that "you can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away"! This is one of the dumbest things that you keep saying over and over.

Take a look at this:

Quote from: rabinoz on April 15, 2017, 01:07:27 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 14, 2017, 09:36:20 PM

Here is the same mountain again. Notice the comments: "only the top third of the mountain due to curvature."

Mount Rainier is visible from Vancouver (Which is behind Seattle, 286 KMs away!)

Where in Vancouver that Rainier can be seen from:

Quote from: dleung

You can see an unobstructed view of Vancouver's skyline from the mountains of Vancouver island up to 145km northwest of downtown. The Olympic mountains in Washington State are 150+km, but have a partly obscured view due to the hill that the city of Vancouver is located. But the 280km view from Mt Rainier to Metrotown is hands-down the winner.
In conclusion, from Mt Rainier, one can actually see any building taller than ~80m in Burnaby's Metrotown.

Yep, I live at the very top of Metrotown (and hence all of Metro Vancouver) and I can confirm that your math checks out.
I can see Mount Rainier, so the opposite must also be true (although will require huge binoculars).

This photo is, of course, taken from a much higher altitude.

From Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from?

Here it is from that building:

You are only seeing the very top of Mount Rainier in that bottom photo.
If the earth was flat, wouldn't you be seeing all the way down to the base of Mount Rainier ?

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 10:46:40 PM

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, if that was going to be an issue, the horizon would be a blur. Instead we often get nice clear horizons. That means we can see all the way to the edge without the air getting in the way.

Admittedly, as it has been pointed out frequently, the night was unusually clear on the night of the RMS Titanic tragedy.
Survivors in the lifeboats, perhaps sitting only a few feet above the sea, reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon.
They could only see maybe only  a mile or two to the horizon, but they could clearly the stars just above the horizon and they were light years away in the distance.

I am going to repeat myself again. But in one of Rowbotham's "ENAG" didn't he say you wouldn't see the horizon but just "an indistinct  blur that fades away at an indefinite distance. " ?  My guess is that he made that observation on of those "pea soup fog" nights in Olde  London Towne. LOL.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 27, 2018, 12:24:09 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 09:41:55 PM

You can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away.  Why would you expect to see anything hundreds or thousands of miles away?  This is one of the dumbest arguments that keeps coming up over and over.

Really?
You claim that "you can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away"! This is one of the dumbest things that you keep saying over and over.

Take a look at this:

Quote from: rabinoz on April 15, 2017, 01:07:27 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 14, 2017, 09:36:20 PM

Here is the same mountain again. Notice the comments: "only the top third of the mountain due to curvature."

Mount Rainier is visible from Vancouver (Which is behind Seattle, 286 KMs away!)

Where in Vancouver that Rainier can be seen from:

Quote from: dleung

You can see an unobstructed view of Vancouver's skyline from the mountains of Vancouver island up to 145km northwest of downtown. The Olympic mountains in Washington State are 150+km, but have a partly obscured view due to the hill that the city of Vancouver is located. But the 280km view from Mt Rainier to Metrotown is hands-down the winner.
In conclusion, from Mt Rainier, one can actually see any building taller than ~80m in Burnaby's Metrotown.

Yep, I live at the very top of Metrotown (and hence all of Metro Vancouver) and I can confirm that your math checks out.
I can see Mount Rainier, so the opposite must also be true (although will require huge binoculars).

This photo is, of course, taken from a much higher altitude.

From Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from?

Here it is from that building:

You are only seeing the very top of Mount Rainier in that bottom photo.
If the earth was flat, wouldn't you be seeing all the way down to the base of Mount Rainier ?

I don't believe so my antiGoogle brother. In that picture there are land formations blocking the view from the perspective of the observer.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 29, 2018, 01:20:25 PM

You are only seeing the very top of Mount Rainier in that bottom photo.
If the earth was flat, wouldn't you be seeing all the way down to the base of Mount Rainier ?

I don't believe so my antiGoogle brother. In that picture there are land formations blocking the view from the perspective of the observer.

Just to clarify matters, my post was in answer to jroa.

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 09:41:55 PM

You can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away.  Why would you expect to see anything hundreds or thousands of miles away?  This is one of the dumbest arguments that keeps coming up over and over.

Really?
You claim that "you can barely see mountains just a few dozen miles away"! This is one of the dumbest things that you keep saying over and over.

Take a look at this

So was intended to show what visibility distance is possibly in very clean  Canadian (and Washington) air not any hidden amount.
But while there are "there are land formations blocking the view" I doubt that they high enough to hide 2/3 of a 4,392 m mountain.
I can't do it now, but I'll look into it later.
.

Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid

They can't be valid to me as there is no absence of visible curvature.   From a boat at sea I can clearly see the horizon is curved.    It's one curved line all around me.    A straight line couldn't do that!

Quote from: Robcore on May 26, 2018, 09:37:52 PM

Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid

They can't be valid to me as there is no absence of visible curvature.   From a boat at sea I can clearly see the horizon is curved.    It's one curved line all around me.    A straight line couldn't do that!

After listening to all these people ramble on about not being able to see the curvature of the earth, I am beginning to think that many of them probably cannot rationalise 3D concepts (i.e., spatial perceptions) in their mind.  Of course, many others merely follow along because they simply don't know any better.

Quote from: 54N on May 30, 2018, 11:11:49 AM

Quote from: Robcore on May 26, 2018, 09:37:52 PM

Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid

They can't be valid to me as there is no absence of visible curvature.   From a boat at sea I can clearly see the horizon is curved.    It's one curved line all around me.    A straight line couldn't do that!

After listening to all these people ramble on about not being able to see the curvature of the earth, I am beginning to think that many of them probably cannot rationalise 3D concepts (i.e., spatial perceptions) in their mind.  Of course, many others merely follow along because they simply don't know any better.

I suppose in one instance you really have to be on a ship in the middle of the ocean to visualise this.
You are in the middle of a circle which curves in a circle all around you - 360 degrees in all directions..
And you are in sort of on top of a little mound, which due to the size of the earth,  is sloping away from you in all directions to the horizon ever so slightly that it looks as if the ocean is flat,
And the size of your little circle, the size or distance of the radius of that circle you are in the middle of, is determined by your height above the water.
If you are in a boat on the water, that radius is only about a mile or two.
If up in a crow's nest, about 10 or 12 miles.
Cut off the top of an orange, or better yet, a large grapefuit to visualise this.
I willl admit if you have never been to sea, it would be hard to visualise this if you had never been to sea and lived in an area of flat land.
If I had never been to sea, I never would have been able to make this explanatiion.
My "round earth education" didn't begin until I had been in the Navy for over a year until I had my first sea duty ....LOL
I hope this willl make a  "round earther" out of any "flat earther" who has any doubts.
I didn't make all this up.
It's just the way things are.
The earth is a globe.

Quote from: Really on May 30, 2018, 12:53:06 PM

Quote from: 54N on May 30, 2018, 11:11:49 AM

Quote from: Robcore on May 26, 2018, 09:37:52 PM

Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid

They can't be valid to me as there is no absence of visible curvature.   From a boat at sea I can clearly see the horizon is curved.    It's one curved line all around me.    A straight line couldn't do that!

After listening to all these people ramble on about not being able to see the curvature of the earth, I am beginning to think that many of them probably cannot rationalise 3D concepts (i.e., spatial perceptions) in their mind.  Of course, many others merely follow along because they simply don't know any better.

I suppose in one instance you really have to be on a ship in the middle of the ocean to visualise this.
You are in the middle of a circle which curves in a circle all around you - 360 degrees in all directions..
And you are in sort of on top of a little mound, which due to the size of the earth,  is sloping away from you in all directions to the horizon ever so slightly that it looks as if the ocean is flat,
And the size of your little circle, the size or distance of the radius of that circle you are in the middle of, is determined by your height above the water.
If you are in a boat on the water, that radius is only about a mile or two.
If up in a crow's nest, about 10 or 12 miles.
Cut off the top of an orange, or better yet, a large grapefuit to visualise this.
I willl admit if you have never been to sea, it would be hard to visualise this if you had never been to sea and lived in an area of flat land.
If I had never been to sea, I never would have been able to make this explanatiion.
My "round earth education" didn't begin until I had been in the Navy for over a year until I had my first sea duty ....LOL
I hope this willl make a  "round earther" out of any "flat earther" who has any doubts.
I didn't make all this up.
It's just the way things are.
The earth is a globe.

I agree with you completely.  It's a globe.  It's mind-boggling to think someone can perceive it as flat.  It's as if the laws of physics cease to exist at their front door 

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument.

You do love to scream that you can't see things a certain distance away when the air visibility index is clear enough that you could if the horizon didn't get in the way, don't you?
Change the bloody record.

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 10:46:40 PM

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument.

You do love to scream that you can't see things a certain distance away when the air visibility index is clear enough that you could if the horizon didn't get in the way, don't you?
Change the bloody record.

At ground level, the index is at its maximum.  Perhaps I should change the bloody record to ban instead of warn? 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 01, 2018, 05:59:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2018, 10:46:40 PM

It can be applied to any shaped Earth.  The fact that air scatters light means that you can only see a certain distance.  Saying that you should see this or that is just a dumb argument.

You do love to scream that you can't see things a certain distance away when the air visibility index is clear enough that you could if the horizon didn't get in the way, don't you?
Change the bloody record.

At ground level, the index is at its maximum.  Perhaps I should change the bloody record to ban instead of warn?

I think the pictures of Mount Rainier have more than adequately disproved your silly idea in this thread. I'm waiting for you to start crying Photoshop.