Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

Being on a sphere, any sphere, you are on top of it.

The higher you are above a sphere, the more it curves downward from you.

It obviously cannot curve upward as you rise above it, only more and more downward from you going higher and higher above it.

This can be simulated with spherical objects in computer models.

When 40000 feet above Earth, we’d see nothing in front of us or around us but the sky, nothing of the Earth below us at such heights above a ball Earth.

You also didn’t address what I said earlier…

You claim that the bottom part of a ship, for example, is not seen from a distance, because it curves downward and is blocked below the surface…

So I said that if it’s curving down on the surface, by that point, then it would keep curving down more and more after that point, and block more and more of the ship after the bottom is blocked out downward by a curve.

The bottom part being where your curve ‘wins out’ over perspective, doesn’t stop curving down more and more with more distance away, right?

Being on a sphere, any sphere, you are on top of it.

Ok?  Like the dip of the horizon?




Or this?

The higher you are above a sphere, the more it curves downward from you.

The the farther you are from a ball, doesn’t change the shape of the ball.



Back on this on top thing.  Two ships at sea are at sea level…



Hmmm

I have this strange flashback..

You claim that the bottom part of a ship,

There is no claim.  A flat plane can’t physically block an object from view when the viewer and object are above the same plane.

It’s been demonstrated to you repeatedly.

Wanted to make this easy to find…

Quote from: turbonium2 on February 17, 2024, 12:29:37 AM

Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons,

Ok.  Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.

Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.



Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.



Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?




Hmm.  Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal.  Like this.  Did have to weigh down the ends.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.



Well.  The bottom is physically blocked from view.

Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.



vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 18, 2022, 03:16:27 AM

Sorry, long post with lots of photos.

So.

Let’s recap and get back on topic of this thread.

Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.

You claim that the bottom part of a ship,

It’s proven a ship disappears bottom up while going out to sea is because of the earth’s curvature. 






Remember Turbs you got the experiment you wanted. And it was just another demonstration of the earth being spherical!

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 11:54:04 PM

A ball Earth

Here to derail the truth again.

Care to address any of the demonstrable proof the earth is a sphere.
 
By the way.  The experiment you begged for…


From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.

Quote

Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

The laser at three miles out was about six foot above what should be “level”…..

Being on a sphere, any sphere, you are on top of it.

The higher you are above a sphere, the more it curves downward from you.

It obviously cannot curve upward as you rise above it, only more and more downward from you going higher and higher above it.

We have been over this.
You fully accepted it will initially appear to rise, as everything will.
Again, this is simple geometry.
As an approximation, for a given observer height, the ground will follow an angle given by:
a=atan(h/d+d/2r)
This forms the horizon when d=sqrt(h*2r)
Subbing that in, you get:
a=atan(h/sqrt(h*2r) + sqrt(h*2r)/2r)
a=atan(h*sqrt(h*2r)/(h*2r) + sqrt(h*2r)/2r)
a=atan(sqrt(h*2r)/2r + sqrt(h*2r)/2r)
a=atan(2*sqrt(h*2r)/2r)
a=atan(2*sqrt(h/2r))
a=atan(sqrt(2*h/r))

For an altitude of 10 km, that gives a=3 degrees.
So it will still "appear to rise" quite substantially, all the way to roughly 3 degrees below level.

This can be simulated with spherical objects in computer models.
When 40000 feet above Earth, we’d see nothing in front of us or around us but the sky, nothing of the Earth below us at such heights above a ball Earth.

So why don't you go simulate that to show everyone wrong?

As above, that would require a tiny FOV.

You also didn’t address what I said earlier…

I did. You were spouting BS with no connection to reality.

So I said that if it’s curving down on the surface, by that point, then it would keep curving down more and more after that point, and block more and more of the ship after the bottom is blocked out downward by a curve.

And it does, with the ship disappearing from the bottom up.
As is observed in reality.

And it does, with the ship disappearing from the bottom up.
As is observed in reality.

No, the bottom of the ship is the ONLY part of it that isn’t seen, after it is fully seen for the first two miles or so, right?

After the bottom part is not seen, the ship still appears to be rising up on a rising up surface, while only the bottom part is not seen, the rest of the ship remains seen.

That makes for two problems you cannot resolve.

If the bottom part of the ship can’t be seen by 2 or so miles away because the surface curves down by that point, to block out the bottom part, then it would keep curving downward from that distance out, onward from there.

How could it begin to curve downward 2 or so miles away to block out the bottom part, but stop curving downward for the next mile out?

How could the ship and surface still appear to be rising after it curves down to block the bottom part?

Either you have a curve going downward at 2 miles away, which curves downward more and more from there, and neither the ship nor the surface would keep on rising upward….

Or you don’t have any curve there, since it would continually be curving downward from the first point it starts to curve down and start to block out the ship, from the bottom to the top, without stop, with more of a curve.

We certainly do NOT see such a thing in reality.

The bottom part of a ship being blocked out by going downward over a curved surface 2 miles away or so, would continually curve downward more and more, and the horizon would be 2 miles away, where the curve starts to go downward enough to ‘win’ over oerspective, and the curve would obviously not be seen from 2 miles away.

That proves there is no curve at all on the surface.

Perspective causes the bottom of the ship to not be seen, to be blocked out of sight.

Everything that we see outward are due to perspective.

And proves the surface is completely flat as well.

A curved surface would first curve down to block the bottom of ships, but it would CONTINUE to curve downward after that point, and block more and more of the ship afterwards.

You must know that, right?

No, the bottom of the ship is the ONLY part of it that isn’t seen, after it is fully seen for the first two miles or so, right?

Hello.  Jackass.  What is physically blocking the bottom of the ship where zoom can’t bring it back into view.  It’s clearly physically blocked by the earth’s curvature. 

No, the bottom of the ship is the ONLY part of it that isn’t seen, after it is fully seen for the first two miles or so, right?
After the bottom part is not seen, the ship still appears to be rising up on a rising up surface, while only the bottom part is not seen, the rest of the ship remains seen.

No.

Initially, only the part of the boat actually in the water isn't seen. And that is the same if you are right up against it.
This remains until it hits the horizon.
At that point the boat starts to disappear from the bottom (i.e. the water line) up, with it appearing lower and lower (i.e. at a lower angle of elevation) until it is entirely hidden from view.

It does not follow your fantasy where after 2 archaic units it magically hides the bottom bit and then does nothing more until many more archaic units away.

You are clinging to a literal fantasy to pretend the RE model can't be right.
But I also notice you make absolutely no attempt to explain that fantasy either; likely because your FE fantasy can't explain it either.

Do you have any footage of this fantasy of yours?

That proves there is no curve at all on the surface.

No, it doesn't. Firstly because it doesn't happen, and secondly because you have no explanation for what magic is causing it.

Perspective causes the bottom of the ship to not be seen, to be blocked out of sight.

HOW?
You keep saying this, but you have no justification for it.

Everything that we see outward are due to perspective.

And the curvature of Earth.
Something which unlike perspective alone can cause the horizon and cause things to disappear from the bottom up.

And proves the surface is completely flat as well.

Quite the opposite, it proves the surface is curved.

A curved surface would first curve down to block the bottom of ships, but it would CONTINUE to curve downward after that point, and block more and more of the ship afterwards.
You must know that, right?

And it does. That is what is observed in reality.

Meanwhile, your fantasy has no way to explain this at all.

It cannot explain why there is a horizon.
It cannot explain why the horizon is a certain distance away.
It cannot explain why the horizon has a certain angle of dip.
It cannot explain why the bottom of distant objects are obscured, with more obscured the further it is.

In short, it can explain nothing about this issue.

Conversely, the RE explains it all, trivially.

So this is evidence which strongly supports the fact that Earth is round and refutes the delusional BS of Earth being flat.

Initially, only the part of the boat actually in the water isn't seen. And that is the same if you are right up against it.
This remains until it hits the horizon.
At that point the boat starts to disappear from the bottom (i.e. the water line) up, with it appearing lower and lower (i.e. at a lower angle of elevation) until it is entirely hidden from view.“

You said the bottom was not seen because of curvature, do you dispute that?

You never said the bottom was not seen because it was below the water.

Your side also claims that the bottom of high rises seen from 50 or so miles away are blocked by curvature, is that not what you said either?

Would you like me to go back and find all your quotes that state that?

Let me know, I’ll be happy to prove you a liar once again. With indisputable proof.

Show me where you said the bottom wasn’t blocked by a curve, and that it’s under water.

Or do I need to show you what you DID claim?

I’d admit what I said, and admit I changed my claim, but I’m sure you haven’t got the nads to own up to it.

So what will it be?

You never said the bottom was not seen because it was below the water.

You think the difference from the ship being mostly above the water to being mostly blocked physically from view by the earth’s curvature is because the ship took on water and sunk into the water. 

You’re just stupid. 

Let me know, I’ll be happy to prove you a liar once again. With indisputable proof.

Go ahead.  And cite and quote all you want.


But there is no proof where “prospective” can physically block something from view to stop zoom from bring it back into view.  Or physically block a light source like the sun. 

You said the bottom was not seen because of curvature, do you dispute that?

In reality, where more and more continues to be hidden.
Not in your fantasy where the bottom is magically hidden by pure magic at some magical distance away, after which magically no more is magically hidden until another magical distance away where more starts getting hidden.

You never said the bottom was not seen because it was below the water.

Because most people realise that is not what is being talked about.
But I just wanted to clarify given the path of BS you were going down.

Let me know, I’ll be happy to prove you a liar once again. With indisputable proof.

Go ahead and try.
But what do you mean again, as you are yet to have proven I lied?

Once more, in REALITY, boats start to disappear from the bottom up once they go over the horizon. As they get further away, more is hidden. There is no magical pause that you are appealing to.

Or better yet, why don't you go show us this magical intermediate distance magically blocking the bottom?
And even better, why don't you stop with all the BS and try explaining what magic blocks the view?

Or even better, try explaining what magic causes the horizon in your fantasy in the first place?

Again, why a horizon?
Why a certain distance away?
Why does that distance vary with altitude?
Why does this block the bottom of distant objects?
Why does the amount hidden vary with distance and observer altitude?
And why does the horizon have an angle of dip?

Why can't you explain any of this?

Surfaces always appear to be rising up in the distance, so is that magic?

Parallel objects or lines appear to converge together in the distance, so is that also magic?

Objects appear smaller and smaller with more distance away, that’s magic too?

No, they are illusions of perspective. Not real, not magic, but illusions of sight, and our instruments as well.

Horizons are always at the top of the rising surfaces, but are not rising at all, so how can the horizon be real, when it sits atop an illusory risen surface?

It cannot be real, on top of a non-rising surface. Both are illusions, neither one is real.

Curving down surfaces don’t create horizons, if you think they do, try and draw it out, I’d love to see it!

Why do we not see the bottom of a ship, that we see rising up on a surface that appears to be rising?

If it was curving down on the surface, why would it appear to be rising up, AND curving down to block the bottom of a ship?

How does that work? A rise and curve all at once, that’s a good one!

Surfaces always appear to be rising up in the distance, so is that magic?

No.
It depends on the surface. If a ramp is steep enough it does not "appear to rise" if you are looking down it.
But if it is shallow enough, it does.

This is not magic. It is basic geometry which has been explained to you countless times.

Parallel objects or lines appear to converge together in the distance, so is that also magic?

No. Once more, it is basic geometry.

Objects appear smaller and smaller with more distance away, that’s magic too?

That is the exact same as parallel lines appearing to converge. The angular size of the distance between the lines get smaller.
Again, this is basic geometry, not magic.

No, they are illusions of perspective.

No, they aren't.
They are examples of basic geometry.
Not illusions, not magic.

You want to pretend it is just an illusion, so you can ignore when it shows you are wrong.

How about you stop with the BS like "appear to rise" and "appear smaller", or any crap like that.
Ask about the real physical measurements that can be made.
Ask about the angle of dip or angle of elevation of the object.
Ask about the angular size of the object.

This is not an illusion, it is simple geometry.

Horizons are always at the top of the rising surfaces

No, they don't.
Horizons are always at a point where the angle changes creating an edge, where it blocks the surface further away.
This applies to all objects.

how can the horizon be real, when it sits atop an illusory risen surface?

It sits on a real surface.
Again, the "illusion" is just your dishonest BS.

Curving down surfaces don’t create horizons, if you think they do, try and draw it out, I’d love to see it!

I already have. You entirely ignored it and fled, because it so trivially destroys your delusional BS.

A RE:

We see that initially the ground appears straight down. But as you consider a point further away, it "appears higher".
This continues until the horizon. The point where a line from your eyes is tangent to Earth.
After that it drops back down and starts to block the view.

For a FE:

We see that initially it is the same, but you never reach that point where your line of sight is tangnent, so it keeps on rising, forever, with no horizon ever forming and nothing blocking the view.

Why do we not see the bottom of a ship, that we see rising up on a surface that appears to be rising?

When?
Are you again appealing to right at the start, with the bit of the ship usually not considered which is below the water? Or are you just making crap yet again?

Once more, we see the ship in full, just appearing to get smaller until it reaches the horizon.
After that it appears to get lower, appearing to sink into the water, with more and more blocked from view as it gets further away.
This is 100% consistent with a RE.

If it was curving down on the surface, why would it appear to be rising up, AND curving down to block the bottom of a ship?
How does that work? A rise and curve all at once, that’s a good one!

That has been explained countless times.
Such as using the image above, or the simple approximation of a=atan(h/d+d/2r).

Why do you keep paying dumb?

Are you trying to make sure everyone knows just how dishonest and/or stupid you are?

Again, how do you explain the horizon forming at all in your delusional fantasy?
What causes it?
Why at that particular distance?
How does this magically block the view?
Why does this distance depend on altitude?
Why does the angle of dip to the horizon depend upon altitude?

All simple questions you cannot answer at all, which demonstrate your model is pure BS.
And questions which are trivial for the RE to answer, because unlike your BS the RE model works.

Why do we not see the bottom of a ship, that we see rising up on a surface that appears to be rising?

If it was curving down on the surface, why would it appear to be rising up, AND curving down to block the bottom of a ship?

How does that work? A rise and curve all at once, that’s a good one!

It rises up the same as train tracks rise laterally

Your eyes converge distant things.

Updown left right.

Its just more prominent in updown because the horizon is wide.

Why do we not see the bottom of a ship, that we see rising up on a surface that appears to be rising?

If it was curving down on the surface, why would it appear to be rising up, AND curving down to block the bottom of a ship?

How does that work? A rise and curve all at once, that’s a good one!

How does a supposedly flat earth physically block the bottom of the boat / ship from view where a good zoom lens / telescope / pair of binoculars can’t bring it back into view. 

Let me know, I’ll be happy to prove you a liar once again. With indisputable proof.

What happened to this threat?  Writing checks you can’t cash? 

Saying the surface would always appear to be rising forever on a flat surface, couldn’t be seen over thousands of miles from your position on the surface.

Infinitely rising up surfaces cannot be entirely seen.

Try and draw it. Take the horizon we see now, three miles away, and show what you think it would look like from 6 miles away.

Show 6 miles of surface we’d see there. All of the surface, high enough to see it all.

Draw what height it would be at 6 miles out.

The view outward, 6 miles away.

It’s a sliver higher? You can’t see the whole surface, if it’s just a sliver higher than it was at 3 miles away!

Saying the surface would always appear to be rising forever on a flat surface, couldn’t be seen over thousands of miles from your position on the surface.

Why not?
Again, what magic is blocking the view?

Try and draw it. Take the horizon we see now, three miles away, and show what you think it would look like from 6 miles away.

Pretty much the same thing, just slightly higher

The more important part is something ON that surface, which has the bottom blocked from view.

But again, why 3 miles?
Why not 1 mile?
Why not 10?
Why should 3 miles be the magic number?

You simply have no answer, because your model is BS.

Seriously

Turbo



Do train tracks not appear to "rise" together?

Three miles out on ground, not above ground.

Horizons are much further away than three miles from a plane.

Now you know

If ball Earth was about 24000 miles in diameter, we’d never see a thousand mile away horizon directly across us in a plane at 40000 feet altitude.

A sphere of that size around it, when seeing over it high above, must be lower on the surface which curves downward more and more as we are higher and higher above it.

Only above a flat surface is this possible to have a horizon seen directly across us in planes.

It’s physically impossible for a ball Earth to have a horizon across us at 40000 feet altitude. Not even close to it.

Where would you have the horizon go lower, if not at 40000 feet above it?

If the horizon is seen directly across us at 40000 feet, how much higher before it’s seen lower? It would already be lower

If ball Earth was about 24000 miles in diameter, we’d never see a thousand mile away horizon directly across us in a plane at 40000 feet altitude.

What are you babbling about.


A photo by:

Kevin Jackson, of Birkdale, Southport, captured the amazing view of the seaside resort from the Sefton coast.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/stunning-picture-blackpool-thats-set-19719171.amp

https://i2-prod.lancs.live/incoming/article19719194.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/0_blackpooljfif.jpg

As presented by Dave McKeegan in this video.



Now the point of all this.  Blackpool tower looks relatively taller than the background hills because the earth is spherical.



We can model the view of Blackpool Tower relative to the distance hills for a flat earth vs spherical earth.

1. The height of the Blackpool Tower is known.
2. The position of the photographer is known.
3. The radius of the earth is measured and known.
4. The distance to the background hills and their height are known.



So this is the argument in a nutshell.  The tower appears relatively taller than the background hills because of the Earth’s curvature.

Three miles out on ground, not above ground.

Horizons are much further away than three miles from a plane.

Yes, all things which make perfect sense on a RE, but which you can't explain at all.

Again, WHY 3 miles?
Why not 2? why not 10?
Why should it be THAT particular distance away?
Why does it change with altitude? How does it change with altitude?

All simple questions the RE can easily explain, but which you need to flee from because there is no answer for the FE.

we’d never see a thousand mile away

Just where are you seeing this thousand mile away horizon?

A sphere of that size around it, when seeing over it high above, must be lower on the surface which curves downward more and more as we are higher and higher above it.

As is repeatedly observed, where the angle of dip to the horizon increases with increasing altitude.
Another point FE can't explain.

Only above a flat surface is this possible to have a horizon seen directly across us in planes.

No it is not, as it is physically impossible for a flat surface to have a horizon other than the edge.
Something you have continually avoided because you know it destroys your fantasy.

It’s physically impossible for a ball Earth to have a horizon across us at 40000 feet altitude. Not even close to it.

Prove it.
And by that I mean prove it wont even be close.

Do you know where it should be for the RE?
As in the actual angle you would expect for an observer altitude of 40 000 archaic units?
Or are you just doing your typical FE dismiss with BS?

If the horizon is seen directly across us at 40000 feet

It isn't.
Even well before that it has an easily detectable angle of dip.

Great job refuting the FE yet again.

But it takes quite a lot to be detectable with the naked eye.

If ball Earth was about 24000 miles in diameter, we’d never see a thousand mile away horizon directly across us in a plane at 40000 feet altitude.

Have an example. I have never been on a flight where I could see the destination airport hours before we would land.  Maybe a half hour tops before landing flying at about 300 mph. 

Why pick hills, not buildings of known heights and only one height?

If this test works, it will work for any test, using those figures.

Why is a high rise seen beyond your curvature? Actual building actually seen when curvature would make it not seen at all.

Tests are repeatable in all other cases, but if it’s only one test, it means it’s crap.

And that’s what this ‘test’ is, pure crap.

Why is a high rise seen beyond your curvature? Actual building actually seen when curvature would make it not seen at all.

It isn't.
No FEer has EVER been able to actually provide an example of such a feat.
Instead it is them typically ignoring refraction and the fact they aren't at sea level when taking their observation.

And typically these results the FEers appeal to have the bottom missing, showing Earth is not flat.
The best FEers would get from that is Earth is larger than claimed, but not flat.

Tests are repeatable in all other cases

As are the tests for a RE.

Now again, care to answer the questions?
Again, WHY 3 miles?
Why not 2? why not 10?
Why should it be THAT particular distance away?
Why does it change with altitude? How does it change with altitude?

The horizon that appears to be 40000 feet high, directly across our plane, spanning over a thousand miles of Earth as a perfectly straight and horizontal line, would be impossible above a ball Earth.

Where would you think it would first show a curve of some sort?

How can it curve after there is no curve by that point?

You can’t have a straight line over a thousand miles across, and suddenly a curve appears over it, there is either a constant curve over it, more curved with more distance seen, or there is no curve at all, at any altitude, and that’s what it is, flat and no curve at all exists

Where would you think it would first show a curve of some sort?

Like dip of the horizon..



You made this claim.

If ball Earth was about 24000 miles in diameter, we’d never see a thousand mile away horizon directly across us in a plane at 40000 feet altitude.

Have an example. I have never been on a flight where I could see the destination airport hours before we would land.  Maybe a half hour tops before landing flying at about 300 mph.