The dip of the horizon

  • 41 Replies
  • 3956 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 22516
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2023, 11:18:02 PM »
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.
And you have made that claim repeatedly, but have been unable to justify it.

It is interesting that you keep posting this one, because the curvature of 0.12 degrees is noticeable. The curve in the model is different than the straightness of the real world example.
Are you sure?
Assuming the middle was perfectly horizontal, and skipping the actual curve and instead making it a triangle to make it more noticeable, this would make an isosceles triangle with an angle of 0.06 degrees.
If you had an image, 4096 px wide, this would have a peak 2048 px from the edge (i.e. the centre), roughly 2 px higher than the edge.
Using the proper trig for an arc we get roughly 1 px.

I wouldn't call that noticeable. Especially not in a photo where the horizon is typically a few px wide.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.
Thanks for summing up your post, it most certainly is nonsense.

The horizon from a plane:
Is not straight at all, the mountains cause it to go up and down.

In all cases except those doctored by NASA, the horizon is also totally level straight across.
You mean in all cases you will accept. You will reject any that show a curve as doctored.

The thing about parabola theory is that it accounts for greater range of vision at higher altitudes. RE absolutely does not.
How many times are you planning on baselessly asserting this delusional BS even after it has been refuted?

Stop just asserting nonsense and start trying to provide a rational justification.

But in a round Earth, any obstacles would curve about the curvature and you could not see horizon past a mountain.
Why?
In a RE, if the mountain is before the horizon, you will most certainly be able to see past it, and see a horizon past it.
And if it is beyond the horizon, the claim refutes itself.

In a RE, the sky by your own model curves under the mountains. This means you cannot see sky above the mountain.
No, that isn't our model, that is your delusional BS.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2023, 12:30:34 AM »
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 above a plane at 60,000+ feet at Mach 2:

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2023, 07:52:35 AM »
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 above a plane at 60,000+ feet at Mach 2:

That looks like a big fov top to bottom are many of the specs of this pic known?
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2023, 08:21:31 AM »
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 above a plane at 60,000+ feet at Mach 2:

That looks like a big fov top to bottom are many of the specs of this pic known?

If you're interested, do some digging. I'll get you started:

The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985.
Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption.

Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2023, 06:33:48 PM »
Concord at 60k feet, mach 2. No fisheye. If it were, the plane would be bowed upward nose to tail.


That looks like about 25-30000 feet, so what is your proof for claiming it is 2x that altitude? I'm sure you have none, like usual, and simply believe whatever they SAY it is, right?

If you see the clouds, they show a lot of detail, because they are CLOSE to their position in air. I've taken similar pictures of clouds at 20-25000 feet, showing them in detail, because the plane is about twice their altitude or LESS.

Here's how you can tell...

Look up at clouds during the day, and take pictures of them...they show detail, because they are only 10-12000 feet above you, on average.

When in a plane at 20-25000 feet, the clouds show detail as well, because you're about the same distance away from them as you are on the ground, except below you, instead of above you. In fact, from a plane, they show MORE detail than from ground, in general, because there is less atmospheric disturbance as you get higher in air. And of course, you see MORE clouds when above Earth than on the ground as well. 


More important, your image is NOT authentic or accurate as to what we see from such altitudes, whatever it may REALLY be!

But since you held it up as evidence, you must support it, right?

What would be the distance of this horizon, as shown in your image? This is where you have a VISIBLE CURVE OVER THE HORIZON, so what would it's distance be, is of great importance to your argument, it can be used to compare against other images and videos, and see if it holds up or not.....

I'm sure you have no clue, right? You just find any images with 'curves' in them, and slap them out on this forum, claiming they are 'evidence' of a ball Earth!

How pathetic.

Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2023, 06:56:32 PM »

That looks like about 25-30000 feet,

Quote
The airliner could maintain a supercruise up to Mach 2.04 (2,167 km/h; 1,170 kn; 1,347 mph) at an altitude of 60,000 ft (18.3 km).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

From SR-71 pilot motivational speaker…
Picture, passing 50,000 feet in the climb? Time stamp 32:32.  From SR-71 blackbird.   






« Last Edit: January 20, 2023, 06:59:04 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2023, 11:20:49 PM »
Horizons are perfectly flat and straight across, rising as we rise above the Earth's flat surface.

'Eye level' means in your sightline, in direct view outward, not moving or looking side to side, up or down, but in your direct view outward, which means it is at eye level.


Why would horizons be seen around the MIDDLE of images, if they're not at eye level?

We don't point cameras down, when taking pictures of them, right?

Images show you're wrong, because they are in the MIDDLE of our images, or almost so, if you haven't noticed that yet.

We point the camera directly out as level as possible to the ground, assuming it is flat and level,  first of all, to make cameras as level as possible for our photos.

That's how come the horizons are in the MIDDLE of images, because they ARE at 'eye level', and our images prove it, show it, IS at eye level, in fact.


*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2023, 01:49:57 AM »
Horizons are perfectly flat and straight across, rising as we rise above the Earth's flat surface.

'Eye level' means in your sightline, in direct view outward, not moving or looking side to side, up or down, but in your direct view outward, which means it is at eye level.


Why would horizons be seen around the MIDDLE of images, if they're not at eye level?

We don't point cameras down, when taking pictures of them, right?

Images show you're wrong, because they are in the MIDDLE of our images, or almost so, if you haven't noticed that yet.

We point the camera directly out as level as possible to the ground, assuming it is flat and level,  first of all, to make cameras as level as possible for our photos.

That's how come the horizons are in the MIDDLE of images, because they ARE at 'eye level', and our images prove it, show it, IS at eye level, in fact.

Too many words....

The actual definition of a horizon

Quote
the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.

Nothing about being flat and straight across. No requirement about 'eye level'.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 22516
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2023, 02:32:41 AM »
That looks like about 25-30000 feet
That looks like a curve. How about you try addressing that rather than more deflection?

Horizons are perfectly flat and straight across, rising as we rise above the Earth's flat surface.
Except in 2 images you have been provided which clearly show it as curved, not straight.
Not to mention the fact that it is clearly a circle as you can follow it around you.

'Eye level' means in your sightline, in direct view outward, not moving or looking side to side, up or down, but in your direct view outward, which means it is at eye level.
No, eye level means that it is directly in line with your eye, that the angle of elevation is 0.
It is not merely that it is in your FOV.

As already explained (and ignored by you), for the FE BS to work, it needs to be an angle of elevation of 0. If it simply means that it is within your FOV, then there is no problem with that for the RE, as at most altitudes that people are at, the horizon would be within your FOV when you are looking horizontally outwards, because the angle of dip is not that large.

Why would horizons be seen around the MIDDLE of images, if they're not at eye level?
Because they are AROUND eye level, and because people can orient cameras up and down.

Images show you're wrong
Images show you are wrong, as they quite clearly show a curve.
Most people taking pictures of the horizon don't ensure the camera is perfectly level.
And for the vast majority of people taking these photos the dip will be less than a pixel.
But there are times when it isn't, like this:


The horizon is quite clearly below eye level in that case.

Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2023, 09:10:02 PM »
Horizons are perfectly flat and straight across, rising as we rise above the Earth's flat surface.

'Eye level' means in your sightline, in direct view outward, not moving or looking side to side, up or down, but in your direct view outward, which means it is at eye level.


Why would horizons be seen around the MIDDLE of images, if they're not at eye level?

We don't point cameras down, when taking pictures of them, right?

Images show you're wrong, because they are in the MIDDLE of our images, or almost so, if you haven't noticed that yet.

We point the camera directly out as level as possible to the ground, assuming it is flat and level,  first of all, to make cameras as level as possible for our photos.

That's how come the horizons are in the MIDDLE of images, because they ARE at 'eye level', and our images prove it, show it, IS at eye level, in fact.
You haven't seen what happens when using a water level to level the camera at higher elevation have you.

Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2023, 03:09:09 AM »
Horizons are perfectly flat and straight across, rising as we rise above the Earth's flat surface.

'Eye level' means in your sightline, in direct view outward, not moving or looking side to side, up or down, but in your direct view outward, which means it is at eye level.


Why would horizons be seen around the MIDDLE of images, if they're not at eye level?

We don't point cameras down, when taking pictures of them, right?

Images show you're wrong, because they are in the MIDDLE of our images, or almost so, if you haven't noticed that yet.

We point the camera directly out as level as possible to the ground, assuming it is flat and level,  first of all, to make cameras as level as possible for our photos.

That's how come the horizons are in the MIDDLE of images, because they ARE at 'eye level', and our images prove it, show it, IS at eye level, in fact.

Turds, you never seem to learn, do you?

The horizon has been explained you over and over and over again, yet here in 2023, here you are yet again, sprouting your b.s....

?

ecco

  • 188
Re: The dip of the horizon
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2023, 08:21:50 PM »

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!   
 

Your assertion that...

               They won't let anyone get high enough to prove the phony curvature is wrong.

...is hilarious.  You can only support it by denying that many people have gone high enough to see the curvature.

You must also deny that people understood the earth was a sphere 2200 years ago without ever leaving the ground.  There is a simple experiment that requires little more than an understanding of 10th-grade geometry.   It is an experiment that you can do. 

You won't do it because you know that, if it works, it will shatter your beliefs about the shape of the earth and that might shatter your belief in your creationism.  You cannot allow that to happen.