The dip of the horizon

On multiple places on the Flat Earth Wiki, it is being claimed that the horizon is always at your eye level. That is demonstrably not true, and the Round Earth Theory can easily explain why. If you draw a diagram...

...you will see that the angle at which you see the horizon (the dip of the horizon) is given by the formula...
.
And that angle can be seen in two ways that come to my mind:
1) Only qualitatively: You can see the sunset twice if you watch it sitting down and then quickly stand up. The horizon fell as you stood up but the Sun stayed at your eye level.
2) Quantitatively: With a goniometer and a gyroscope. You can use a gyroscope to see exactly where your eye level is and measure the angle between your eye level and the horizon with a goniometer, and see that that formula is correct.
How does the Flat Earth Theory explain that? I suppose it does not.

(1) Please provide evidence that your thought experiment has any basis in validity.

Using your formula, the change in angle between sitting down and standing up can be calculated. I give you a generous h = 2m (maybe you were sitting on the ground and jumped high in the air).

This gives an alpha of 3.16e-07 radians.

How fast does the sun move? 2 pi radians in 24 hours; 6.28 rad/86400 sec, so let's say you're super fast and can stand up in 0.1 sec. The sun moves 7.27e-06 radians in that time.

Your "qualitative" thought experiment fails. In perfect conditions, you cannot stand up fast enough to see the sun set twice. Even if you could stand up in half the time (50 ms) and jump 4m high.

(2) I'd like to see your procedure for "You can use a gyroscope to see exactly where your eye level is and measure the angle between your eye level and the horizon with a goniometer" with the precision necessary. Please include the model number for each piece of equipment along with the required calibration method and statistical methods for assuring accuracy.

That assumes also that you can see the horizon with sufficient clarity.

And last, you also assume that light travels in a straight line. Which it does not.

ADDED: JackBlack found the error in my (1) calculation (I used the small angle approximation where I should not have). So, theoretically this should work. Any actual observations where this is documented?

I calculated 0.000792 radians for a height of 2 m and a radius of 6371 km.
So assuming they go from their eyes level with the ground to standing up at 2 m, that gives them ~11 seconds to rise and watch the sun set again.

Please include the model number for each piece of equipment along with the required calibration method and statistical methods for assuring accuracy.

Oh, for God's sake, you can use an app such as Dioptra to do that for you, on any Android phone that has a digital gyroscope in it (which is almost all phones these days).

Any actual observations where this is documented?

Sure, the MinutePhysics video "10 reasons why we know the Earth is round" (or something like that).

Here you go, the reference for "You can see the sunset twice if you watch it sitting down and then quickly stand up.":

It's at 1:45.

I think we have established that the dip of the horizon is a fact which can be observed with equipment most people have at home (as almost everybody these days has a phone with camera and a gyroscope). Unless Flat Earth Theory can explain that (preferably also explaining why this formula appears correct), that is to be considered a disproof of the Flat Earth Theory.

Will you please then correct this misinformation there?

A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.

That's not true. The horizon falls as you climb, as can be seen in two ways I described in the OP. The Round Earth Theory can easily explain why, in fact, with the basic trigonometry it predicts that the formula is:

How does the Flat Earth Theory explain that? Will you finally answer that question?

Of course, you are going to ignore the issue. What else can be expected from you?

Of course, you are going to ignore the issue. What else can be expected from you?

To be fair, it's an experiment that requires very specific circumstances to set up. No FEer holds that the Earth is uniformly flat - that is, they don't deny the existence of hills and dips in the land. This kind of experiment is going to be more informed by local geography than the shape of the Earth. If I look out the window, the horizon is going to be way higher than my eye level because I'm staring at a hill, should I conclude the Earth is concave?
I'm sure there are wide, flat, open areas that allow you to do this, sea level is usually the best reference, but in general this is not the compelling case you put it forwards as.

Also, I'm not convinced anyone currently active can even edit the wiki.

And we can debate what 'EYE LEVEL' even means, beyond that. Those of us who believe Earth IS flat and not a speeding ball in endless space, say the horizon is 'eye level' because it is seen directly across from our view, and we never have to look down to see it, at ANY altitude above Earth we are. The ball Earth bunch jump on the term 'eye level', and say it is not 'directly level' with our view, just to skew the whole argument around their way.

In essence, when we see a horizon, no matter HOW HIGH ABOVE EARTH WE ARE, it IS directly seen across from us. That is the main point here. If the Earth was a ball, the horizon would NOT be seen directly across from us at any altitude above Earth, because it would be a SPHERE.

If we were rising ABOVE a sphere, the horizon would not only show an ever more pronounced curve ACROSS the Earth, but it would also be FURTHER AND FURTHER BELOW our view from above the Earth, the higher we rise above Earth.   

That is why the ball Earth bunch cannot make a computer simulation of it, without making a VISIBLE curve at altitudes planes fly LOWER than, when it is seen perfectly flat across the Earth, as it ALWAYS is seen.

That's the problem they cannot resolve. In order to show Earth as a ball, when in 'space', they must start to CURVE the horizon at lower heights. When they DO that, they prove it is NOT a ball, because the horizon remains flat at those altitudes, in the REAL world!


Anyway, I don't know if you are or are not a ball Earth believer, I assume most likely it is the latter. But you've brought up a valid point here, without any agenda blinding your thoughts, so well done!

I wish more people did the same thing, but sadly, it's not the case.

And we can debate what 'EYE LEVEL' even means, beyond that. Those of us who believe Earth IS flat and not a speeding ball in endless space, say the horizon is 'eye level' because it is seen directly across from our view, and we never have to look down to see it, at ANY altitude above Earth we are.

You mean it is WITHIN your view, not seen directly across.
As for any altitude, that is only the extremely limited altitudes you have been.
Even at the cruising altitude of a plane, that is still only roughly 10 km, or more honestly expressed, roughly 0.15% of the radius of Earth.
If you had a ball 1 m in diameter, that would be like looking at it from less than 1 mm above its surface.

The ball Earth bunch jump on the term 'eye level', and say it is not 'directly level' with our view, just to skew the whole argument around their way.

Quite the opposite.
FEers take an example where you cannot tell what the angle of dip to the horizon is and use that to falsely claim this means Earth can't be round.
The REers point out that is pure garbage, and when measured, there is an angle of dip to the horizon, which varies with altitude.

In essence, when we see a horizon, no matter HOW HIGH ABOVE EARTH WE ARE

Again, you see it when you are within 0.15% of the radius of Earth away from Earth.
That is basically nothing.

If the Earth was a ball, the horizon would NOT be seen directly across from us at any altitude above Earth, because it would be a SPHERE.

Why?
Because you say so?
Again, this only works if by "directly across" you do the very thing you are accusing REers of trying to skew the argument with.
That is that it must be at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.

If instead you were doing it in the way you are trying to portray it as, then you most certainly would expect to be able to see the horizon.
Even at an altitude of 10 km above the surface, the angle of dip to the horizon would be 3.2 degrees. Well within your FOV.

As a comparison, that would be like looking at something 5.6 cm below your eye level at a distance of 1 m.

If instead we stick to more common altitudes, dropping it down to 1 km would put it equivalent to 1.8 cm. If you were at the beach, 10 m above sea level, then it would equate to 1.8 mm. You cannot tell if that is level or not.

So no, the horizon would most certainly be visible on the RE.

If we were rising ABOVE a sphere, the horizon would not only show an ever more pronounced curve ACROSS the Earth, but it would also be FURTHER AND FURTHER BELOW our view from above the Earth, the higher we rise above Earth.

How many times must it be explained that the horizon is a curve? It is a circle. What you are doing now is like picking up a hula hoop (or any other ring), looking at it as close as possible to being in the plane of the circle, and boldly proclaiming it isn't curved.

If you want to see it as a curve, you need a very large portion of the horizon taking up a relatively small amount of your FOV.

And it is observed to get lower with increasing altitude.

when it is seen perfectly flat across the Earth, as it ALWAYS is seen.

A flat circle, just like you would expect for a RE, and nothing like what you would expect for a FE.

That's the problem they cannot resolve. In order to show Earth as a ball, when in 'space', they must start to CURVE the horizon at lower heights. When they DO that, they prove it is NOT a ball, because the horizon remains flat at those altitudes, in the REAL world!

And more dishonest BS.
The horizon is curved. What matters is the angle you look at it from.

Anyway, I don't know if you are or are not a ball Earth believer, I assume most likely it is the latter. But you've brought up a valid point here, without any agenda blinding your thoughts, so well done!

I wish more people did the same thing, but sadly, it's not the case.

Well nothing is stopping you from trying, except your own agenda or irrationally attacking the RE.

How many times must it be explained that the horizon is a curve? It is a circle. What you are doing now is like picking up a hula hoop (or any other ring), looking at it as close as possible to being in the plane of the circle, and boldly proclaiming it isn't curved.

No, your ball Earth is a sphere, which means it must have a completely curved surface, everywhere you are on that surface, it is always curved, in every direction you look at it, whether ON it, or ABOVE it, looking down to it below you.

A horizon seen on a ball Earth would always be curved.  What we will see is around from one point, stationary, outward, which GOES AROUND FROM ONE POSITION, moving CIRCULAR  around that one position, FROM the Earth's surface. 

What ELSE do you EXPECT it would be, if looking outward from one position, around your position? A RECTANGLE, or SQUARE, maybe a SQUIGGLY SHAPE?

It is not even an ACTUAL, PHYSICAL CIRCLE, it is the movement from one point, rotating around it.

I'm talking about a REAL, PHYSICAL CURVE, of the ball Earth's surface, which WOULD exist, WOULD be seen, as an actual curved surface of Earth.

Try to draw a sphere, or look at some sort of ball, and imagine you were on it, as a speck, and imagine what you'd see on it. Obviously, as a tiny speck on a massive ball, it wouldn't appear to be a ball, viewed over it, outward from you. You cannot tell what shape it is you are on, from that one viewpoint on it. The horizon may appear flat, while it is slightly curved, but it is too slight of a curve, to see it, or identify it, or measure it, from your position on such a massive ball.

That's what we WOULD see, if Earth WERE a massive ball, viewed outward, from one position on it.

We don't actually KNOW what it would look like, what a horizon would look like from the ground, because Earth is NOT a ball, it is actually FLAT.

And these are two completely DIFFERENT surfaces, with one being a completely curved surface, while the other one is a completely FLAT surface, so they have VISUAL differences, for one thing, among many other differences as well, but the most obvious difference they have, is what would be SEEN, if it is curved, or is flat, and NOT curved at all!

And if Earth WERE a ball, and DID have an actual RATE of 'curvature', everyone on Earth would be told, and taught, in schools, and written in our textbooks, told as ANY OTHER FACT IS STATED AS A FACT, used as ALL ACTUAL RATES are used, and followed as actual rates are, because they are VERY important to use, and work with, as actual rates, with actual measurements, are used in ALL  fields today.

Nobody says 'well, we can ignore that rate, it's not a big deal, anyway' In fact, it sounds completely STUPID, just to think about someone ever SAYING it, let alone an entire FIELD of professional surveyors, who DEPEND on being accurate, not idiots who ignore something which would be fundamental to their entire profession!  It's completely INSANE to even suggest they would be complete morons! Not a chance in hell, it's total BS!

I'm talking about a REAL, PHYSICAL CURVE, of the ball Earth's surface, which WOULD exist, WOULD be seen, as an actual curved surface of Earth.

It’s been repeatedly explained…

Do Clouds Show Evidence of Spherical Earth?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90800.msg2374139#msg2374139

Shrugs…

Quote

Power lines over Lake Pontchartrain elegantly demonstrate the curvature of Earth

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/power-lines-curvature-earth-04233/amp/

And you ignored this too.

And the Rainy Lake Experiment.

Quote

Proof of Earth Curvature: The Rainy Lake Experiment

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

Both that don’t require the impossible calmness between there is always air currents, differences in temperature, biologics splashing around, the wake of boats, and tides.  Measurements at the edge of a instruments tolerances.

And this has been cited for you too…

Quote

There is one huge towing tank of about 500m, so long that the tank has been built following the Earth curvature - as the water surface would do - and not straight to avoid vertical position offset of models under test (about 18 cm). The second towing tank is shorter (about 220m) but it can generate controlled waves to analyze hull behavior at difference sea force levels.

https://dewesoft.com/case-studies/naval-and-marine-performance-testing-and-simulation

Quote

You've seen a flat surface with a horizon, every day on Earth. THAT is what a vast flat surface looks like, there's NO CURVE IN SIGHT, ANYWHERE AT ALL.

And it’s been explained to you the earth is big enough there is no perceivable curvature for the limited capability of our eyes.


Just like this…

.

Is part of this concept curve curing to the right and down hill.

Quote

Do horizons look curved to you? Do you see a slight curve to horizons, anywhere? No, they are all flat, end to end, each and every one of them. 

Lots of things look one way, and are something else.

Quote

So what's actually going on here? Turns out, these bizarre natural phenomena are just an elaborate optical illusion - an illusion so good, it'd be impossible to believe it without the proper equipment.

But if you get some surveying equipment or GPS markers to actually measure the difference between the 'top' of the slope and the 'bottom', you'll realise that everything is actually in reverse.

"The embankment is sloped in a way that gives you the effect that you are going uphill," materials physicist Brock Weiss from Pennsylvania State University told Discoveries and Breakthroughs in Science back in 2006.

"You are, indeed, going downhill, even though your brain gives you the impression that you're going uphill."


https://www.sciencealert.com/gravity-hills-physics-defying-optical-illusion-car-drifts-uphill/amp

Again…
Experiments that prove your perspective crap doesn’t explain why the the sun becomes physically blocked from view at sunset where binoculars/zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0


Notice I post in context of actual extermination.  You only offer opinionated BS. 

A horizon seen on a ball Earth would always be curved. 

What is the size of your flat earth?

Here's how it works on our globe:

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

According to YOUR rate of 'curvature', it would be quite a pronounced arc in the middle of that horizon, right?

But the horizon is entirely flat, there is NO arc at all to be seen, in the slightest.


Why is there no arc at all? It WOULD be there, if 'curvature' existed, no?

Your side has tried to show a 'simulation' of how the horizon appears flat, from the ground, but slowly, gradually appears as a curve, before it looks like a ball, in 'space'.


I freeze framed the clip, as it began to show a curve. It was lower than PLANES fly at!

That showed it was complete BS, right there. This is why NASA never showed the horizon starting to 'curve', from a rocket, too. It doesn't work at all.


One must show a curving horizon before the ball Earth in 'space' shows up, but it cannot be done. Because it is NOT a ball, and is NOT curved.


If one KEEPS a flat horizon, at greater altitudes, it must SUDDENLY start to curve, which looks even MORE ridiculous!


Look for yourself, if you wish

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

If the earth is flat, why does changing height relativity little increase the distance to the horizon…

Distance to the Horizon

https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

If you truly are a truthseeker, do the math.

What is the size of your flat earth?

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

According to YOUR rate of 'curvature', it would be quite a pronounced arc in the middle of that horizon, right?

But the horizon is entirely flat, there is NO arc at all to be seen, in the slightest.

Why is there no arc at all? It WOULD be there, if 'curvature' existed, no?

No, it wouldn't be there. Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions and the same height in all directions. In that sense, it is indeed flat.

When viewing from an increasing height it will at some point become apparent that you are looking at the edge of a circle, but the horizon will still be the same height in all directions. There is no reason why one direction would look different from any other.

This is entirely consistent with a round earth. A flat earth wouldn't have a distinct horizon at all.

No, your ball Earth is a sphere, which means it must have a completely curved surface, everywhere you are on that surface, it is always curved, in every direction you look at it, whether ON it, or ABOVE it, looking down to it below you.

It being a curved surface does not mean that you will see that curve in every direction you look the exact way you claim.

A horizon seen on a ball Earth would always be curved.

And it is, it is a circle surrounding us.
Conversely, a FE would have no horizon.

What we will see is around from one point, stationary, outward, which GOES AROUND FROM ONE POSITION, moving CIRCULAR  around that one position, FROM the Earth's surface.

And that is exactly what we do see.
From standing in one direction, looking towards the horizon, we can follow it in a curve going around us in a circular fashion, to get back to where it started.

We see exactly what is expected for a RE.

I'm talking about a REAL, PHYSICAL CURVE, of the ball Earth's surface, which WOULD exist, WOULD be seen, as an actual curved surface of Earth.

Which has been seen, countless times. We even have photos of it.

Try to draw a sphere, or look at some sort of ball, and imagine you were on it, as a speck, and imagine what you'd see on it. Obviously, as a tiny speck on a massive ball, it wouldn't appear to be a ball, viewed over it, outward from you. You cannot tell what shape it is you are on, from that one viewpoint on it. The horizon may appear flat, while it is slightly curved, but it is too slight of a curve, to see it, or identify it, or measure it, from your position on such a massive ball.
That's what we WOULD see, if Earth WERE a massive ball, viewed outward, from one position on it.

i.e. what we see? There you go admitting you are entirely wrong yet again. You make big grand claims about how it should so easily see it curved, only to then admit you should not be able to see it easily due to how close you are to Earth.
But no, the horizon would be flat.
How many times must this be repeated?
A circle is flat. It is 2D, it MUST be flat.
The horizon on Earth is the intersection of Earth's curved surface with a plane. That plane makes the horizon flat.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve.
It is a circle, centred on a point below you. So it curves around you, being the same distance in all directions.

What changes is the angle you see the curve from.
If you look a ring or hoop or anything like that, from inside, at basically the centre, it will look like a line curving around you. There will not be any noticeable drop from the middle of your vision to the side.
In order to see that you need to get above the ring.

We don't actually KNOW what it would look like, what a horizon would look like from the ground, because Earth is NOT a ball, it is actually FLAT.

We most certainly do know, as Earth is round. Again, a FE wouldn't have a horizon other than from the very edge of that FE.
But regardless, we don't need Earth to be round to know what it looks like.

And these are two completely DIFFERENT surfaces, with one being a completely curved surface, while the other one is a completely FLAT surface, so they have VISUAL differences, for one thing, among many other differences as well

That is right, and the most relevant difference for this discussion is the curved surface produces a near horizon. It obstructs the view to more distant objects. And the angle of dip to the horizon will increase with altitude.
Conversely a flat surface would produce no horizon other than the actual edge. It would not obstruct the view to more distant parts of the surface.

So what we see is entirely consistent with a curved surface, not a flat one.

And if Earth WERE a ball, and DID have an actual RATE of 'curvature', everyone on Earth would be told, and taught, in schools, and written in our textbooks, told as ANY OTHER FACT IS STATED AS A FACT, used as ALL ACTUAL RATES are used, and followed as actual rates are, because they are VERY important to use, and work with, as actual rates, with actual measurements, are used in ALL  fields today.

And more delusional BS.
Not everyone must follow your pathetic demands.
We don't need to be told the RATE of curvature.
Instead, people are told the radius of curvature, i.e. the radius of Earth.

Why should people be told it as a rate (which you probably actually mean the drop over distance rather than rate of curvature), rather than just the radius?

As for how they are used in fields today, do you mean how only if they would make a significant impact are they used?
Where for example, the variation in density of air with altitude would be used for the calculations of altitude in air, as it varies significantly; but the same is not done for depth in water as the density does not vary significantly?

The real world is not about trying to do everything perfectly.
Instead, it is about doing it to the required level of accuracy and precision.
If you have something simple that will do that, use it. If it is too inaccurate or too imprecise, use something more accurate and more precise.

Even you do the same.
Look at your comparison of a flat earth vs a round Earth.
You talk about them having a completely flat surface vs a completely round surface. Yet we both know that is not the case.
It doesn't matter if you want to have a flat or round Earth, it will still have mountains and valleys and plateaus and so on.
A round Earth can still have flat portions and a flat Earth can still have round portions.
But you ignore them, because they aren't important to the overall argument.

Nobody says 'well, we can ignore that rate, it's not a big deal, anyway' In fact, it sounds completely STUPID, just to think about someone ever SAYING it

Quite the opposite.
It is incredibly stupid to think no one would say that.
If something is so small and insignificant that it would not make an impact on the overall goal, it is often ignored.

It's completely INSANE to even suggest they would be complete morons! Not a chance in hell, it's total BS!

Yet you do repeatedly.
So does that mean you are insane and are spouting total BS?

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

You mean looking through a window which will restrict your FOV, at a small portion of the horizon?

If you are at cruising altitude of 10 km, that would be equivalent to being 0.8 mm away from a ball with a diameter of 1 m.

The horizon would be a circle of radius ~357 km a distance of ~20 km below you.
If you took a hula hoop with a 1 m diameter, that would be like looking at it with your eye in the middle from 2.8 cm above the ring, with something in front of you to restrict your view to a small portion of it.

According to YOUR rate of 'curvature', it would be quite a pronounced arc in the middle of that horizon, right?

No. Yet again you are appealing to the great circle of Earth. That curvature you are appealing to is hidden by the horizon.

But the horizon is entirely flat, there is NO arc at all to be seen, in the slightest.

Again, BS.
The horizon is flat, a flat circle curving around a point below you.

Why is there no arc at all? It WOULD be there, if 'curvature' existed, no?

There is an arc there. If there wasn't you wouldn't be able to follow it around you in a circle.

Your side has tried to show a 'simulation' of how the horizon appears flat, from the ground, but slowly, gradually appears as a curve, before it looks like a ball, in 'space'.
I freeze framed the clip, as it began to show a curve. It was lower than PLANES fly at!

Yet you don't even bother providing it, or any of the details of it.
Instead you just make the same pathetic claims.

If one KEEPS a flat horizon, at greater altitudes, it must SUDDENLY start to curve, which looks even MORE ridiculous!

Again, it is a circle. That is flat and it is curved.
So no, it keeps a flat horizon, all the way up.
Likewise, it is curved all the way up.

Once more, what changes is the orientation you are viewing the circle from.
When close to Earth, you are viewing the circle from quite close to the middle of the circle. Quite close to the plane of the circle.
But when far away, you are viewing it from far away, looking down at the circle.

Yet again, I am not claiming you can see the horizon's curvature from an airplane. The horizon's curvature can only be seen from a much greater height. But, from an airplane, you can see the dip of the horizon with a gyroscope and goniometer or a device having both gyroscope and a camera (such as most mobile phones these days).

Yet you don't even bother providing it, or any of the details of it.
Instead you just make the same pathetic claims.

Again, it is a circle. That is flat and it is curved.
So no, it keeps a flat horizon, all the way up.
Likewise, it is curved all the way up.

For someone who claims the Earth is a ball, it's odd you've never once SEEN any simulations of ball Earth horizons from ground to 'space' before! 

I found one in about 4 seconds, and this would be YOUR so-called 'evidence', not mine!

Take a look..



I'll ignore other problems here, and focus on the ALTITUDE indicated, and what the horizons look like at those altitudes indicated.

The first 10 seconds of the clip is all we need to look at, as you'll see.

On the ground, or 0 ft. altitude, we see a virtually flat horizon. They have a straight white line above, or along the horizon.

Now, look at the next 10 seconds or so, frame by frame, which allows you to see what altitude is indicated over that time. 

By the 4 second mark, it indicates altitudes of about 9-10000 feet.

Look at the horizon shown at that altitude. There is already a slight CURVE over it, which is very obvious to see, or should be, anyway. The straight line put above it, shows how it's curving slightly from end to end. This horizon has an ARC, which is slight, but is visible.

Look at the horizon shown at 20-30000 feet, a second or 2 later. Now, the horizon shows MORE of a curve, MORE of an arc, than before, at half that altitude.

And now, look at the horizon at 40-50000 feet, which is normal cruising altitude for planes.

Of course, the horizon shows even more of a curve, which is even MORE noticeable to see, which is what we would expect to see, a horizon that shows more and more of a CURVE, at greater altitudes above the surface. 


Here's the whole problem with it - REAL horizons do NOT have a curve, or an arc, at those altitudes indicated in that simulation. They are completely flat, throughout.

We know that for a fact, we can PROVE they are completely flat, at any time.

You've claimed they are completely flat, while tying to call them 'curved circles', to mislead and twist what they actually LOOK LIKE, which is a completely FLAT LINE, as seen from one viewpoint, side to side. We do NOT see any CIRCLE, or any CURVE, or any CURVING CIRCLE, when viewing horizons. We see them as flat, straight lines across the Earth, from any viewpoint.  This 'circle' you call a 'curve', as a 'curved circle', is NEVER seen by us, at all.

The simulation has horizons with visible curves over them, at plane altitudes. We all KNOW that horizons are completely FLAT across at plane altitudes.

I've seen TWO simulations, one shown here, which completely fail to hold up. They show horizons with visible curves over them, at altitudes we KNOW, and SEE, are completely flat across.

I hope you don't try to dispute that. You've already said they ARE flat across, or 'flat and curved as a circle', because that sounds better to you, since it mentions both a CURVE, and a CIRCLE, even if we never see any curves or circles, we just see COMPLETELY FLAT horizons.

And that's why all of your ball Earth bunch, who have surely tried everything possible to simulate actual horizons magically transforming curves over them, at altitudes nobody has been, so nobody can prove it WRONG, which works like 'space claims' do, that nobody can ever prove wrong, and that's the whole POINT of it!   

There WOULD be ACCURATE simulations of how horizons look, from above a ball Earth, at plane altitudes, if it WAS a ball Earth.

So look at these 'simulations' of horizons on a ball Earth, at plane altitudes, because THAT is how horizons WOULD look, in general. They'd CURVE over them.

Oh, I forgot, you believe that horizons DO look completely flat - they don't look like circles, or curved circles. Horizons always look completely FLAT, right? Yet you claim they are NOT completely flat, they are slightly CURVED, but appear flat, over such 'small' distances, as WE see them! 

That is up to YOU to prove, to show a simulation of it, like that one above, but with flat horizons at those altitudes instead.  You'd think some ball Earthers would've DONE that by now, to support their claims, but I've not found any, which is odd.......   

For someone who claims the Earth is a ball, it's odd you've never once SEEN any simulations of ball Earth horizons from ground to 'space' before!

There you go making more insane assumptions.
I have seen plenty, and even know how to make them.
I am yet to see any which fail to match reality.

Look at the horizon shown at that altitude. There is already a slight CURVE over it, which is very obvious to see, or should be, anyway. The straight line put above it, shows how it's curving slightly from end to end.

Is is a very slight curve, which is only obvious to see due to the straight line above it.

It is also compressing a 65 degree FOV into a smaller area, and flattening it out, and not tilting down.

If you are 1 m away from the screen, 65 degrees would correspond to 1.2 m wide.
This will distort the view, making the curve more obvious.
The exact settings used to produce the image will also effect how significant the curve appears. Just like the exact lens in a camera can.

It also has a very sharp horizon, compared to the horizon in planes which often has cloud cover, and a view through a plane window.
And a window also limits the FOV.

To get a 65 degree FOV from a plane window, such as the A330, with a width of 22.86 cm, you would need to be 17.9 cm from the outside of the aircraft.
Considering the wall & trim is typically around 15 cm thick, that is a significant ask, which not many people would do. So most photos wouldn't show the FOV used.
And even then, have you bothered looking at photos/videos of the horizon from a plane?

Here is an example:

Notice the curve?

Here's the whole problem with it - REAL horizons do NOT have a curve, or an arc, at those altitudes indicated in that simulation.

Again, that is your claim. But the fact you see it circling you proves it has a curve.

They are completely flat, throughout.

Again, the horizon is a circle. This is a flat object which is curved.
Attempting to prove the horizon is flat wont help you.

We do NOT see any CIRCLE, or any CURVE, or any CURVING CIRCLE, when viewing horizons.

You don't see it because you don't want to.

There WOULD be ACCURATE simulations of how horizons look, from above a ball Earth, at plane altitudes, if it WAS a ball Earth.

And you are yet to demonstrate that there isn't.

That is up to YOU to prove

That isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden of proof is on you, it is on you to demonstrate that the horizon appears as a straight line at all altitudes.
Providing evidence such as photos and videos showing the horizon from these altitudes, and producing a simulated image with comparable parameters.

The curve is seen without having a straight line above it, simply edit it out of the frames, it shows  curve without it.

Excuses don't help you here. A valid simulation works or it is not valid.

You've already claimed this simulation is completely wrong, not showing how it really is, so you don't HAVE any valid simulation at all. You would, if it was a ball, but it's not a ball. One cannot simulate something to be seen, that is NOT seen in reality.

Concord at 60k feet, mach 2. No fisheye. If it were, the plane would be bowed upward nose to tail.

The curve is seen without having a straight line above it, simply edit it out of the frames, it shows  curve without it.

The curve is more noticeable with the straight line there.

But great job showing you will just ignore any evidence you are provided with.
I provided a picture from a plane, showing a curve.
But you just ignore it, because you aren't here seeking the truth.
You are here spouting delusional BS to try and prop up your delusional fantasy.

I have seen and have picures of stuff at distances that i am pretty sure should be impossible according to my investigations including looking at topo maps. So i completely conclude we can see further than mainstream theory should allow for.

Its interesting to note the curvature you guys are showing and then the curvature we have supposedly seen from amateur weather balloons not to mention the absolute lack of curvature i BELIEVE was visible in the military picture releases from the first high altitude stuff in the 50s i think i think maybe early rockets v2 or saturn. The curvature in these early releases ands possibly lower amateur weather balloons is not near as curved as this concord photo and i belkive uncannily similar to jb's airliner photo, though reportedly 3 or more times higher than plane, i think 2 times higher than concorde... maybe quite off. plane 30 000 ft, concorde 50 000, balloon 100 000... not sure.

On multiple places on the Flat Earth Wiki, it is being claimed that the horizon is always at your eye level. That is demonstrably not true, and the Round Earth Theory can easily explain why. If you draw a diagram...

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

The horizon from a plane:

The horizon on a mountain:

And a horizon on a plain.


In all cases except those doctored by NASA, the horizon is also totally level straight across.

The only thing that might change is range. I have already addressed this with my parabola theory.

The thing about parabola theory is that it accounts for greater range of vision at higher altitudes. RE absolutely does not. If you back up significantly from a mountain, despite being the valley, you can see a horizon past it. But in a round Earth, any obstacles would curve about the curvature and you could not see horizon past a mountain.

Yet you can see the clouds ahead around the mountain.

In a RE, the sky by your own model curves under the mountains. This means you cannot see sky above the mountain.