Calling FE’s, draw out how a sunset works on a flat Earth?

It travels straight to your eye with the momentum that it had. The principle is the same as refraction. When light hits a surface like your eye, its momentum causes its angle to shift and for you to perceive it at an altered angle. It will appear in the direction that the momentum induced angle makes it appear at.

Refraction is about angle of incidence and angle of refraction.

Our eyes use this to focus light to produce an image that we perceive. It doesn't make it appear to come from a different direction.
We can also verify these directions due to shadows, or by using a tube and looking through it.

There is no reason for the momentum of light to cause the angle to change like that.
It should also lead to a result where the higher something is the lower it appears, and you wouldn't be able to see anything approximately straight up.

Something didn't work.

There.

Very, very obviously curved horizon.

If you're honest.

Clearly not curved.

No shit.

It's called viewing the horizon from sea level. There is no curve observable from left to right at the horizon at sea level no matter what some victims of paradolia will argue.

The horizon at sea level from left to right to the viewer, is perfectly straight, never with any curve. Photos such as above, demonstrate this.

Out at sea, miles from any land, on a fine day, in still waters, if you turn around 360 degrees and trace the horizon with your finger, it is a perfectly straight line. Better still, if you set up a video camera on a tripod on a turntable on the same boat and filmed the horuzon with the camera turning 360 degrees, it would be near impossible to tell where you started and finished because of the continuous straight line of the horizon at sea level.

You can duplicate what is seen, by standing in the middle of a hula hoop brought up to your eye level and held level, or having a camera in the centre of same hula hoop on a turntable and turning it around.

Yes, Sceptimatic, the horizon in that photo is clearly not curved. It is perfectly straight. You are right and JackBlack yet again, is wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2023, 10:02:47 PM

Clearly not curved.

You seem to have ignored the right edge:

Looks like there is a gap.

And as Boydster has already done, compressing the image just makes it more obvious.
It is not straight. It is quite clearly curved.

Nope. It's quite clearly straight. Compressing is distorting the image. You fell for Boydster's little trap and are a victim of paradolia - seeing what you want to see.

Nice one, Boydster!

I drew a straight line between the endpoints of the horizon and there was a clear bulge in the middle.

Unfortunately, resolution was not preserved by postimg. Is there a better service out there?

Nope. It's quite clearly straight. Compressing is distorting the image. You fell for Boydster's little trap and are a victim of paradolia - seeing what you want to see.

Nice one, Boydster!

Nope, it's quite clearly curved, and this has nothing to do with paradolia.

The issue that the curve is very slight. As such, you cannot easily see it when you look at the full image. But that doesn't mean it is straight, and especially not quite clearly straight. In fact, such a statement could never be true as it is impossible to determine that something is perfectly straight, as all measurements will have errors.

Yes, compressing distorts the image, by making things which are vertical appear thinner, and things which are horizontal appear shorter.
But it doesn't magically change a straight line into a curve.
If a line was straight originally, and you compress it horizontally, in a linear manner such that each portion of the line is compressed by the same amount, it will still be straight after the compression.

Here is another example, showing a curve, which is quite hard to see:

But when compressed is clear:


Likewise, it can be shown to be curved by drawing a line from the horizon at one edge to the horizon at the other edge, and then zooming in looking at the middle of the image:

Quite clearly a bulge.
Or to go the other way, we can draw a thick line to obscure the curve of the horizon, and then compress the image, or remove that line and push the bottom up to get the same thing:

Notice how they lack any apparent curve?

So no, it is quite clearly curved. That curvature is so small you can't easily recognise it from the original, but it is most certainly clear that it is curved.

(And while the curve is most likely due to lens distortion, that doesn't negate the fact that it is curved.)

Also, if you can follow a line in 360 degrees around you, it clearly isn't straight.
That is something called a circle.

Give me a flat earth model that explains this



then do this

Quote from: Hesio on February 08, 2023, 03:51:17 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2023, 12:07:20 PM

Quote from: Hesio on February 08, 2023, 04:53:49 AM

Light is travelling in a straight line, but it must travel in a straight line from the object to your eye. An object that is above you travels in a straight line downwards, an object that is below you travels in a straight line upwards. This is why the higher you are, the less far down the Sun has to go, the longer a sunset can take. The lower you are, the more downwards momentum light has, the sooner it appears to happen.
This might help:

If it is travelling in a straight line, it simply goes straight to my eye. This means the object will appear in the direction it is (or at least, the position it was when the light left it). This provides no reason for it to appear higher or lower.

It travels straight to your eye with the momentum that it had. The principle is the same as refraction. When light hits a surface like your eye, its momentum causes its angle to shift and for you to perceive it at an altered angle. It will appear in the direction that the momentum induced angle makes it appear at.

I see that pseudoscience is your cup of tea. If you're going to spruke your fantasy science explanations, can you do a disclaimer first, so that people with anything higher than a pre-school level of education, can know to avoid you like the plague?

Your explanation for the momentum of light hitting your eyeball at an angle and causing you to perceive the sun at an altered angle, would relate to everything you see with that eyeball, not just the sun. Such a person with such an impaired eyeball would be at such a disadvantage visually in life. They wouldn't be able to walk, reach out an grab things, wouldn't be able to drive a car, or even walk through a doorway.  They would not be able to function without the aid of some sort of specially made spectacles being worn to correct their defective eyes.

Your explanation is bonkers mad.

At close range, there is no significant effect. Light cannot gain much momentum travelling from nearby objects. What there is, we unconsciously adapt to as we have lived with the distortion our whole lives. This is known to happen. Our brain registers images as upside down, but because we are used to it, it does not affect us.
At a distance when the effect becomes more pronounced, people are impaired at accurately judging perspective.
When light changes mediums, it changes angle. Why do you think this would not happen when light impacts a solid?

Quote from: Hesio on February 08, 2023, 03:51:17 PM

It travels straight to your eye with the momentum that it had. The principle is the same as refraction. When light hits a surface like your eye, its momentum causes its angle to shift and for you to perceive it at an altered angle. It will appear in the direction that the momentum induced angle makes it appear at.

Refraction is about angle of incidence and angle of refraction.

Our eyes use this to focus light to produce an image that we perceive. It doesn't make it appear to come from a different direction.
We can also verify these directions due to shadows, or by using a tube and looking through it.

There is no reason for the momentum of light to cause the angle to change like that.
It should also lead to a result where the higher something is the lower it appears, and you wouldn't be able to see anything approximately straight up.

The angle of incidence explanation of refraction is incomplete without accounting for momentum.
Looking through a tube would not alter the momentum of light.
Anything straight up would require you to tilt your head. High objects that are nearby would not be significantly shifted, but the further the object, the more that there would be a shift.

@Hesio:

Physical phenomena cannot be explained with wordsalads.

At a distance when the effect becomes more pronounced, people are impaired at accurately judging perspective.
When light changes mediums, it changes angle. Why do you think this would not happen when light impacts a solid?

Am I less impaired if I have binoculars or a telescope?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 12:14:51 AM

Nope. It's quite clearly straight. Compressing is distorting the image. You fell for Boydster's little trap and are a victim of paradolia - seeing what you want to see.

Nice one, Boydster!

Nope, it's quite clearly curved, and this has nothing to do with paradolia.

The issue that the curve is very slight. As such, you cannot easily see it when you look at the full image. But that doesn't mean it is straight, and especially not quite clearly straight. In fact, such a statement could never be true as it is impossible to determine that something is perfectly straight, as all measurements will have errors.

Yes, compressing distorts the image, by making things which are vertical appear thinner, and things which are horizontal appear shorter.
But it doesn't magically change a straight line into a curve.
If a line was straight originally, and you compress it horizontally, in a linear manner such that each portion of the line is compressed by the same amount, it will still be straight after the compression.

Here is another example, showing a curve, which is quite hard to see:

But when compressed is clear:


Likewise, it can be shown to be curved by drawing a line from the horizon at one edge to the horizon at the other edge, and then zooming in looking at the middle of the image:

Quite clearly a bulge.
Or to go the other way, we can draw a thick line to obscure the curve of the horizon, and then compress the image, or remove that line and push the bottom up to get the same thing:

Notice how they lack any apparent curve?

So no, it is quite clearly curved. That curvature is so small you can't easily recognise it from the original, but it is most certainly clear that it is curved.

(And while the curve is most likely due to lens distortion, that doesn't negate the fact that it is curved.)

Also, if you can follow a line in 360 degrees around you, it clearly isn't straight.
That is something called a circle.

You're still wrong, JackBlack.

The test is what you have to do to see the entire horizon.

Stand on top of a mountain and start tracing the horizon in one direction, and your head and body will complete a 360 degree turn. The same as being on a boat way out to sea.

The horizon line is always perfectly straight and horizontal as you ascend, and you have to complete a 360 turn to trace it's entire length. The moment in your ascent that you detect a curve, is the moment you no longer have to complete a 360 turn to trace the horizon. Instead, you will be able to, by craning your neck, to trace the horizon directly in front of you, without needing to turn around.

At sea level, if the horizon had even the slightest curve, even the most imperceptible curve, you should be able to trace the entire length of the horizon in front of you, craning your neck, and without turning around to complete a circle. Ofcourse, this is impossible.

There is no curving in that horizon line in the photo being discussed. You are imagining things that are not there, JackBlack, because you are so conditioned to thinking because the Earth is curved, so must the horizon be curved. Well, it isn't. It's called a horizon for a reason, being it is always perfectly horizontal for us folks down here at the beach.

The horizon is not flat either, as flatness refers to a flat surface, and the Earth itself, is far from flat.

When an artist paints a seascape painting, the horizon is perfectly horizontal. To be otherwise, would look unnatural.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2023, 10:56:02 PM

Quote from: Hesio on February 08, 2023, 03:51:17 PM

It travels straight to your eye with the momentum that it had. The principle is the same as refraction. When light hits a surface like your eye, its momentum causes its angle to shift and for you to perceive it at an altered angle. It will appear in the direction that the momentum induced angle makes it appear at.

Refraction is about angle of incidence and angle of refraction.

Our eyes use this to focus light to produce an image that we perceive. It doesn't make it appear to come from a different direction.
We can also verify these directions due to shadows, or by using a tube and looking through it.

There is no reason for the momentum of light to cause the angle to change like that.
It should also lead to a result where the higher something is the lower it appears, and you wouldn't be able to see anything approximately straight up.

The angle of incidence explanation of refraction is incomplete without accounting for momentum.
Looking through a tube would not alter the momentum of light.
Anything straight up would require you to tilt your head. High objects that are nearby would not be significantly shifted, but the further the object, the more that there would be a shift.

Sorry, pal. Your explanation is still batshit crazy. This is a tough audience for a gullible flat earther to try and bamboozle with sheer silliness.

The next time the sun is setting, have a close look at the shadows being created. You'll note, the shadows correspond directly with the position of the sun, right down to the final ebbing rays as the sun disappears behind the horizon and stars start appearing above.

The angle of incidence explanation of refraction is incomplete without accounting for momentum.
Looking through a tube would not alter the momentum of light.
Anything straight up would require you to tilt your head. High objects that are nearby would not be significantly shifted, but the further the object, the more that there would be a shift.

Momentum is fairly inconsequential for refraction.

Yes, looking through a tube doesn't alter the momentum of light, but that tube tells us what direction the light is coming from.
So if you angle a tube so the light from the sun passes through the tube and hits a surface, that shows you the direction of the sun.
This removes refraction from the equation.

As for distance being a factor, if that as the case you have to have something changing the momentum of light, so it would no longer be travelling in a straight line (unless you are trying to appeal to red-shift/blue-shift).

If it was a simply a matter of light travelling in a straight line, then the momentum wouldn't change and a near object would have its apparent position shift just as much as a distant object.

So are you saying that something is changing the momentum of light, making it curve, as it travels; rather than it travelling in a straight line?

You're still wrong, JackBlack.

The images I provided clearly demonstrate I'm not.
They demonstrate that taking an image with a straight line and compressing it horizontally (evenly) will not magically turn that line into a curve.

It is not paradolia, as that is about seeing patterns that don't exist in noise.
It is things like looking at a fluffy cloud and seeing a bunny.
It is not seeing a curve when a line is allegedly straight.

The simple fact is that the horizon in that image appears curved. It is NOT a straight line.

The test is what you have to do to see the entire horizon.

Stand on top of a mountain and start tracing the horizon in one direction, and your head and body will complete a 360 degree turn. The same as being on a boat way out to sea.

The horizon line is always perfectly straight and horizontal as you ascend, and you have to complete a 360 turn to trace it's entire length. The moment in your ascent that you detect a curve, is the moment you no longer have to complete a 360 turn to trace the horizon. Instead, you will be able to, by craning your neck, to trace the horizon directly in front of you, without needing to turn around.

At sea level, if the horizon had even the slightest curve, even the most imperceptible curve, you should be able to trace the entire length of the horizon in front of you, craning your neck, and without turning around to complete a circle. Ofcourse, this is impossible.

Pure nonsense.
Why should you be able to magically turn your neck/head, passing it through your body or being able to see through your body?

A simple counter example, go and draw a circle on the floor. Then stand in the middle of the circle, and try to see the entire circle just by craning your neck, without having to turn your body at all.
You will find it incredibly difficult due to your body getting in the way.

Then try it again, but this time with the circle on a wall, such that it is the same size as the previous case, and the same distance away.
Now that it is in a more suitable position, and your body isn't getting in the way, you can easily see it all.
Likewise, the same could be done if someone held you up horizontally above the circle on the floor, because it is at a more appropriate angle.

And with any circle, you set a pointer at it, and then rotate that pointer 360 degrees around the axis of that circle and have it trace the circle. So that in no way helps demonstrate that it is straight.

And your claim is quite clearly pure garbage as you are suggesting that as you increase in altitude the horizon should remain perfectly straight for a considerable time and then instantly switch to a clear circle you can just see by craning your neck.

Back in reality, it will appear straight when you are in the plane of the circle. As soon as you are out of that plane, it will appear curved, the question is how much.

There is no curving in that horizon line in the photo being discussed. You are imagining things that are not there, JackBlack, because you are so conditioned to thinking because the Earth is curved, so must the horizon be curved. Well, it isn't. It's called a horizon for a reason, being it is always perfectly horizontal for us folks down here at the beach.

Again, the images provided clearly demonstrate that it is curved. This is not me imaging things that are not there. Instead it appears to be that you are still upset due to prior conversations and just can't let go. I even pointed out that the curve is most likely due to lens distortion in the camera, but you just ignore that to continue your irrational attack.

If it isn't curving, explain what magic is causing that very obvious curve. Explain why the horizon in the centre of the image is above a straight line drawn from one edge of the horizon to the other. Explain why compressing the image horizontally makes a curve clearly visible in the horizon, but not in the counter examples I provided.

Don't just bitch and moan, and bring up irrelevant crap, deal with the images clearly demonstrating it is curved.
You can falsely claim it is straight all you want, but the images clearly demonstrate that you are wrong.

It's called a horizon for a reason, being it is always perfectly horizontal for us folks down here at the beach.

So you don't understand the difference between horizontal and straight?

I again appeal to the circle on the ground.
It is on the ground, making it horizontal.
Yet it is not straight. It is curved.

Being horizontal doesn't make it a straight line.

You also have your etymology the wrong way around. Horizon comes from limiting or bounding. Hence its use in other things, like the event horizon of a black hole and expanding your horizons.
Horizontal comes from horizon, as the horizon is horizontal (which still doesn't mean straight).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/horizon

The horizon is not flat either, as flatness refers to a flat surface, and the Earth itself, is far from flat.

If Earth was a perfect sphere, the horizon would be flat.
It could be described in a few ways, the simplest of which would be the intersection of Earth's surface with a plane.
That plane would make it flat.
The idealised horizon, being contained entirely in a 2D plane, is flat.

Clearly not curved.

What camera lens was used to take the picture?  Was it taken with a 28mm lens or an 80 mm lens?  If you don't know, then trying to use the photograph for analysis of curvature is nonsensical.  If you don't understand why that is true, I suggest you take a brief course in photography.

In any case, instead of arguing about whether or not a photograph shows curvature, why not address the topic of the thread...
Re: Calling FE’s, draw out how a sunset works on a flat Earth?
Be sure to address specific areas of light and darkness on your Flat Reath.
Be sure to address the "flashlight" effect if that applies to your version. 

I'll not be holding my breath.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 09:29:32 AM

You're still wrong, JackBlack.

The images I provided clearly demonstrate I'm not.
They demonstrate that taking an image with a straight line and compressing it horizontally (evenly) will not magically turn that line into a curve.

It is not paradolia, as that is about seeing patterns that don't exist in noise.
It is things like looking at a fluffy cloud and seeing a bunny.
It is not seeing a curve when a line is allegedly straight.

The simple fact is that the horizon in that image appears curved. It is NOT a straight line.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 09:29:32 AM

The test is what you have to do to see the entire horizon.

Stand on top of a mountain and start tracing the horizon in one direction, and your head and body will complete a 360 degree turn. The same as being on a boat way out to sea.

The horizon line is always perfectly straight and horizontal as you ascend, and you have to complete a 360 turn to trace it's entire length. The moment in your ascent that you detect a curve, is the moment you no longer have to complete a 360 turn to trace the horizon. Instead, you will be able to, by craning your neck, to trace the horizon directly in front of you, without needing to turn around.

At sea level, if the horizon had even the slightest curve, even the most imperceptible curve, you should be able to trace the entire length of the horizon in front of you, craning your neck, and without turning around to complete a circle. Ofcourse, this is impossible.

Pure nonsense.
Why should you be able to magically turn your neck/head, passing it through your body or being able to see through your body?

A simple counter example, go and draw a circle on the floor. Then stand in the middle of the circle, and try to see the entire circle just by craning your neck, without having to turn your body at all.
You will find it incredibly difficult due to your body getting in the way.

Then try it again, but this time with the circle on a wall, such that it is the same size as the previous case, and the same distance away.
Now that it is in a more suitable position, and your body isn't getting in the way, you can easily see it all.
Likewise, the same could be done if someone held you up horizontally above the circle on the floor, because it is at a more appropriate angle.

And with any circle, you set a pointer at it, and then rotate that pointer 360 degrees around the axis of that circle and have it trace the circle. So that in no way helps demonstrate that it is straight.

And your claim is quite clearly pure garbage as you are suggesting that as you increase in altitude the horizon should remain perfectly straight for a considerable time and then instantly switch to a clear circle you can just see by craning your neck.

Back in reality, it will appear straight when you are in the plane of the circle. As soon as you are out of that plane, it will appear curved, the question is how much.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 09:29:32 AM

There is no curving in that horizon line in the photo being discussed. You are imagining things that are not there, JackBlack, because you are so conditioned to thinking because the Earth is curved, so must the horizon be curved. Well, it isn't. It's called a horizon for a reason, being it is always perfectly horizontal for us folks down here at the beach.

Again, the images provided clearly demonstrate that it is curved. This is not me imaging things that are not there. Instead it appears to be that you are still upset due to prior conversations and just can't let go. I even pointed out that the curve is most likely due to lens distortion in the camera, but you just ignore that to continue your irrational attack.

If it isn't curving, explain what magic is causing that very obvious curve. Explain why the horizon in the centre of the image is above a straight line drawn from one edge of the horizon to the other. Explain why compressing the image horizontally makes a curve clearly visible in the horizon, but not in the counter examples I provided.

Don't just bitch and moan, and bring up irrelevant crap, deal with the images clearly demonstrating it is curved.
You can falsely claim it is straight all you want, but the images clearly demonstrate that you are wrong.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 09:29:32 AM

It's called a horizon for a reason, being it is always perfectly horizontal for us folks down here at the beach.

So you don't understand the difference between horizontal and straight?

I again appeal to the circle on the ground.
It is on the ground, making it horizontal.
Yet it is not straight. It is curved.

Being horizontal doesn't make it a straight line.

You also have your etymology the wrong way around. Horizon comes from limiting or bounding. Hence its use in other things, like the event horizon of a black hole and expanding your horizons.
Horizontal comes from horizon, as the horizon is horizontal (which still doesn't mean straight).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/horizon

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 09:29:32 AM

The horizon is not flat either, as flatness refers to a flat surface, and the Earth itself, is far from flat.

If Earth was a perfect sphere, the horizon would be flat.
It could be described in a few ways, the simplest of which would be the intersection of Earth's surface with a plane.
That plane would make it flat.
The idealised horizon, being contained entirely in a 2D plane, is flat.

Jackblack, you are right about things, 99.9% of the time, and you know that. I know that. But being right all that time, breeds arrogance. So, when you trip up on something, even something little, I like to over exaggerate and make a massive song and dance about it, just to bring you back to Earth and remind you that you are human, just like the flat Earthers.

Flat Earthers are wrong 99.9% of the time, so when they are right about something, like Sceptimatic is in this instance, I'm likewise going to make a massive song and dance about it. Credit where credit is due. How can you not see this?

The inference being made by Sceptimatic is that the horizon line in that photo at sea level, is not curved, thus justifying his belief the Earth is flat. If it isnt curved, it is straight. You however, made an inference the horizon line in that photo is curved on the vertical plane. Saying there is curvature there, is erroneous. Lumps and bumps on a straight line maybe, but not curvature.

Film the horizon line out at sea on a tripod in 360 degrees, or make a 360 degree panoramic photo, and you will find the horizon line is a continuous straight line with the odd small bump here and there from waves.

Curvature suggests the end points of the horizon line in the photo are lower than the middle of the line, on the vertical plane, meaning on the vertical plane, your eyes should be able to trace a massive circle of the horizon in front of you while standing upright and looking straight ahead. Ofcourse you cannot.

Yes, the horizon line is perfectly horizontal as a straight line as you continue to ascend. But what happens to the horizon line as you continue to ascend is the horizon line gets further away in all directions, and lower. Then like magic, at some point in your ascent (presumably in Earth orbit or outer space), you have reached a height where your eyes can see the maximum horizon distance from yourself in all directions, which is the entire Earth. At that point, you can crane your neck and trace the entire length of the horizon line which is the circle of the spherical shape of the entire Earth globe.

That would be awesome.

It would probably be less awesome and a lot more traumatic for the likes of Sceptimatic.

Jackblack, you are right about things, 99.9% of the time, and you know that. I know that. But being right all that time, breeds arrogance. So, when you trip up on something, even something little, I like to over exaggerate and make a massive song and dance about it, just to bring you back to Earth and remind you that you are human, just like the flat Earthers.

And the problem is that you screw up, think I have tripped up when I haven't, and are then too arrogant to admit your mistake.

I know I make mistakes. But that doesn't mean I will pretend something is a mistake just because you claim it is.

The inference being made by Sceptimatic is that the horizon line in that photo at sea level, is not curved, thus justifying his belief the Earth is flat. If it isnt curved, it is straight. You however, made an inference the horizon line in that photo is curved on the vertical plane. Saying there is curvature there, is erroneous. Lumps and bumps on a straight line maybe, but not curvature.

No, I demonstrated that the horizon is curved. Most likely due to lens distortion of the camera, but still curved.
Again, the image quite clearly shows that.

Film the horizon line out at sea on a tripod in 360 degrees, or make a 360 degree panoramic photo, and you will find the horizon line is a continuous straight line with the odd small bump here and there from waves.

You can do the same with a circle on the ground.
That doesn't demonstrate it is straight, or that there is no visible curve.
All that demonstrates is that it has the same angle of dip all around.

Curvature suggests the end points of the horizon line in the photo are lower than the middle of the line, on the vertical plane, meaning on the vertical plane, your eyes should be able to trace a massive circle of the horizon in front of you while standing upright and looking straight ahead. Ofcourse you cannot.

No, a misrepresentation of curvature does. Even when in space, if you have the direction towards Earth as down, the horizon is still horizontal, not vertical.
It is only if you instead choose to have the direction of down be based upon Earth at the horizon, at which point even when close to sea level it has a vertical component.
But what your claim requires is for the curvature to be almost entirely in the vertical direction.

Yes, the horizon line is perfectly horizontal as a straight line as you continue to ascend. But what happens to the horizon line as you continue to ascend is the horizon line gets further away in all directions, and lower. Then like magic, at some point in your ascent (presumably in Earth orbit or outer space), you have reached a height where your eyes can see the maximum horizon distance from yourself in all directions, which is the entire Earth. At that point, you can crane your neck and trace the entire length of the horizon line which is the circle of the spherical shape of the entire Earth globe.

As your altitude changes, the curvature, when defining horizontal at the horizon rather than directly below you, goes from purely horizontal when you are at an elevation of 0, to purely vertical at an infinite distance.
There is no sudden magic change.

If you suspend yourself horizontally, you can do it a short height above ground level.

Likewise, the angular size of the circle decreases as you increase in elevation, specifically being 2*arcsin(r/(r+h)).
At 400 km (LEO), that is still ~140 degrees.

Jackblack, you are right about things, 99.9% of the time, and you know that. I know that. But being right all that time, breeds arrogance. So, when you trip up on something, even something little, I like to over exaggerate and make a massive song and dance about it, just to bring you back to Earth and remind you that you are human, just like the flat Earthers.

Flat Earthers are wrong 99.9% of the time, so when they are right about something, like Sceptimatic is in this instance, I'm likewise going to make a massive song and dance about it. Credit where credit is due. How can you not see this?

The inference being made by Sceptimatic is that the horizon line in that photo at sea level, is not curved, thus justifying his belief the Earth is flat. If it isnt curved, it is straight. You however, made an inference the horizon line in that photo is curved on the vertical plane. Saying there is curvature there, is erroneous. Lumps and bumps on a straight line maybe, but not curvature.

Film the horizon line out at sea on a tripod in 360 degrees, or make a 360 degree panoramic photo, and you will find the horizon line is a continuous straight line with the odd small bump here and there from waves.

Curvature suggests the end points of the horizon line in the photo are lower than the middle of the line, on the vertical plane, meaning on the vertical plane, your eyes should be able to trace a massive circle of the horizon in front of you while standing upright and looking straight ahead. Ofcourse you cannot.

Yes, the horizon line is perfectly horizontal as a straight line as you continue to ascend. But what happens to the horizon line as you continue to ascend is the horizon line gets further away in all directions, and lower. Then like magic, at some point in your ascent (presumably in Earth orbit or outer space), you have reached a height where your eyes can see the maximum horizon distance from yourself in all directions, which is the entire Earth. At that point, you can crane your neck and trace the entire length of the horizon line which is the circle of the spherical shape of the entire Earth globe.

That would be awesome.

It would probably be less awesome and a lot more traumatic for the likes of Sceptimatic.

Sorry, but you shouldn’t have made a song and dance about it.

First off, 360 deg panoramic photos are just a bunch of separate shots stitched together.  If you were high enough, each individual shot would  have a slight bump in the middle and be lower where they join.  We don’t see this because the curve is imperceptible at altitudes where people take such pictures.

At this point, I should say that trying to see any curve in a picture at sea level is completely pointless.    Lenses focusing light onto a flat sensor is going to cause some distortion that is almost certainly greater than the curve, no matter how good the optics are.

Anyway, you can test the principle by drawing a big circle on the ground, say ten foot radius or something (or even just imagine one) and stand in the middle.  Whichever way you look, you see a hump in the middle of your field of view, curving down either side.  You don’t need to see the whole thing to see the curve.

This happens at any height above the circle, it just get less pronounced to lower you are, or the bigger the circle.

Quote from: Hesio on February 09, 2023, 08:29:04 AM

At a distance when the effect becomes more pronounced, people are impaired at accurately judging perspective.
When light changes mediums, it changes angle. Why do you think this would not happen when light impacts a solid?

Am I less impaired if I have binoculars or a telescope?

Not meaningfully. If you have a 7 inch long pair of binoculars, they will show you light as it strikes them from 7 inches in front of you. That's technically a bit better but you may as well take a step forwards. The momentum of light as it hits the lens is not different from the momentum of light when it hits your eye

Quote from: Hesio on February 09, 2023, 08:33:02 AM

The angle of incidence explanation of refraction is incomplete without accounting for momentum.
Looking through a tube would not alter the momentum of light.
Anything straight up would require you to tilt your head. High objects that are nearby would not be significantly shifted, but the further the object, the more that there would be a shift.

Momentum is fairly inconsequential for refraction.

Yes, looking through a tube doesn't alter the momentum of light, but that tube tells us what direction the light is coming from.
So if you angle a tube so the light from the sun passes through the tube and hits a surface, that shows you the direction of the sun.
This removes refraction from the equation.

As for distance being a factor, if that as the case you have to have something changing the momentum of light, so it would no longer be travelling in a straight line (unless you are trying to appeal to red-shift/blue-shift).

If it was a simply a matter of light travelling in a straight line, then the momentum wouldn't change and a near object would have its apparent position shift just as much as a distant object.

So are you saying that something is changing the momentum of light, making it curve, as it travels; rather than it travelling in a straight line?

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

So again, what you are saying is that the momentum of light does not remain constant, that the momentum of light changes; that light is not travelling in a straight line and instead is curving, with light from the sun curving upwards to make it appear lower.

So why is the momentum of light changing? Why is the light from the sun curving upwards?

As an aside, if the light from the sun had a greater downwards momentum as it moved along, it would be going down at a steeper angle. i.e. it would appear higher.

As for something fired at a particular angle, gravity changes its momentum and does so based upon time, not distance.
For something fired upwards, it's momentum will initially decrease, until it reaches its peak at which point the momentum will increase.
The travel time for light will not significantly alter the momentum.

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about. But whatever it is you're talking about, does it apply to sunrises as well?

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

So where is all this coming from?  Did you read it somewhere?  See it on videos?  Think it up yourself?

Quote from: Hesio on February 10, 2023, 11:47:56 AM

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

So again, what you are saying is that the momentum of light does not remain constant, that the momentum of light changes; that light is not travelling in a straight line and instead is curving, with light from the sun curving upwards to make it appear lower.

So why is the momentum of light changing? Why is the light from the sun curving upwards?

As an aside, if the light from the sun had a greater downwards momentum as it moved along, it would be going down at a steeper angle. i.e. it would appear higher.

As for something fired at a particular angle, gravity changes its momentum and does so based upon time, not distance.
For something fired upwards, it's momentum will initially decrease, until it reaches its peak at which point the momentum will increase.
The travel time for light will not significantly alter the momentum.

The light from the sun is not curving upwards, it has downwards momentum. It appears lower, just as the ground appears higher. The same thing that sees light change angle when it changes medium occurs when it hits any solid object as well, as a solid object is also a change in medium. This includes the eye.


Each inch that light travels is a bit more momentum. You can view it as a function of time if you would rather, the speed of light is fixed. On small distances there is not significant alteration, but over multiple kilometers, the effect increases.

Quote from: Hesio on February 10, 2023, 11:47:56 AM

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about. But whatever it is you're talking about, does it apply to sunrises as well?

Yes.

Quote from: Stash on February 10, 2023, 12:42:10 PM

Quote from: Hesio on February 10, 2023, 11:47:56 AM

You would need a very long tube for the momentum of the light that enters it to be significantly different from the momentum of light that hits your naked eye.
The effect of momentum builds up over longer distances. Something fired at a 45 degree angle has more momentum after 10 feet than it does 1 foot. This was illustrated by how the further the sun is, the lower it appears, due to the light from it spending longer going downwards and as a result having more downwards momentum.

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about. But whatever it is you're talking about, does it apply to sunrises as well?

Yes.

Great. So what are you trying to say in all this? That the sun never actually goes below or rises up from beneath the horizon? Is that it? I can't tell.

And if so, it's because of how light hits our eyes? And if so, if you sit at one end of a long table and me at the other. I'm holding a lit light bulb an inch or two above the edge of the table...You would not be able to see the light bulb?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 08:11:19 PM

Jackblack, you are right about things, 99.9% of the time, and you know that. I know that. But being right all that time, breeds arrogance. So, when you trip up on something, even something little, I like to over exaggerate and make a massive song and dance about it, just to bring you back to Earth and remind you that you are human, just like the flat Earthers.

And the problem is that you screw up, think I have tripped up when I haven't, and are then too arrogant to admit your mistake.

I know I make mistakes. But that doesn't mean I will pretend something is a mistake just because you claim it is.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 08:11:19 PM

The inference being made by Sceptimatic is that the horizon line in that photo at sea level, is not curved, thus justifying his belief the Earth is flat. If it isnt curved, it is straight. You however, made an inference the horizon line in that photo is curved on the vertical plane. Saying there is curvature there, is erroneous. Lumps and bumps on a straight line maybe, but not curvature.

No, I demonstrated that the horizon is curved. Most likely due to lens distortion of the camera, but still curved.
Again, the image quite clearly shows that.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 08:11:19 PM

Film the horizon line out at sea on a tripod in 360 degrees, or make a 360 degree panoramic photo, and you will find the horizon line is a continuous straight line with the odd small bump here and there from waves.

You can do the same with a circle on the ground.
That doesn't demonstrate it is straight, or that there is no visible curve.
All that demonstrates is that it has the same angle of dip all around.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 08:11:19 PM

Curvature suggests the end points of the horizon line in the photo are lower than the middle of the line, on the vertical plane, meaning on the vertical plane, your eyes should be able to trace a massive circle of the horizon in front of you while standing upright and looking straight ahead. Ofcourse you cannot.

No, a misrepresentation of curvature does. Even when in space, if you have the direction towards Earth as down, the horizon is still horizontal, not vertical.
It is only if you instead choose to have the direction of down be based upon Earth at the horizon, at which point even when close to sea level it has a vertical component.
But what your claim requires is for the curvature to be almost entirely in the vertical direction.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 09, 2023, 08:11:19 PM

Yes, the horizon line is perfectly horizontal as a straight line as you continue to ascend. But what happens to the horizon line as you continue to ascend is the horizon line gets further away in all directions, and lower. Then like magic, at some point in your ascent (presumably in Earth orbit or outer space), you have reached a height where your eyes can see the maximum horizon distance from yourself in all directions, which is the entire Earth. At that point, you can crane your neck and trace the entire length of the horizon line which is the circle of the spherical shape of the entire Earth globe.

As your altitude changes, the curvature, when defining horizontal at the horizon rather than directly below you, goes from purely horizontal when you are at an elevation of 0, to purely vertical at an infinite distance.
There is no sudden magic change.

If you suspend yourself horizontally, you can do it a short height above ground level.

Likewise, the angular size of the circle decreases as you increase in elevation, specifically being 2*arcsin(r/(r+h)).
At 400 km (LEO), that is still ~140 degrees.

Lol! I've never caught you tripped up, JackBlack? Mate, anytime you're ready to post up a photo of the flat earth model you've built in your lounge room using strictly all that flat earth data you've gathered, I'm all eyes! Lol!

Jackblack, half the flat earthers out there, are out there because the horizon is flat. (I was going to say straight but this seems to be a language you prefer) 

It seems to me, that you and Unconvinced are saying the horizon line in any seascape photo, is..............curved on the vertical plane? 

I have no issue with you saying it is curved on the horizontal plane, because it is. At sea level we are standing at any given time in the centre of a circle with a radius of about 5km. Five kilometres equidistant in all directions. Photos at sea level show it is straight, JackBlack. Thats something flat earthers have been extremely successful at.

Flat earthers are correct about the horizon being flat at sea level and several hundreds of thousands of feet above. It is flaaaaaaaaaat, JackBlack.

If you disagree, prove me wrong with diagrams, before I prove I'm right with diagrams.

The light from the sun is not curving upwards, it has downwards momentum. It appears lower, just as the ground appears higher. The same thing that sees light change angle when it changes medium occurs when it hits any solid object as well, as a solid object is also a change in medium. This includes the eye.


Each inch that light travels is a bit more momentum. You can view it as a function of time if you would rather, the speed of light is fixed. On small distances there is not significant alteration, but over multiple kilometers, the effect increases.

The tube was to demonstrate that it is not merely refraction happening at your eyes.

The tube allows you to determine what direction the light is coming from.
Here is a diagram for you:

The light is coming through the tube, and the angle of the tube easily allows you to see where the light is coming from.
If your claim was true, that it was just something happening at the eye, then the you would need to point the tube away from the apparent direction to the sun, and appear to be looking straight into the wall of the tube.

If your claim was true that it was just refraction at the eye, then if you tried pointing the tube towards where the sun appeared to be (e.g. the sun near sunset), the wall of the tube would block the light, like in this diagram:


So it is clearly not simply refraction at you eye.
You would need the light from the sun to be coming from a different direction.

And again, what is causing the momentum of the light to change?
And again, that momentum changing, unless you are claiming the wavelength is changing, means the direction the light is travelling needs to be changing, i.e. it needs to be curving.