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

  • 469 Replies
  • 19826 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #330 on: October 12, 2024, 01:28:16 AM »
When we can see a horizon on Earths surface, a thousand miles away from us, directly in our view
Where?
You keep appealing to this, yet can't provide a single example.

same as we always see them
Again, the evidence shows that as you go up, the horizon goes down:

Continually ignoring this and lying to everyone just shows how dishonest you are.

A flat surface does.
A flat surface doesn't allow a horizon.
If Earth was flat you should get that thousand miles just by going to a beach.

If you claim the curve wins out over perspective three miles over the surface
Again, the distance at which it wins depends on altitude.
For an observer (eye) altitude of 2 m, curvature wins at 5 km.

For others, as an approximation:
d=sqrt(2*r*h)

I have already shown the math for it, which you entirely ignored.

Get your lies in order, look what a mess you created with two different stories here!!
Follow your own advice.
You are yet to show a contradiction from me.
Instead, you have had your lies repeatedly refuted.

Again, why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #331 on: October 12, 2024, 03:11:27 AM »
When we can see a horizon on Earths surface, a thousand miles away from us, directly in our view

Like this?

Quote






What’s that curved thing? 


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #332 on: October 12, 2024, 03:16:53 AM »
No, if perspective ‘loses out’ to a small curvature, on the surface, over a three mile distance, what would you see from above the surface would only curve downward more and more. Perspective lost out already. The curve is greater over more distance.

Look at a ball. The flattest it will look is near you. That’s where any perspective acts on the curved surface, where it’s least curved and most flat. The shortest distance away.

Beyond that point, it is only more curved and less flat, where no perspective applies

How could perspective cause more of a curve than over three miles, to rise up the same as a small curve? It’s not magic or fairy tale stuff here.

We wouldn’t even SEE a thousand miles of that surface, it’d curve down by miles before that point.

You seem to pick out where you want the curve to exist, and ignore the curve when it doesn’t fit with your story.

Your little curve wins out over perspective, but the bigger curves lose out to perspective, not because it is a fact or common sense or logic, just because you make up some garbage math and say they’re equations that prove your bs is true!

How does perspective apply to a sphere, or curved surface?

It doesn’t, unless it’s nearly flat over a part of it.

That’s why when we see the horizon directly in our view, at a thousand miles away from us, that is how perspective works over a flat surface like on Earth, and shows it cannot be a ball, that would be curved down below our view across from us in a plane.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #333 on: October 12, 2024, 03:49:20 AM »

That’s why when we see the horizon directly in our view, at a thousand miles away from us,



When can a person experience this.

I gave an example

When we can see a horizon on Earths surface, a thousand miles away from us, directly in our view

Like this?

Quote






What’s that curved thing?


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #334 on: October 12, 2024, 04:01:55 AM »

Look at a ball.

Like this?

Quote

“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat



https://flatearth.ws/basketball

Which produces a horizon.  Where FE doesn’t explain the witnessed horizon, and the dip of the horizon with earth. 
« Last Edit: October 12, 2024, 06:30:49 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #335 on: October 12, 2024, 08:25:34 AM »
Interesting video with interesting pictures from the life of the Concorde Airline and the official photographer.


Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith
Quote
Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith





*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #336 on: October 12, 2024, 01:45:03 PM »
No, if perspective ‘loses out’ to a small curvature, on the surface, over a three mile distance, what would you see from above the surface would only curve downward more and more. Perspective lost out already. The curve is greater over more distance.
Repeating the same BS wont help you.
Again, perspective is based upon height above the surface.
If you increase your altitude, you increase the effect of perspective, allowing it to win for a greater distance.

Again, this is simple math, which has already been shown to you.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic BS.

Beyond that point, it is only more curved and less flat, where no perspective applies
Perspective applies ALWAYS!

It doesn't magically stop.
Instead, you just have competing effects.

How could perspective cause more of a curve than over three miles, to rise up the same as a small curve?
It doesn't. As already shown repeatedly.
Again, the angle of dip to the horizon increases as you gain altitude.
i.e. as you go up, the horizon appears to go down:

You keep ignoring this because you know it shows pure BS.

It’s not magic or fairy tale stuff here.
The only one appealing to magic here is you. Where magic magically forms a horizon on a flat surface magically blocking the view to the surface itself at a greater distance, magically blocking the view to objects beyond this magical horizon and magically making the objects appear to sink; for absolutely no reason at all.
You are the one appealing to a fairy tale, where you have a magical formula which tells you the distance to the horizon. A formula you are yet to provide.
You are the one appealing to a fairy tale, where when you are in a plane, the horizon has magically risen to eye level, and is a thousand miles away.

We wouldn’t even SEE a thousand miles of that surface, it’d curve down by miles before that point.
Prove it.
Try actually doing the math to support your delusional BS.
Make sure you use an altitude based upon you having some evidence that you can see a thousand miles of surface, rather than just asserting you magically can.

You seem to pick out where you want the curve to exist, and ignore the curve when it doesn’t fit with your story.
No, I explain where the curve does exist and where it wins out over perspective.
More than that, I provide the math to explain why.

Again, for a short distance:
a = atan(h/d+d/2r)
That is the angle of dip to a point on the surface.
Notice 2 key parts - h, the altitude of the observer, and r, the radius of Earth.

Your little curve wins out over perspective, but the bigger curves lose out to perspective, not because it is a fact or common sense or logic, just because you make up some garbage math and say they’re equations that prove your bs is true!
It isn't the bigger curve that loses, it is the greater altitude which makes perspective better.
This is common sense and logic, and more importantly, MATH!
Math you cannot refute.

You don't even attempt to.
Instead you just reject it because you know you are spouting BS and have no actual justification for your BS because it is pure BS.

If you wish to assert such BS, try actually justifying it.
If you think I am wrong, provide your own formulae, with justification.
Explain why curvature should win at a particular distance, ensure you provide a justification for it.
If you can't, you are just spouting pure BS.

How does perspective apply to a sphere, or curved surface?
Perspective is simple geometry.
To find the angle of dip to a point:
Start by projecting an imaginary straight line passing through your eyes, level as it goes through your eye.
Then make a line from the point you are considering to the above line, passing perpendicular to the above line.
Now complete a right angle triangle by a final line going directly from your eye to the point.
The distance along the line passing level through your eyes is D.
The distance along the line perpendicular to that is H.
By simple geometry, the angle at your eye is given by a=atan(H/D).

Notice that this is just to a point? It doesn't need a flat surface.
It doesn't need ANY surface.
You construct a surface from such points.

Saying perspective only works on a flat surface, is like saying perspective will not act on a airplane, because it isn't a flat surface.
It is pure garbage.

That’s why when we see the horizon directly in our view, at a thousand miles away from us
Again WHERE?
You keep claiming this pure BS, but you are yet to provide any evidence to back it up.

shows it cannot be a ball, that would be curved down below our view across from us in a plane.
As already shown, the horizon does drop down. See the image above. Stop ignoring it.
Every time you ignore you just show everyone you are a lying POS that does not give a damn about the truth at all.
And as already shown, for the real round Earth, the angle of dip to the horizon when you are on a plane will still place it well within your FOV.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #337 on: October 13, 2024, 01:33:11 AM »
I said perspective is only consistent over a flat surface, not your twisted version. 

Do you recall that I have also said, even in that post, that perspective acts on a curved surface over a smaller distance, with a very slight curve over a shorter distance?

Get your facts straight, and get my arguments straight, or if you don’t know what I actually said, just quote me, it’s a waste of time having to correct you on my comments all the time.

So perspective acts consistently over a consistently flat surface. Because perspective works ideally over flat surfaces, it will also work over other surfaces that are nearly flat over any given distance. Even then, it acts lesser over such surfaces.

This goes to what you still don’t understand about perspective and surfaces.

Perspective acts on many surfaces other than flat ones, acts on a plane in air flying out in the distance, on whatever path of flight, not just straight and flat paths.

But what is very important that you need to know, is that perspective acts on whatever is flat or close to flat surfaces. It is a planular phenomenon that acts on vision, whether in ocular instruments or in natural eyesight.

So when we see all horizons the same way, directly in our view, at any altitude above Earth, that proves it is a consistently flat surface, that perspective acts on the very same way at all distances and views from above it, or on it.

That is not possible over a curved surface over spheres. They cannot be.

Your curved surface over three miles has a horizon seen directly in our view, according to you.

That three mile distance over this curved surface, would be the smallest curve over the whole surface, and the greatest of perspective acting on that surface, too.

More distance over a curved surface will have an ever greater curve on it, over it, which means perspective acts lesser and lesser over more distance over the spheroid.

It’s absolutely impossible to have horizons directly in our view over a curved surface, at all distances from us, because they curve downward more and more over their distances.

In order for all horizons to be directly in our view at all heights above a curved surface, it would have to be so enormous of a sphere, to look almost flat over a thousand miles on it. That is, a sphere so large, that it has only the slightest curve over a thousand miles on it. Curvature has yet to be present to any degree.

That would be an Earth over 10000 times larger than you claim, where three miles on your Earth would be 30000 miles on a massive Earth.

Earth is not that big, of course.

Above a ball Earth, we’d have a greater curve over its surface, which means less and less of that surface would be seen when higher above it, since more of it curves downward out of our view.

Going higher above a ball does allow us to view more of it, but would only be viewed looking downward from above it.

Your Earth is claimed to be 24000 miles in diameter, or a linear distance around the entire ball.

To see the surface from above that ball, we’d have to look downward over it, even with anything of perspective acting on it. No horizons directly in our view from above the ball Earth would be seen at all.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #338 on: October 13, 2024, 04:33:28 AM »
I said perspective is only consistent over a flat surface, not your twisted version. 



Dude.  You’re just babbling at this point.


Posted documentation of the earth’s curvature. 

With the dip of the horizon you can explain.

I asked you a question.


Look at a ball.

Like this?

Quote

“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat



https://flatearth.ws/basketball

Which produces a horizon.  Where FE doesn’t explain the witnessed horizon, and the dip of the horizon with earth. 

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #339 on: October 13, 2024, 04:35:09 AM »
I said perspective

You were asked to back up a specific claim you made.


That’s why when we see the horizon directly in our view, at a thousand miles away from us,



When can a person experience this.

I gave an example

When we can see a horizon on Earths surface, a thousand miles away from us, directly in our view

Like this?

Quote






  Turbs, What’s that curved thing?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 04:37:23 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #340 on: October 13, 2024, 01:13:36 PM »
I said
You said a lot of delusional BS.
That doesn't make it true.

Do you know the difference between my "twisted" (actually accurate) version, and your delusional BS?
I can justify mine. You can only assert the same pathetic BS. This is because mine is accurate and based upon reality, while yours is based upon your hopes and dreams.

Can you justify your BS at all?
No. All you can do is repeatedly assert that it only works on flat surfaces.
You can't explain why (without basically just repeating the same thing. Saying it is planar phenomenon is just repeating the claim it works on a flat surface).
You can't explain how it works at all.

But I can.
I can do the math to show the simple geometry that explains it, and you can do nothing to refute it.

Do you recall that I have also said, even in that post, that perspective acts on a curved surface over a smaller distance
i.e. you contradicted yourself.

Get your facts straight, and get my arguments straight, or if you don’t know what I actually said, just quote me, it’s a waste of time having to correct you on my comments all the time.
I have got my facts straight, and I have remained consistent the entire time.
You are yet to show any contradiction, and you are yet to justify your delusional nonsene.
Conversely, I have shown plenty of contradictions for what you have said, and justified my position.

This goes to what you still don’t understand about perspective and surfaces.
Quite the opposite.
It shows I know what I am talking about and you are spouting delusional BS.
Do you know what really drives this home?
The fact I can explain how perspective works and simplify it down to simple geometry; while all you can do is assert it is magic.

Perspective acts on many surfaces other than flat ones, acts on a plane in air flying out in the distance, on whatever path of flight, not just straight and flat paths.
i.e. YOU WERE BLATANTLY LYING TO EVERYONE!
That means it can work on curved surfaces as well.
It isn't magic that only works on a flat surface.

It is a planular phenomenon that acts on vision, whether in ocular instruments or in natural eyesight.
No, it is an ANGULAR phenomenon, based upon our vision working using angles.

So when we see all horizons the same way, directly in our view, at any altitude above Earth, that proves it is a consistently flat surface
How many times are you planning on repeating this pathetic lie?
Again:


It is a verifiable, repeatable, observable, confirmable FACT that the horizon is lower the higher you are.

You are appealing to a blatant lie, while continually ignoring this fact.

Your blatant lie not being possible on a RE in no way proves Earth is flat, because it is a blatant lie.

Your curved surface over three miles has a horizon seen directly in our view, according to you.
No, it has such a small angle of dip you will not be able to notice it without precise equipment, like theodolites which can measure it.

That three mile distance over this curved surface, would be the smallest curve over the whole surface, and the greatest of perspective acting on that surface, too.

More distance over a curved surface will have an ever greater curve on it, over it, which means perspective acts lesser and lesser over more distance over the spheroid.
I have already explained why this comment of yours is BS.
Again, PERSPECTIVE DEPENDS UPON HEIGHT!

It’s absolutely impossible to have horizons directly in our view
That's right, it is impossible, AS SHOWN BY REALITY!

They are not "directly in our view".
They are BELOW.
Again:


Every time you repeat this lie you are just showing that Earth is round and you are a lying POS that will use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend Earth can't be round.

In order for all horizons to be directly in our view
Who gives a shit what is required. As above, it isn't.

look almost flat over a thousand miles on it.
Again you keep repeating this BS.
Where is this magical view of yours?

Again, you are appealing to a delusional fantasy with no connection to reality.
You are yet to provide any evidence for any vantage point on Earth where you can see for a thousand miles, and have the horizon have no angle of dip.
But you don't care.
You know you are spouting pure BS, so will just keep on repeating this BS, showing everyone you truly a lying POS that does not give a damn about the truth at all. All you care about is pedalling your dishonest, delusional BS.



Above a ball Earth, we’d have a greater curve over its surface, which means less and less of that surface would be seen when higher above it, since more of it curves downward out of our view.
Repeating this dishonest lie wont help you.
I have already provided the math showing that is pure BS.
And you have done absolutely nothing to counter it.
All you have done is made the same pathetic, baseless assertion.

Back in reality, the further you are from a curved surface which is curving away from you, the more of it you can see.

If you want to claim otherwise, PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting the same old refuted BS.

Going higher above a ball does allow us to view more of it, but would only be viewed looking downward from above it.
Or still being close enough to it and not having a FOV which is a tiny point.

Again, have you done the math to find out just how far down from level the horizon should appear?
I did before, and showed you were lying.
Again, the angle of dip to the horizon expected is given by a=acos(R/(R+h)).
For an observer altitude of 10 km (roughly the height of planes), that angle is only roughly 3 degrees.
Even going up to 100 km, the edge of space, that is still only 10 degrees.
As a comparison, a screen should be placed 10 to 20 degrees below eye level for good ergonomics.
You should easily be able to see that, unless you are basically blind.

No horizons directly in our view from above the ball Earth would be seen at all.
And again, what is observed in reality?

The horizon dropping down as you go higher.


Again, why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 01:15:10 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #341 on: October 15, 2024, 06:45:05 AM »
Idea: Take a laser that they supposedly use to bounce off the Moon and place it on the New Jersey Shore atop a ten foot above sea level tower. Go to Europe and place a target on another ten foot above sea level tower on that first shore line on the same latitude. If the Earth is curved the laser will miss the mark by miles high. If the Earth is flat, but using the Flat Earth Map, the light should hit the Antarctic wall at a ten foot height missing all land masses since latitude lines follow a round Earth. Just a thought.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #342 on: October 16, 2024, 03:58:21 AM »
Idea: Take a laser

I like it.  But a simpler solution,

Take these listed people.

Quote
The Flat Earth Society
 
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/team

TEAM

Our core team are from locations around the plane. Daniel Shenton, President, who founded the Society in London is now located in Hong Kong. Michael Wilmore, Vice-President, lives in Dublin Ireland. Our Secretary John Davis is currently in the United States but was born Canadian. In addition, our extended 'team' of members on our memberlist is equally varied - featuring believers from a number of countrie



Have them filmed by an independent film / documentary crew lunching an amateur high altitude ballon with good video recording equipment with live broadcast capabilities.  And document the flight.

Either idea has zero chance of happening.  Simpler to just let the plebes of FE say everting is faked. 




Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #343 on: October 18, 2024, 11:43:42 PM »
Quote
Again, perspective is based upon height above the surface.
If you increase your altitude, you increase the effect of perspective, allowing it to win for a greater distance.

The vanishing curve, the little curve at 3 miles is a thousand mile curve too, nothing curves it down any more than at 3 miles over the ball Earth, it can’t curve any more with more distance over Earth ball, it’s unique.


Any idea where a 50 mile curved surface can rise up like it was only a 3 mile curve?

The little 3 miles of curve ‘won over perspective’, but perspective beat bigger and bigger curves after it lost to the little curve!

Curved surfaces cannot curve the same with more distance over them.

Perspective doesn’t magically make curved surfaces unravel and flatten out to a 3 mile curve.

You’ve gone loony

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #344 on: October 19, 2024, 12:07:47 AM »
The vanishing curve, the little curve at 3 miles is a thousand mile curve too, nothing curves it down any more than at 3 miles over the ball Earth, it can’t curve any more with more distance over Earth ball, it’s unique.
What nonsense are you trying to say here?
It is a curve that continues curving down.
So of course it will curve more.

But perspective depends upon your height.

Any idea where a 50 mile curved surface can rise up like it was only a 3 mile curve?
To a fool like you only comparing it with your eyes, pretty much anywhere.

The little 3 miles of curve ‘won over perspective’, but perspective beat bigger and bigger curves after it lost to the little curve!
No, that little 3 mile curve won over a low perspective, but a higher perspective beats it quite substantially and takes a much greater curve to lose.

Again, this has been explained to you repeatedly.
The math has been provided repeatedly.
You can carry out an observation to test this yourself.

You have nothing except pathetic dismissal, showing just how desperate and pathetic your position is.

What makes it even more pathetic and dishonest is that you are basically appealing to something quite equivalent.
If your FE magic magically hides the surface after 3 miles, and would just make it even worse with greater distance, how does this magic then magically turn around and allow you to see further just by going higher?

The only way your BS could ever work is if you admit height matters.
And if it matters, there is no reason to think it would only matter for a flat surface.

You’ve gone loony
The only "loony" thing would be continually refuting your repeated BS, with you yet to make any honest attempt to actually defend your BS.

Again, EVERYTHING that says one way or another says you are wrong.
Basic geometry says you are wrong.
Math says you are wrong.
Observations from reality, including simple tests you can conduct yourself, says you are wrong.
Even your own argument effectively says you are wrong.
But you refuse to admit it because you are desperate to pretend Earth is flat.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #345 on: October 19, 2024, 07:54:32 AM »
The ability to see a curve left-right when standing on the curve is different from ability to see a curve forward-backward in relation to height.

Persepctuve pinches in all directions- left righttop bottom as per every picutre of a hallway.
The perspective does not rise indepdently of the horizon 8insq rulw of thumb curve.


Yes no?


Answer the costco shoping cart question.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #346 on: October 19, 2024, 11:38:06 PM »
Quote
No, that little 3 mile curve won over a low perspective, but a higher perspective beats it quite substantially and takes a much greater curve to lose

Nonsense.

When you are on a curved surface of a ball Earth, or any other ball, no matter how big, you are always on TOP of it, you’re always at its highest point from anywhere you are on it.

If we assume your horizon at 3 miles away, is a curved surface over 3 miles distance, that is the highest point you’d see the surface of the ball, the highest horizon you’d ever see on that ball.

You cannot go above the ball and see it higher than on the surface.

You would certainly be able to see more of the surface, but it would not be seen any higher than on the surface, because it always curves downward more and more, it’s seen lower and lower when you are higher and higher above the ball.

More of a curved surface will lessen the effects of perspective, until it has no effects at all. 

Go ahead and try to DRAW what you think we’d see from any height above your ball Earth.

How far away could you see on the curving down surface?

Draw the horizon at the longest distance you’d see of the surface, and show your curve over the distance.

You believe that your curved surface isn’t more curved at a thousand miles away? The horizon is still seen directly from you, the surface over a thousand miles still appears to rise up over a thousand miles, while more and more of the surface curves downward.

Perspective acts only on the visible area of surfaces, which are flat enough over a length that’s visible.

We see a flat surface over a thousand miles away, at all distances, and we never see any curves at all. 

How would perspective make a thousand miles over a ball Earth appear completely flat?

Perspective doesn’t smooth out curves, make them look entirely flat, and make them appear to rise up like there’s nothing curved on a ball Earth over 1/6 of its entire diameter!

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #347 on: October 20, 2024, 02:05:39 AM »
Nonsense.
Thanks for summing up your post.

Again, basic geometry shows you are wrong.
Simple math shows you are wrong
Simple observations from reality show you are wrong.
You have NOTHING backing you up.
Yet here you are, continually asserting pathetic BS with no justification and doing absolutely nothing to attempt to refute what has been said.

When you are on a curved surface of a ball Earth, or any other ball, no matter how big, you are always on TOP of it, you’re always at its highest point from anywhere you are on it.
Forget about being on a ball.
For any surface which doesn't go up, you are above it.

If we assume your horizon at 3 miles away, is a curved surface over 3 miles distance, that is the highest point you’d see the surface of the ball, the highest horizon you’d ever see on that ball.
Are you trying to say you will not see further, or the horizon will be lower?

If the former, pure BS, as repeatedly explained.
If the latter, yes, that is consistent with observations in reality, where the higher you go the lower the horizon is.
Something you refuse to address because it shows your delusional fantasy is pure BS.

Again:


You would certainly be able to see more of the surface
So all your claims of not being able to see more are pure BS?
You admit you have been repeatedly lying to everyone?

Go ahead and try to DRAW what you think we’d see from any height above your ball Earth.
Why?
I already explained why you were wrong, with math, and you have done nothing to address it.
If you want me to draw something, deal with what has already been provided.

You believe that your curved surface isn’t more curved at a thousand miles away?
No, I don't believe that.
I know it keeps on curving.

The horizon is still seen directly from you
If by "directly" you mean "directly in front with no angle of dip", then no, it doens't.
That is your BS claim you have continually repeated with nothing to justify it which is refuted by a simple photo you keep on ignoring:


Again, the horizon gets lower with increasing altitude.

the surface over a thousand miles
Again, where is this magical view of yours?

Perspective acts only on the visible area of surfaces, which are flat enough over a length that’s visible.
Perspective acts on everything you can see, not just flat surfaces, not just surfaces.

We see a flat surface over a thousand miles away
WHERE?

we never see any curves at all.
Yes, we do.
We see the curve quite clearly.
We see a horizon a finite distance away which gets further away as we go higher.
How else are you expecting to see the curve?

How would perspective make a thousand miles over a ball Earth appear completely flat?
Where is this magical thousand mile flat view?
You keep appealing to it but never provide it.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #348 on: October 20, 2024, 12:16:13 PM »
Turbi cant draw his own circle amd triangle?
Draw it and disprove the tangent aka horizon exists.

Jacks alrsady drawn it a bunch of times.
YOU draw it.


And answer the costco shopping cart question.


« Last Edit: October 20, 2024, 05:13:40 PM by Themightykabool »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #349 on: October 20, 2024, 02:30:20 PM »
The vanishing curve, the little curve at 3 miles is a thousand mile curve too, nothing curves it down any more than at 3 miles over the ball Earth, it can’t curve any more with more distance over Earth ball, it’s unique.
Did you know that curvature is measured in terms of degrees or radians per unit of distance?  For example, the curvature of the round earth is approximately one arc minute per nautical mile.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #350 on: October 22, 2024, 09:16:40 AM »
Yes, I did know that.  In fact, if you research it, you will find this was intentional.  One arc minute of latitude is approximately 1 nm everywhere.  One arc minute of longitude is approximately 1 nm, only near the equator... well, if you don't believe the earth is flat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #351 on: October 22, 2024, 01:58:22 PM »
Yes, I did know that.
But I'm pretty sure that Bulma doesn't.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #352 on: October 25, 2024, 08:34:22 PM »
Rising higher and higher above any size of ball, shows more of the surface lower and lower from you.

Only on the surface, is it at its highest point. It’s lower being higher above it, never higher up than on the surface of it.

At a thousand miles up, it’s not possible for Earth to be a ball.

Suggesting it’s slightly lower at 40000 feet up, means the surface seen at a thousand miles away, has only a slight curve over a thousand miles of Earths surface, and is still nearly as flat over a thousand miles as on the surface over three miles on it.

So even assuming it was a bit lower from that height, it would barely have curved down at all over a thousand miles on the ball.

The Earth would have to be 100 times bigger or more to barely have curved over such a distance as that!

Assuming it was any lower at all, that is, it still wouldn’t work out as a ball Earth.

How much higher would we need to be, for it to curve lower and lower than at a thousand miles over the surface?

If Earth were a ball, we’d see a far lower view over a thousand miles on it, not rise up ‘slightly lower’ than over three miles on it!




Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #353 on: October 25, 2024, 09:58:21 PM »
They never show a view from above a ball, as you’d see it from there.

The largest ball is no different from any other ball.

The more seen of the surface, is not higher up at all, than on the surface itself.

Only if the ball was so massive in size, to be almost flat for thousands of miles over it, until a curving down is noticeable from above it.

That’s not what we see, Earth is much too small a ball to see it nearly as flat over a thousand or more miles surface.

Let’s say the ball Earth has about a 24000 mile diameter.

We can see a thousand miles over that ball. Or two thousand miles over it.

If we see the surface still rising up ‘but slightly lower’ than at only three miles over that surface, it wouldn’t look slightly lower at 200 x more distance than three miles over it. When your curve over three miles is seen, that’s the reference point for the whole surface of the ball Earth.

Then you say that a larger curve over a far greater distance hardly curves over 100x more distance over the ball Earth surface!

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #354 on: October 26, 2024, 01:08:08 AM »
So you believe every ball, every size of ball, has horizons on them?

Horizons only form on balls, curved down spots on balls?

Show me a drawing or painting or computer simulation of your claim, that shows how a horizon is curving down, and show me an actual, real, visible curve you claim is there.

When we look at a horizon from its side view, taking in all the same viewpoints up to, and past the horizon, you’d see there’s a curve at the horizon, just past the horizon?

Nothing curves at all.

Real curves are seen, not made up ones are ever seen. They don’t exist, so how could anyone ever see them at all?


*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #355 on: October 26, 2024, 01:50:24 PM »
Rising higher and higher above any size of ball, shows more of the surface lower and lower from you.
Yes, just like what we observe in reality.
Where as you get higher, you can see more of the surface, and the angle of dip to the horizon is lower:


At a thousand miles up, it’s not possible for Earth to be a ball.
Why?
Do you have a photo from a thousand miles up?

Suggesting it’s slightly lower at 40000 feet up, means the surface seen at a thousand miles away
No, it is meaning anything like that because you can't see that far.

As a reminder, the world record distance photo taken from Earth's surface is 483.5 km away or 300 miles.
That is not 1000 miles.
Going

You keep appealing to this magical thousand miles view, yet you refuse to provide any evidence of it.
You are blatantly lying to everyone while ignoring the clear evidence of the horizon getting lower as you get higher.

If Earth were a ball, we’d see a far lower view over a thousand miles on it
So go get that view, and show us what it looks like.
Stop appealing to your dishonest BS.

And again, stop just appealing to vague BS. Do the math and see how low it should actually appear.
As a reminder, I already did that for you and showed that for an observer in a plane at cruising altitude it would be roughly 3 degrees below.

They never show a view from above a ball, as you’d see it from there.
You mean you have never bothered looking for them, nor did you attempt to make them yourself.
That is because you have no interest in the truth and are just looking for a pathetic to dismiss reality.

The largest ball is no different from any other ball.
But you do need to understand what that means in terms of height.
Standing 1 m above the surface of a very large ball is quite different to standing 1 m above the surface of a tiny ball.

The more seen of the surface, is not higher up at all, than on the surface itself.
Which matches what is observed in reality. Something you keep on ignoring. I wonder why? Is it because you know it shows you are a lying POS?

That’s not what we see, Earth is much too small a ball to see it nearly as flat over a thousand or more miles surface.
Again, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS MAGICAL VIEW?

We can see a thousand miles over that ball. Or two thousand miles over it.
WHERE?
Stop just appealing to your delusional fantasy and provide evidence of these magical views.

If we see the surface still rising up ‘but slightly lower’ than at only three miles over that surface, it wouldn’t look slightly lower at 200 x more distance than three miles over it. When your curve over three miles is seen, that’s the reference point for the whole surface of the ball Earth.
Then you say that a larger curve over a far greater distance hardly curves over 100x more distance over the ball Earth surface!
Again, have you done the math to check?
The horizon, for an eye altitude of h, is at an angle of dip (i.e. an angle below directly horizontal) given by acos(r/(r+h)).
This is not difficult to understand.
This is not difficult to calculate.

If instead you want it in terms of distance seen on the surface, that would be (in radians) d/r.
To convert that to an angle in degrees, multiply by 180 and divide by pi.
And if you want to know the height needed, that is also calculable.

For a distance of 5 km, that gives an angle of 0.045 degrees and an observer height of 2 m.
For a distance of 500 km, that gives an angle of dip of roughly 4.5 degrees, and an observer height of 20 km.
For a distance of 1600 km (your 1000 miles) that gives a dip of roughly 14 degrees and an observer height of 200 km.

Again, this is not difficult to do.
Yet doing so would reveal your dishonesty.

So you believe every ball, every size of ball, has horizons on them?
Yes. As all the evidence shows.

Horizons only form on balls, curved down spots on balls?
No, horizon form on any object which is curving away.
For example, on a cube, the horizon is the edges, where it curves away.

Show me
No. First you can answer the simple questions you keep ignoring.

When we look at a horizon from its side view
Do you mean just seeing a point of the horizon? Or do you mean a line along the surface going from the observer to the horizon?
If the former, you see a point, so that is pointless.
If the latter, you never do that, unless you get incredibly far away.
When you do that for Earth, you get a view like this:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2024/10/25/png/epic_1b_20241025021514.png

Again, this has been explained to you repeatedly.
You were even provided a diagram showing why you are just spouting pure BS:

The purple circle represents the horizon for the first viewer.
The grey line is the line going from them to the horizon and beyond. That is the line you would look at to see that curve showing the horizon going down.
The blue circle is the horizon for the second observer.
They just see a point on the grey line.
The rest is blocked from view by the horizon.

Everyone can easily see your claim is pure BS, yet you keep playing dumb and keep repeating it.

Real curves are seen
And the way they are seen is by curving away from us, producing a horizon.

Meanwhile, real flat surface are seen as the entire surface. With no part of the surface magically blocked from view by a magical horizon.

The Earth matches a curved surface, not a flat one.

Again, EVERYTHING that says one way or another says you are wrong.
Basic geometry says you are wrong.
Math says you are wrong.
Observations from reality, including simple tests you can conduct yourself, says you are wrong.
Even your own argument effectively says you are wrong.
But you refuse to admit it because you are desperate to pretend Earth is flat.

Now again, how about you stop with the pathetic BS and either show this magical thousand mile view, or answer the simple questions you have continually avoided because you know they show you have been spouting pure BS:

Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #356 on: October 27, 2024, 01:13:49 AM »
Your ‘image’ of three horizons at three distances, is garbage.

I’ve actually seen many horizons from planes, and they are seen at the same height as on ground.

You can look at many images of horizons taken from planes that show it at the same height as on ground, too.

They tweaked the images to look like the horizons are lower than on ground, real images show it at the same height as on ground.

Even tweaking it doesn’t work either.

Let’s assume these images are correct, anyway.

Look at how low the horizon is at 5600 feet altitude, compared to at sea level.

How low would it be at twice that altitude? It would curve down more than at 5600 feet altitude, much lower than before.

At 30000 feet, it wouldn’t be seen from a plane unless you looked downward, based on those first three images of horizons.

That’s not what we see from 30000 feet, we don’t need to look down from the window to see a horizon.

That bs is easily proven as bs.




*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #357 on: October 27, 2024, 01:35:54 PM »
Your ‘image’ of three horizons at three distances, is garbage.
No, it is a simple explanation of why your claims are pure BS.

You want to see the  curve along the grey line.
But your perpendicular view has that blocked by the horizon.

I’ve actually seen many horizons from planes, and they are seen at the same height as on ground.
Repeating the same lie will not help you.
You have no measurement of that.
All you have is you not noticing it changing.
Given it only changes by a few degrees, and you have no reference at all, this is not surprising.
Again, actual evidence shows the horizon drops as you get higher, you continually ignoring this and repeating the same pathetic lie with absolutely nothing to justify your lie just shows how truly pathetic and desperate you are, and how little you care about the truth.

Again, this is the evidence that shows you are lying to everyone:


You have provided NOTHING to challenge this.

You can look at many images of horizons taken from planes that show it at the same height as on ground, too.
WHERE?
Again, you just continually assert pure BS, yet provide no evidence at all.
Where is this evidence of yours?
Do you have any at all?

They tweaked the images
You mean they show you are lying POS, so you just lie about the evidence to claim it is fake, showing you do not care what the evidence shows at all.
You will just continue lying to everyone.

real images show it at the same height as on ground.
Yet you provide none. Why?
Is it because you know the real images show the horizon is lower?

Look at how low the horizon is at 5600 feet altitude, compared to at sea level.
No, lets stop with your vague dishonest BS.
Instead you do the math and show what it is.

At 30000 feet, it wouldn’t be seen from a plane unless you looked downward, based on those first three images of horizons.
PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting BS, and do the math.
If you can't do the math, then your claims are entirely baseless.

That bs is easily proven as bs.
Yes, your BS is easily proven as BS.
At crusing altitude, you would need to look down roughly 3 degres.
I have already done the math, and you have done nothing to refute it.
I have provided evidence of the horizon appearing lower as you get higher, and your only response was to dismiss it as fake.
That sure sounds typical of you. When things show you are wrong, dismiss them as fake.

You just continually assert pure BS, with nothing to justify your BS, and then ignore or dismiss everything that shows you are lying; all while refusing to answer simple questions which show your spouting pure BS.


Now again, how about you stop with the pathetic BS and either show this magical thousand mile view, or answer the simple questions you have continually avoided because you know they show you have been spouting pure BS:

Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #358 on: October 27, 2024, 08:12:50 PM »
First of all, you need to include a constant reference point to horizons, anyone can make them ‘look lower’ by cutting out the true reference point we see through to horizons, which your side always does.

That’s why we need to see horizons through plane windows, and SHOW the frames of those windows, because that is exactly what we SEE of horizons from planes.

Since planes fly level above Earth, we know what we see of horizons is level to us when viewing them. That’s why horizons are always seen halfway up of plane windows, not lower and lower than halfway up.

The window frames are our reference point to their position when we see them above Earth.

They are ALWAYS seen halfway up the windows, at any and all altitudes when flying level.

Your ‘images’ don’t show a reference point that is the same at all altitudes, which is intentionally left out, to skew horizons lower in their ‘images’.

If horizons actually DID appear lower when higher above Earth, we’d see them lower than halfway up plane windows.

Window frames offer one level view to the outside. If you try to go higher up to see through window frames, or lower than them, it cuts your view of the outside, and doesn’t work properly.

Plane window frames show exactly what we see of horizons at all altitudes above Earth is always halfway up the windows.

Here’s a few examples of this..

https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/airplane-window-view-on-the-clouds-and-blue-sky-horizon-plane-wing-vertical-view-in-porthole/269019636

https://flux-image.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fai.flux-image.com%2Fflux%2F3e5830dc-7607-4d0c-aba2-7b5bb4c76927.jpg&w=3840&q=75

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1111637939-passenger-pov-looking-out-plane-window

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #359 on: October 27, 2024, 09:00:22 PM »
It’s impossible to show horizons from plane windows with the frame in view, any lower or higher than halfway up, because the window frame is out of actual viewing positions we have from planes.

The frames limit our view directly out as level, we can’t see higher or lower unless we go lower or higher above the window frame. And that is not our position when looking out of those windows.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2024, 09:11:16 PM by turbonium2 »