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

  • 469 Replies
  • 19816 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #360 on: October 28, 2024, 02:41:10 AM »
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.
And straight off the bat you resort to pure BS.

What our side does is provide a reference.
e.g. in this picture here:

we see the reference in the form of the red fluid connected by the tubes.
This creates a level surface which we can project towards the horizon to see if it meets the horizon or is above or below.

Data provided something similar, where a water bottle was used on a plane (which does have the issue of being done on a plane):

Others use a device to measure the angle.


Even if you want to claim the reference is BS, it is clear our side does use a reference.

Compare that to the dishonest BS your side pulls.
Typically they just provide a picture, with no reference at all, and claim that because the horizon is roughly in the middle it must be at eye level.
When they want a reference, they will just draw a line on top of the picture.

And now you just appeal to magical views without even providing them.

That’s why we need to see horizons through plane windows, and SHOW the frames of those windows
That is an absolutely horrible reference.

A reference needs a near part and a far part, which you can line up.
If you just have a window, you can move up or down to move the horizon down or up.
It is useless.

And more importantly, it doesn't actually provide a reference for the horizon itself.

They are ALWAYS seen halfway up the windows
No, we don't.
And you don't need a plane to check that.
You can just use any old window, and look out it and see what happens as you move up and down.

You are just desperate to appeal to this BS because you need something, and hope that because you don't have a reference for the horizon itself, you can appeal to the vagueness of "half way up" to pretend it is level.

Your ‘images’ don’t show a reference point
Yes, they do. One which is actually a reference.

If horizons actually DID appear lower when higher above Earth
No need for "if".
They do, that has been clearly established with you entirely incapable of refuting it and entirely incapable of providing anything to challenge it.

If you try to go higher up to see through window frames, or lower than them
It still allows you to see outside, and easily move the horizon around to wherever you want.


Here’s a few examples of this..
Which you clearly haven't even bothered checking.

For your first one:

The line going straight down is 704 px long.
The purple line was then drawn on top to be half that. Notice that it stops ABOVE the horizon?

The second one, clearly not taken as a level view given how you can see the inside of the bottom but not the top.

But again, the line from top to bottom is 380 px, with the purple line again half.
The horizon is quite clearly BELOW level.
Yet that doesn't stop lying scum from lying to everyone and claiming it is magically level.

The last example, the video, is even better, because it shows the horizon moving around relative to the window as the camera moves.

So all these examples demonstrate is that you're a lying POS that doesn't care about the truth at all;
and that if you want a reference, it really needs to allow a line to be constructed and followed to the horizon.
Like the references provided in the images provided by those supporting reality, clearly showing the horizon drops as you get higher.

It’s impossible to show horizons from plane windows with the frame in view, any lower or higher than halfway up
So you are saying the images and videos you provided are fake? Because they show what you are claiming is impossible.

The frames limit our view directly out as level
No they don't.
Not unless you are directly level with them.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #361 on: November 01, 2024, 09:01:23 PM »
No, your images are skewed to look like that.

Horizons seen from such high altitudes can only be from windows of planes, not on the surface, we can’t confirm it’s valid at any point chosen without going there, it’s not valid on ground at a single point or points. We don’t know that point at all.

If you look at the video, it shows exactly what happens by moving around the window with a camera, going up above the window frame or up on the glass of the window, yours can be skewed the same way, it’s just bs.

Plane windows show exactly where horizons are seen from any height we rise above Earth, is the very same thing, same height as always seen it as.

How could we ever see a horizon rise up to see from a plane at 30000 feet above a ball Earth, that you say is lower, we’d not see a horizon from a plane at 30000 feet above Earth if it were a ball. When we see a horizon at 30000 feet above Earth, what is its distance from us?

It’s been measured with known features of certain distances away from planes locations out to these features, and so forth.

Horizons are seen a thousand miles out from us, and if you say they’re lower, to see them from planes at 30000 feet, over to a thousand miles on the surface of Earth, would not be much lower over a thousand miles when you say the Earth is about 24000 miles in diameter.

A horizon would be much lower than to possibly be seen from plane windows, to a thousand miles over the surface, and even if it was lower, as you claim it to be, that’s nowhere close to being low enough for your Earth’s diameter to work out at all.

You have a thousand miles of the surface seen slightly lower than from three miles over it.

To extrapolate from that, three miles over the surface appears to be slightly higher up than over a thousand miles of surface…

We still can see a horizon from a thousand miles away, from 30000 feet above Earth.

It rises up too high over a thousand miles on your small Earth, even if it was seen lower  there, it would have to be far lower by that point.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #362 on: November 01, 2024, 11:59:34 PM »
So we have two opposite views out of two plane windows, each one viewing a horizon, but opposite sides.


A reference point of being level or not with a horizon, and its position at our windows is the same at both windows.

You think it’s lower than halfway up both windows?

Horizons are normally seen halfway up of our windows in planes. I’ve seen them many times, and seen a few of them for hours at a time, lots of people have seen them.

Most videos and images of horizons from plane windows show them halfway up the windows. Not all of them, but most do.

Why? Because that is where we see horizons from plane windows all the time, so that is their position we see them out our windows.

At all altitudes, in fact.

But if you don’t think so, you can find out next time you’re in a plane during the day, if you’re able to see the horizon from both sides of a plane.

What your source shows us is easily proven as bs.

When we see the horizon from a plane window at 30000 feet, remember that when you look at his ‘image’ of a low horizon at only 5600 feet!

What would it be at 4 times higher up? We’d never see a horizon from planes at 30000 feet, going by his ‘images’!!

They’re garbage, nothing but

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #363 on: November 02, 2024, 01:45:57 AM »
No, your images are skewed to look like that.
No, they aren't.
Importantly, they provide an easy to use reference.
This reference lets you confirm if the camera is looking level, and compare the horizon to that level reference.
And it clearly shows that the horizon is BELOW level.

You have no rational objection at all.
Instead you are just grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusional BS is true.

If you look at the video, it shows exactly what happens by moving around the window with a camera, going up above the window frame or up on the glass of the window, yours can be skewed the same way, it’s just bs.
i.e. you admit you are a lying POS and your claims before (and again in this comment) are pure BS.

Unlike your crappy window which can easily be skewed, the images I provided have a built in reference which can't be skewed.

Plane windows show exactly where horizons are seen from any height we rise above Earth, is the very same thing, same height as always seen it as.
You do love demonstrating your complete lack of any integrity or any concern for the truth.

You literally just admitted that by moving around you can skew it.
Yet here you are claiming it must be right.
And here you are ignoring the fact that the photos you appeal to don't match your own claim.

You are proven to be a liar.
You are proven to have repeatedly lied to everyone.

How could we ever see a horizon rise up to see from a plane at 30000 feet above a ball Earth, that you say is lower, we’d not see a horizon from a plane at 30000 feet above Earth if it were a ball.
Stop just repeating the same pathetic BS.
It has been explained to you how we can see it.
It has been explained to you just how low it appears, just a few degrees below level.
That is easily visible.

You can do nothing to refute this.
You cannot provide any equation or any justification for it to be wrong.
Instead you keep repeating the same pathetic BS, claiming it can't be seen for no reason at all.

It’s been measured with known features of certain distances away from planes locations out to these features, and so forth.
Horizons are seen a thousand miles out from us
Pure BS!
I assume just like your claim for a magical formula, this is yet another fabrication from your delusional mind?

You have repeatedly appealed to such magical thousand mile views, yet you continually refuse to provide a single one.

If it has been measured, provide a reference.
Prove your claim.
Stop just spouting unsubstantiated BS.

if you say they’re lower
I don't merely say they are lower, I provided clear proof that they are, that you just desperately lie about to try to dismiss.

A horizon would be much lower than to possibly be seen from plane windows
Again, PROVE IT!

Stop just asserting the same BS.

Your claims, with nothing to justify them are nothing more than dishonest, delusional, childish BS.

We still can see a horizon from a thousand miles away, from 30000 feet above Earth.
PROVE IT!
Stop repeating the same pathetic BS.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #364 on: November 02, 2024, 01:49:43 AM »
So we have two opposite views out of two plane windows, each one viewing a horizon, but opposite sides.
WHERE?
Yet again you are just appealing to your delusional fantasy with nothing from reality.

You think it’s lower than halfway up both windows?
That depends, where are you standing?
Are you standing with your eyes level with half way up the window? If so, YES!

Horizons are normally seen halfway up of our windows in planes.
No, they aren't. As already demonstrated.

I’ve seen them
You have been shown to repeatedly lie to everyone.
Your claims about what you have seen are entirely worthless.

Provide photos or videos, like the ones you provided before which showed you are a lying POS.

What your source shows us is easily proven as bs.
Yet you make no attempt at all to prove it is BS and instead just look for excuses to dismiss it.

When we see the horizon from a plane window at 30000 feet, remember that when you look at his ‘image’ of a low horizon at only 5600 feet!
And the important distinction, this photo has a reference, to make it easy to see when things are below level.
It also has no quantitative indication of just what angle it is below.

If you understood how photography works you would understand that you could make a small angle appear smaller or larger depending on the zoom.

They’re garbage, nothing but
They are conclusive proof that you are lying to everyone, and you have NOTHING to refute them.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #365 on: November 02, 2024, 03:44:11 AM »
You’re angry for being lied to about all this crap.

Why is it so hard to create a simulation of what we’d actually see from above a ball that’s the same size as a ball Earth would be?


It’s not hard to simulate this.

You’d see that the surface is curving down well before you were up to 30000 feet above the ball, even as big a ball for Earth, would be curving down much more, not rising up over a thousand miles on it!

Again, if we even assume it’s not much lower over a thousand miles of its curving downward surface, then your ball must grow 10x larger in size to be so flat over a thousand miles on it, to see the  horizon almost as high over a thousand miles of surface we see almost as high from there, because it’s almost the same as before.

That’s even assuming it is lower here, to show you it doesn’t work with that assumption being true. 

Every size of ball is curving down, and more and more curving down with more distance over it.

A fact you cannot ignore or excuse away.

How much of that curved surface would we actually see from 30000 feet above it?

When would perspective stop working is three miles over that surface, before it curves more and more after three miles over it, the greater it curves down after perspective lost at three miles ends perspective at three miles over the surface.

You can’t say it’s back again after it lost out at three miles away, it didn’t lose out at three miles away, you just said it did, but you didn’t mean it, you meant it sort of lost out there, but not completely lost out there!!

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #366 on: November 02, 2024, 05:21:24 AM »
You seem to act like ‘curvature’ is just whatever is seen on Earth, and say that’s how it looks on a ball Earth, and nobody can prove it isn’t a ball Earth.

We can simulate a ball Earth, and nothing would look the same as it does on the real Earth.

The surface wouldn’t be seen a thousand miles away. Not half that distance would be seen, at 30000 feet.

And it wouldn’t rise up over the whole surface of it, and suddenly cut out of all sight, beyond a horizon there. 

Never do we see anything of a curve at all, when the surface curves down and down more, instead of rising up a thousand miles away, and cuts off like magic. No curve seen beyond that either.


How can it rise up a thousand miles away over a thousand miles of curvature? It’s completely ridiculous.

Curvature over a thousand miles of surface, would be miles downward, we’d never see a thousand miles away on it, and it would never rise up and drop out of sight suddenly, past any horizon at any distance, with a miles downward curving surface at the same time.

Nonsense

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #367 on: November 02, 2024, 11:40:41 PM »
You’re angry for being lied to about all this crap.
I'm not angry about you lying all the time.
I'm just calling you out on it.

Why is it so hard to create a simulation of what we’d actually see from above a ball that’s the same size as a ball Earth would be?
It isn't. It is quite simple to do.
There are just lots of parameters that you can change.

It’s not hard to simulate this.
Yet you make no attempt to.
Instead, you just make vague BS claims, where math shows you are wrong.

You’d see
Stop with the baseless BS.
Either provide the math showing what you would see, or the simulation.

thousand miles
Again, where is any evidence of this magical view?
You keep appealing to it, yet you also keep refusing to provide it.

Just like you claimed you had a magical formula to tell you the distance to the horizon which doesn't involve curvature, yet refused to provide it nor even attempt to justify why that should happen.

Every size of ball is curving down, and more and more curving down with more distance over it.
A fact you cannot ignore or excuse away.
A fact I do not need to ignore or excuse.
I have explained what we would see.
I have shown evidence that this matches what is observed in reality.
You are the one who needs to ignore this or blatantly lie about it.

How much of that curved surface would we actually see from 30000 feet above it?
This has already been explained to you. Why keep asking the same questions when you have no interest in the answer?
Again, if you want a rough and quick approximation, you can use h=d^2/2r.
This is the "8 inches per mile squared".
So taking your 30 000 archaic units, converting it to 360000 archaic units, dividing it by 8 archaic units, and then square rooting it, we end up with a distance to the horizon of 212 archaic units.

You can also rearrange the formula to get d=sqrt(2*r*h).

Other options are more accurate versions, but then you should also clarify what you mean by distance.
Taking distance to be the distance along the surface of Earth, i.e. an arc, you need to work out the angle subtended at the centre.
That comes from simple trig, cos(a)=r/(r+h).
This is also the angle of dip to the horizon.
Then depending on if you are using radians or degrees you get the distance as either:
d = a*r or d=a*r*pi/180 degrees.

Putting in your height of 9.144 km, you get an angle of dip of 0.0535 radians or 3.06 degrees.
This gives a distance of 341 km, which still matches quite well with the 212 archaic units.

Of course, refraction will make the angle a little less and the distance a little more.


When would perspective stop working is three miles over that surface, before it curves more and more after three miles over it, the greater it curves down after perspective lost at three miles ends perspective at three miles over the surface.

You can’t say it’s back again after it lost out at three miles away, it didn’t lose out at three miles away, you just said it did, but you didn’t mean it, you meant it sort of lost out there, but not completely lost out there!!
Again, stop repeating the same pathetic BS.
The distance where perspective loses depends upon your altitude, as explained repeatedly.

Again, the angle of dip is simply a=atan(h/d).
For a flat surface, that just gives a continually "rising" surface with no end and no horizon.
For a curved surface, taking the simple approximation, h varies with distance.
Specifically it is h=h0+d^2/2r.
Subbing that into the above you get:
a=atan(h0/d + d/2r)

For small distances, the h0/d term dominates. For large distances the d/2r term dominates.
To see the change, we look at the derivative of the inside part of the atan function.
i.e.
-h0/d^2 + 1/2r.
At small distance the -h0/d^2 term wins and the angle of dip reduces (i.e. the ground appears to rise).
At greater distances, the 1/2r term wins and the angle of dip increases.
The point where this changes is when the derivative is 0.
-h0/d^2 + 1/2r = 0
1/2r=h0/d^2
d^2=2*r*h0
d=sqrt(2*r*h0).

Again, notice the dependence on d?
For an observer height of 2 m, that gives a distance of roughly 5 km.
For an observer height of 9.144 km, that gives a distance of roughly 341 km.

This can also trivially be shown graphically:

The red line is the position of the observer, where we have 3 different heights.
The blue like is the lowest, having the horizon the closest. The purple line is higher, and has the horizon further away, i.e. perspective wins for longer.
And the brown line is the highest, seeing further.

This is basic geometry, and matches plenty of observations in reality of surfaces known to be round.
You ignoring that and lying about it wont save you, it just shows how dishonest you are.
It shows that you are so desperate to pretend your delusional fantasy is true that you will repeat the same refuted BS again and again.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #368 on: November 02, 2024, 11:45:23 PM »
You seem to act like ‘curvature’ is just whatever is seen on Earth, and say that’s how it looks on a ball Earth, and nobody can prove it isn’t a ball Earth.
Quite the opposite.
I act like curvature is what is expected for curvature. Including understanding the effects of radius of curvature and the observer height.
I use these facts to demonstrate what is observed in reality matches what is expected for curvature.

On the other hand, you are so desperate for Earth to be flat that you just lie to everyone and say that whatever is observed is consistent with a FE; and outright lie to pretend the parts of reality which you can't BS you way into pretending match just magically aren't real.

The simplest point of difference: the mere existence of the horizon.
Flat surface only have a horizon at the edge.
If you are standing above a flat surface, you can see to the edge of it.
For a round surface, the curvature blocks your view creating a horizon.

Even this basic observation shows Earth is curved.
But you lie and claim this should also magically occur on a FE, but you can provide no justification as to what magic causes it.

We have the observed angle of dip to the horizon, which clearly shows curvature, and you just lie and claim it doesn't exist.

We have objects disappearing from the bottom up, as if they are sinking into Earth, again, entirely expected for a curve with you just lying pretending it should happen on a flat surface, with no justification at all.

We can simulate a ball Earth, and nothing would look the same as it does on the real Earth.
If this was true, you would simulate it and show it doesn't.
So either you can't simulate it, or you can and know it does match what is observed.

a thousand miles away
Again, where is this magical view of yours?

And it wouldn’t rise up over the whole surface of it, and suddenly cut out of all sight, beyond a horizon there.
Jut how do you expect it to behave?

Never do we see anything of a curve at all
Yes, we do, as explained to you repeatedly.
The horizon is that curve.
We see objects going beyond the horizon appearing to sink.
In what way is this not looking like a curve?

It’s completely ridiculous.
Yes, your claim is completely ridiculous.
You keep claiming this magical thousand mile view, yet you never provide any evidence for it.
Yet you seem to just expect people to blindly accept it.

So how about you stop with this ridiculous nonsense and try addressing the simple questions you keep avoiding?

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?
Where is this magical 1000 mile view you keep claiming exists?

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 #369 on: November 03, 2024, 12:32:50 AM »
It’s about 250 miles out from 30000 feet, not a thousand, we’d need to be much higher up for that, I just was saying it in general, not specific distances.

It’s a 250 mile long flat surface. Nothing curves down, and your curve would go down 15 miles lower by then.

There’s obviously nothing that would make a 15 mile downward curve flatten out like magic, perspective doesn’t flatten out curved surfaces, you simply believe Earth is a ball, so there has to be something thats making it look flat over 250 miles, that’s where you start from, and your assumption doesn’t match the evidence, so you make something up to excuse it away, no matter what bs it is, as long as you have something, it’s good to go!

A sad case you are

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #370 on: November 03, 2024, 12:44:32 AM »
It’s about 250 miles out from 30000 feet, not a thousand, we’d need to be much higher up for that, I just was saying it in general, not specific distances.
PURE BS!
You were repeatedly appealing to specific distances to pretend the RE is impossible.
Now caught in your lie, you backtrack.

It’s a 250 mile long flat surface.
Prove it.
There is NOTHING to indicate it is flat.
Meanwhile, the horizon is clear evidence it curves.

Nothing curves down, and your curve would go down 15 miles lower by then.
And more baseless BS.


There’s obviously nothing that would make a 15 mile downward curve flatten out like magic
Nor is there any indication that it is flat.
You just want it to be flat so you say it is.
You can't explain in what way it looks flat.

you simply believe Earth is a ball
No, I accept the mountains of evidence that clearly demonstrate beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round, so I accept it is round.
That includes the simple questions you continue to flee from because they destroy your delusional fantasy.

Meanwhile you are desperate for Earth to be flat, so you continually claim it is flat, with NOTHING to support your delusional BS.

That’s where you start from, and your assumption doesn’t match the evidence, so you make something up to excuse it away, no matter what bs it is, as long as you have something, it’s good to go!

Just look at how desperate you were to dismiss the fact that the horizon drops as you get higher, with proof you could not challenge.
You were so desperate you decided to lie to everyone by claiming that only an aircraft window could magically be evidence, and then provided pictures which showed you were lying to everyone.

A truly sad and pathetic case you are.

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 #371 on: November 03, 2024, 01:12:21 AM »
Quote
There is NOTHING to indicate it is flat.
Meanwhile, the horizon is clear evidence it curves.

You mean perfectly horizontal lines across a perfectly flat surface of 250 miles is evidence it curves? The flat surface of 250 miles to a perfectly horizontal horizon is eveidence it is FLAT, not a phantom curve simulating a flat surface, maybe you should use that excuse next, it’s as good as any you’ve used before, maybe better!

So much bs is painful to see. A curve doesn’t need to be there, or curve down, it can look flat, and rise up, and show perfectly flat horizons, because it’s the most magical curve that ever was, it can do anything it wants, and nobody even knows it’s there, it’s never ever seen!


When should we expect your phantom curve to actually curve the surface down from 30000 feet altitude?

From 30000 feet, we see a horizon 250 miles away, directly out our plane windows

While the surface supposedly has curved down by over 15 miles, we see the horizon on a surface which appears to have risen to 30000 feet, over 250 miles of an entirely FLAT surface.

Most convincing evidence of a curve, NOT existing at all.

Flat across horizons over flat surfaces sure are evidence for your curve!

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #372 on: November 03, 2024, 01:16:35 AM »
You mean perfectly horizontal lines across a perfectly flat surface of 250 miles is evidence it curves?
And where is this magical perfectly flat horizontal line and perfectly flat surface?

And as a reminder, for a perfect sphere, the horizon would be flat. A flat circle.

The flat surface of 250 miles
Again, what flat surface?

to a perfectly horizontal horizon
Again, the horizon is evidence of curvature. A flat surface only has a horizon at its edge.

So much bs is painful to see.
Your BS is quite obvious.

A curve doesn’t need to be there, or curve down, it can look flat, and rise up, and show perfectly flat horizons, because it’s the most magical curve that ever was, it can do anything it wants, and nobody even knows it’s there, it’s never ever seen!
Again, if you step out of your delusional fantasy for a minute and try reality, you will see it is perfectly ordinary curve, that does exactly what curves are meant to do.
It produces a horizon, just like a real curve.
It causes objects to appear to sink as they go over the horizon, with their bottoms being obscured.
As you get higher, you can see further and the horizon gets lower.
It acts like a curved surface in every conceivable way.

It doesn't act like your magical flat surface which is magically limited, with pure magic causing a magical horizon that behaves just like you would expect a curved surface to do.

From 30000 feet, we see a horizon 250 miles away, directly out our plane windows
You mean through a plane window with a large FOV.
It is NOT level.
As shown repeatedly, the horizon gets lower with increasing altitude.
You have NOTHING showing it to be level.

And you continually claim it should be magically below, yet can't justify why.

Flat across horizons over flat surfaces sure are evidence for your curve!
No, flat horizons over curved surface which produce them are evidence of the curve.
A horizon shouldn't exist over a flat surface.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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 #373 on: November 04, 2024, 07:48:09 AM »
Quote
There is NOTHING to indicate it is flat.
Meanwhile, the horizon is clear evidence it curves.

You mean perfectly horizontal lines across a perfectly flat surface of 250 miles is evidence it curves? The flat surface of 250 miles to a perfectly horizontal horizon is eveidence it is FLAT, not a phantom curve simulating a flat surface, maybe you should use that excuse next, it’s as good as any you’ve used before, maybe better!

So much bs is painful to see. A curve doesn’t need to be there, or curve down, it can look flat, and rise up, and show perfectly flat horizons, because it’s the most magical curve that ever was, it can do anything it wants, and nobody even knows it’s there, it’s never ever seen!


When should we expect your phantom curve to actually curve the surface down from 30000 feet altitude?

From 30000 feet, we see a horizon 250 miles away, directly out our plane windows

While the surface supposedly has curved down by over 15 miles, we see the horizon on a surface which appears to have risen to 30000 feet, over 250 miles of an entirely FLAT surface.

Most convincing evidence of a curve, NOT existing at all.

Flat across horizons over flat surfaces sure are evidence for your curve!


on the costco shopping cart circle, made out of straight lines, can you see the horizon where the carts curve away from view?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #374 on: November 09, 2024, 04:04:36 AM »
You cannot see the surface rise higher up when going higher above a ball.

You can see more of the surface of a ball, but only looking down at the ball below you, it does not rise up while curving more and more downward from you.

The best way to show you what we’d see above an Earth ball, is to simulate it.

A ball is entirely curved, never flat anywhere at all.

If you claim perspective flattens out curved surfaces, and look exactly like a flat surface, that’s complete nonsense.

Real curved surfaces have real and physical curves on spheres, they must, no matter how slight a curve it is. Nothing starts to curve over a sphere at a certain distance, it always curves, not pop in out of a flat surface suddenly!

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #375 on: November 09, 2024, 04:22:38 AM »
You cannot see the surface rise higher up when going higher above a ball.

You can see more of the surface of a ball, but only looking down at the ball below you, it does not rise up while curving more and more downward from you.

The best way to show you what we’d see above an Earth ball, is to simulate it.

A ball is entirely curved, never flat anywhere at all.

If you claim perspective flattens out curved surfaces, and look exactly like a flat surface, that’s complete nonsense.

Real curved surfaces have real and physical curves on spheres, they must, no matter how slight a curve it is. Nothing starts to curve over a sphere at a certain distance, it always curves, not pop in out of a flat surface suddenly!
We have been over this countless times.
Real curved surfaces will allow you to see more of it as you get further away, with an increasing angle of dip (or equivalent).
Just like what is observed on Earth.

Nothing about Earth is impossible for a round object.
You keep claiming it is magically flat, yet provide no justification for that claim.

I have never claimed perspective flattens out curved surfaces. That is just your pathetic strawman.

Meanwhile, you continually flee from simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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 #376 on: November 09, 2024, 04:31:46 AM »
Our instruments measure for level and horizontal surfaces and paths.

They only measure over a short distance, and it is the instruments distance or length they measure for level and horizontal surfaces and paths.

They could never measure for a curved surface or curved paths, because they only measure over a short distance, again and again, so if the surface was curved, it would have to measure a small curve over a short distance, and then another small curve over a small distance, and so on.

But it wouldn’t measure over the whole curve along that distance, which is curving down more over the entire distance than over each segment it curves down.

If it curves down 50 feet over 20 miles, it would only measure the same small curve again and again, not the whole curve over that distance.

We know our instruments don’t measure for a tiny curve, and couldn’t measure for a curve if it DID exist!

Made up magical forces don’t solve your flawed arguments. No grabbing our instruments to measure a tiny curve as being level over a made up ball Earth.

Real instruments measure the real flat surface of Earth, it’s not made up or magical stories.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #377 on: November 09, 2024, 04:37:39 AM »
Our instruments measure for level and horizontal surfaces and paths.
They only measure over a short distance, and it is the instruments distance or length they measure for level and horizontal surfaces and paths.
Some instruments.
Other instruments measure for angles over much greater distances, and can easily measure the angle of dip to the horizon.
You know the part of reality you continually flee from because it shows you are spouting pure BS.

Real instruments measure the real round Earth, and real instruments have a level of uncertainty, so at a small enough distance, they wont be able to measure the drop due to the curve.

We know our instruments don’t measure for a tiny curve, and couldn’t measure for a curve if it DID exist!
And this just shows you are knowingly lying to everyone.
You admit that even if the curve exists, the instruments you are appealing to wouldn't be able to measure it.
So every time you bring up an instrument not measuring the curve, you are lying to everyone.

Made up magical forces don’t solve your flawed arguments.
The one using flawed arguments here is you.
My arguments remain quite solid.

Again, the RE can explain the horizon, your delusional BS cannot.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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 #378 on: November 09, 2024, 04:52:33 AM »
They cannot simulate what we’d see when rising above a ball Earth, from the ground up to ‘space’ with a ball Earth seen at the end.

The main problem they cannot solve for, or skip past, is how the horizon looks when we rise up in planes and see them rise up to us.

And where do they start to show a curved horizon, after it’s still flat by that point?

They’ve been showing fake ‘curved’ horizons where we know and see them flat and horizontal. It’s a spin to make people think they are curved there, don’t see them horizontal anymore, we’ll show you it’s curved until you believe it!


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #379 on: November 09, 2024, 04:56:00 AM »
They make curved horizons three miles away, what a bunch of scumbags to do such bs!

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #380 on: November 09, 2024, 06:52:44 AM »
You really love saying there’s an ‘angle of dip’ to the surface, but it’s just more bs.

What do you mean by a ‘dip’? Are you again trying to reinvent another meaning of a word, as you tried with ‘level’


A dip means a slope or downward angle, not a rise that lessens in rising to a previous degree .

Dips are downward, not less upward than before. That is a lesser rise or upward slant.

When a plane rises up, and starts to level in flight, it is not a ‘dip’, it is levelling off, after it was first going upward.

The surface is entirely flat and visible up to a horizon. Perspective isn’t your magical excuse machine like gravity is, you can’t change what it is, how it works, make it flatten curves into flat surfaces until the curve comes  out of nowhere and destroys perspective, at the horizons, where it curves the lost three miles perspective flattened in one shot, sloping the surface down instantly, like a roller coaster!

But perspective is only hurt, mot defeated! It comes back and pummels the huge curve over the next 200 miles!

But the curve comes back and wins over perspective once again!


Science at work, no doubt.  Lol

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #381 on: November 09, 2024, 02:37:25 PM »
They cannot simulate what we’d see when rising above a ball Earth, from the ground up to ‘space’ with a ball Earth seen at the end.
You sure love repeatedly contradicting yourself.

Previously you claimed it is easy.
You just refuse to do it.

I'm not going to do it here, because it has no bearing on the thread, which is the FE's inability to produce a horizon.

You keep appealing to it as if it is your get out of jail free card.

The main problem they cannot solve for, or skip past, is how the horizon looks when we rise up in planes and see them rise up to us.
You mean the problem you cannot solve, is that it doesn't.
Instead, it has a measurable angle of dip, clearly showing your delusional BS is wrong.

And where do they start to show a curved horizon, after it’s still flat by that point?
The horizon is always curved, and is always flat.
It is a circle.
A circle is 2D shape, so it must be flat.
But it is a curve.
The issue what angle you look at it from.

This also provides a very simple alternative than a computer simulation. You can try a model.
Go get a nice big ring, set it up so your eye is in the centre (ideally just have one eye open for the closest match), and then see what it looks like as your eye height changes.

As a comparison, if the ring has a radius of 1 m, then to match the horizon at an observer height of 2 m for a RE would require your eye to be 0.8 mm above the ring.
For a plane at 10 km, it would require your eye to be 5.6 cm above the ring.

It’s a spin to make people think they are curved there, don’t see them horizontal anymore, we’ll show you it’s curved until you believe it!
You mean it is reality you hate so you need to lie about it, so you continually lie, repeating the same false claim that the horizon is always magically seen level with your eyes, even though you have NOTHING to show that to be the case.
You tried it with aeroplane windows, and it showed it was not what you claimed. It showed you were lying to everyone.

You were shown clear photographic evidence that it is NOT level, and you dismiss it as fake.

The one repeatedly lying here is you.
You lie about reality to pretend it matches your delusional fantasy, even though you have nothing to support those lies.
Yet you ignore that and continue repeating your lies.

You really love saying there’s an ‘angle of dip’ to the surface, but it’s just more bs.

What do you mean by a ‘dip’? Are you again trying to reinvent another meaning of a word, as you tried with ‘level’
No, it is a simple fact that destroys your delusional BS.

It is simple geometry.

A dip means a slope or downward angle
It means a downwards angle.

If you are standing on level ground, what is the angle to the ground 1 m in front of you?
Is it downwards?
Or is that magically not down?

Likewise, the photos clealry demonstrate the horizon is angled down from the viewer, it is not level. It is at a downwards angle.

Dips are downward, not less upward than before. That is a lesser rise or upward slant.
No why don't you try that honestly?
The "rise" you continually appeal to is actually a lesser downwards angle.
The ground directly below your eyes is straight down.
That is a downwards angle of 90 degrees.

Then as the ground goes off into the distance, the ground is less downwards. Not physically, just based upon angle.
i.e. the angle of dip reduces.
Until it reaches the horizon and then starts going back down.

The surface is entirely flat
No it isn't. That is your entirely baseless claim.
You cannot explain just how this appears magically perfectly flat.

and visible up to a horizon.
i.e. the very thing you keep fleeing from which clearly shows Earth is round.

Perspective isn’t your magical excuse machine like gravity is
The one trying to use it as a magic excuse machine is YOU!
YOU cannot change how it works.
It is basic geometry.
Basic geometry which demands that for a flat surface it will continue to rise forever, never producing a horizon.
But that doesn't stop blatantly lying about it.

Likewise, it is basic geometry which works on points, as explained.
It doesn't matter what the shape of the surface is.
All that does is tell you how far you can see the surface.
For a flat surface, you can see forever, with no horizon ever forming (until the edge of the surface).
For a round surface, which is large enough compared to your height, you can see a distance of sqrt(2*r*h) along it before the horizon.
For a smaller round surface, or for greater distance, the formula is more complicated.

But it remains basic geometry.

It is not the magical get out of jail free card you want to pretend.
Perspective does not magically decide to magically stop working and magically produce a horizon on a flat surface.

make it flatten curves into flat surfaces until the curve comes  out of nowhere and destroys perspective
That is just your pathetic strawman.

Back in reality, curvature is always there. It makes the ground appear slightly lower than it would if it was flat. But at short distance, that difference is negligible.

Here is a comparison, showing the angles expected for an observer height of 2 m (with a boat height of 1 m if I recall correctly).

This has 5 lines.
The green and red represent a hypothetical flat Earth and a hypothetical round Earth.
This is the angle of dip to a point on the surface a given distance away.
This is basic geometry, the geometry that perspective relies upon.

These curves start out overlapping, only being slightly different when they reach a small enough angle to be shown on this graph.
That is because the difference between h0/d and h0/d+d/2r is basically nothing when r is much much larger than d.
But eventually they do start showing a significant difference, but that is only when the angle is already tiny.
But the important difference is that the red trace, representing a flat Earth continues to rise forever, while the green trace representing reality stops going up and instead starts going down.
The peak of that green trace is the horizon, with the angle of that shown as the black line.
Importantly, when an object is above Earth, we can see that eventually it drops below that black line and is hidden from view.
But for your fantasy Earth, that never happens. There is never ground in front of the object at the angle of the object.

Again, the RE model works and is consistent and coherent.
All you have are incoherent lies you continually repeat to avoid reality.

Science at work, no doubt.  Lol
No, your dishonest, delusional BS at work yet again, where you continually lie about as many things as you need to pretend your delusional BS works, and avoid answer simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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 #382 on: November 10, 2024, 01:22:28 AM »
Horizons are viewed in any shape you want them to be in.

What you’re not getting here, is that a horizon has nothing to do with how you see them, it doesn’t matter.

Why do you think they are circular?

What makes it form as a circle?

We make it a circle, around our point. Anything viewed around a point is in a circle.

We can move in a line across the horizon at three miles out, and it is then a straight line.

Horizons have no single shape, not a circle, not straight lines across, they are all of them, and none of them.

And all horizons are flat, everywhere on Earth. The circle horizon is created by your going around in a circle, not from the horizon being a circle:

Spheres are never flat, cannot form flat horizons, only curved horizons that curve downward.

You conveniently keep forgetting to include any curvature that you say is there.

What would we see of your ball Earth, would not look anything like we see now. It cannot look the same, it’s not the same shape. They are opposite of each other.

When we see a distant horizon of 200 miles away, we also see a mountain about the same distance away, but it doesn’t matter.

If the mountain was ten miles high, and 250 miles away, would we see it if Earth were actually a ball from a plane?

According to your ignored curvature, we wouldn’t see it at all from a plane.

The curve would go downward by 15 miles over 250 miles away from us, and the mountain would be 5 miles below the curved surface by then, and not seen at all.

When you claimed that there was no perspective acting on the surface by three miles over the surface, it cannot be restored by you to make more excuses for the real flat surface.


Perspective lost out to the curve three miles out, when we are higher up and see a horizon at the same height, it would curve down more than three miles away, where perspective had already lost out to the curve.

Your curve only gets larger, after it lost out to a smaller curve.

Perspective has nothing to do with curved surfaces, they go downward away from the surface.

You cannot claim more curving down on the surface brings back perspective again? That’s ridiculous.

You think three miles of curving beats out over perspective, so when you have 250 miles of curving, persoective beat out the 15 mile downward curve?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #383 on: November 10, 2024, 01:46:03 AM »
You just make up things for excuses, claim that perspective acted on the surface to appear it was rising, but after 3 miles out, the curve won out, which means no more perspective acts over that surface, ever more curved isnt going to have perspective, even if it didn’t lose out already, it would act less and less over more of a curving down surface.

A 15 mile downward curve wouldn’t be seen from 250 miles away from a plane, but somehow perspective came back to life, and made 250 miles of a curved surface, including 15 miles it has curved down over that 250 miles, rise up from below the surface, and flatten it over that 250 miles, and make it rise up to 30000 feet above that ball, because you say it does, and it has no proof, and no reality, but you say it does that, who would ever think you’re a complete liar? 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #384 on: November 10, 2024, 01:49:40 AM »




The curve would go downward by 15 miles over 250 miles away from us, and the mountain would be 5 miles below the curved surface by then, and not seen at all.


If you're going by the 8 inches per squared mile, I think it's half that.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #385 on: November 10, 2024, 01:56:11 AM »
Maybe perspective made their multiple distinct rings look like one big blotchy area too, add in your magical force gravity for good measure, and say I have no proof it’s not perspective and gravity causing it, because you don’t need any proof for things you make up, I have to prove you lied about everything, or else it must all be true.


You’re a joke that never ends

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #386 on: November 10, 2024, 03:07:43 AM »
Horizons are viewed in any shape you want them to be in.
No they aren't.
They are viewed as a limit of the visible portion of the object, dictated by the shape of the object and your position.
You can't just magically make them anything you want.

What you’re not getting here, is that a horizon has nothing to do with how you see them, it doesn’t matter.
What you're not getting is that it has a hell of a lot to do with what you are looking at and where you are looking at it from.
And that a flat surface can NEVER produce a horizon.

Why do you think they are circular?
What makes it form as a circle?
Because it is equidistant from us.
That is a circle.
That is basic geometry. But given how you entirely fail to comprehend basic geometry, it isn't surprising you don't understand what a circle is.

We can move
And see a different horizon as you do so.

Horizons have no single shape, not a circle, not straight lines across, they are all of them, and none of them.
For a given object and observer position there is a single definitive shape for the horizon.
Lying will not change that fact.

And all horizons are flat
As you would expect for a RE.


The circle horizon is created by your going around in a circle
No, it isn't.
It is created from the horizon being the same distance away in all directions, and can even see that using a 360 camera or a fish eye lens.

Spheres are never flat
But do form flat horizons.
Unlike a FE, which cannot form horizons at all, except for the edge.


only curved horizons that curve downward.
You mean curve down as it goes away from you, which is the very thing which creates the horizon?

You conveniently keep forgetting to include any curvature that you say is there.
No, I continually use it.
That is the very thing which causes the horizon.
No curvature, no horizon.

What would we see of your ball Earth
Just what we see now, as already explained, repeatedly.

When we see a distant horizon of 200 miles away
We know that Earth must be round, or else that horizon wouldn't have formed.

If the mountain was ten miles high, and 250 miles away, would we see it if Earth were actually a ball from a plane?
Yes.
Have you even attempted to do the math?

The curve would go downward by 15 miles over 250 miles away from us, and the mountain would be 5 miles below the curved surface by then, and not seen at all.
So that's a yes, but you entirely failed.

Firstly, that would be close to trying to calculate seeing a mountain 250 miles away, from eye level.
But as a roughly approximation, using the d^2/2R approximation, i.e. 8 inches per mile squared, you only get 7.89 miles.
So that alone already makes it visible.

But to do it properly, you need to start with the observer, identify how far away the horizon is, and then see how much it would drop after the horizon.
You entirely ignored the height of the observer.

When you claimed that there was no perspective acting
I never said that. Why say such an obvious lie?

Perspective lost out to the curve three miles out
It it wasn't just magically 3 miles.
I explained why it is at 5 km for an observer height of 2 m.
Again, it is roughly given by d=sqrt(2*r*h).
This is based upon:
a = atan(h0/d + d/2r).

That means as the observer height changes, the distance to the horizon will change.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you insist on repeating the same pathetic, refuted lies.

when we are higher up and see a horizon at the same height
And more fantasy.
As already shown, we see a different horizon further away at a lower angle of elevation.

Perspective has nothing to do with curved surfaces
Perspective doesn't care about the shape of the surface at all.

You cannot claim more curving down on the surface brings back perspective again? That’s ridiculous.
No, I correctly state that greater altitude allows you to see further, as the geometry clearly shows with you unable to show a fault.

If you wish to claim otherwise, show a problem with the geometry.
Stop just appealing to the same pathetic BS.


add in your magical
Again, the one appealing to magic here is you.
Where you have magic perspective, which just magically decides to stop and magically cause a horizon for no reason at all, and then magically block things which are further from view.

All while avoiding trivial questions which expose your dishonest, delusional BS.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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 #387 on: November 10, 2024, 09:31:10 PM »
It it wasn't just magically 3 miles.
I explained why it is at 5 km for an observer height of 2 m.
Quote
Again, it is roughly given by d=sqrt(2*r*h).
This is based upon:
a = atan(h0/d + d/2r).

You aren’t accounting for the exponentially greater curvature, and first assume, with no evidence at all, it is a curved surface, and this is what a horizon looks like on a curved surface about three miles away. That is the distance we first see a horizon on Earth, so when it appears to be rising up until three miles out, and look completely flat over those three miles, it is due to ‘perspective’. True, but it is due to perspective over a flat surface, that’s why the whole surface IS flat up to three miles away, and why it forms a horizon at three miles out, or whatever distance it forms.

A curved surface can rise up if it’s almost flat over a short distance, but it wouldn’t look perfectly flat over it, because it must curve down everywhere on that surface, no matter how slight of a curve over a short distance.

A curved surface will only appear to rise up over short distances, which means, almost as a FLAT surface, which is why perspective acts on it, over a short distance it would be nearly flat, but more and more curved over more distance.

A curved surface would never rise up over more curvature, it goes more and more DOWNWARD over that surface, it cannot, does not, will not keep rising when it curves more and more downward.

You claimed perspective ‘lost out to the curvature’ about three miles over the surface. What do you specifically mean by ‘losing out to curvature’ within three miles or so? 

It can only mean perspective will only act over that curved surface for a three mile distance, it cannot mean anything else.

Because if you claim the curve is too slight for three miles over the surface, but immediately curves enough past three miles, you’re saying that perspective stops acting over three miles of a curve, because its a large enough curve by that point, to remove the effects of perspective.

Because perspective acts on FLAT or nearly flat surfaces, it stops acting on a more curved surface, because it is SPECIFICALLY a phenomenon over FLAT surfaces.

That’s exactly what you’re saying, that when the surface curves more, perspective doesn’t act anymore, since it acts on flat or flatter surfaces, it stops acting when it’s too curved over surfaces.

It cannot act past that point, when the curve was great enough to eliminate its effects, which only act on a flat or flat enough surface.



Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #388 on: November 10, 2024, 10:46:27 PM »
Quote
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?

We don’t have ANY specific distance of 3 miles out or 5 km out to the horizon, it is simply used as a general figure, not an exact distance to every horizon seen from the surface.

At about 5 km out, perspective has made the flat surface appear to be constantly rising up, even though it never rises at all, that is how it appears to us.

The variant to what distance we can see over the flat surface is what HEIGHT ABOVE the surface we are when seeing out on it.

But we’d see a horizon much closer than 6 km away througjh a periscope that’s only a few cm above the surface or sea level, over calm flat waters, but the oceans are not calm and flat usually, so they have to raise up the periscopes high enough to see the horizon.

Over a perfectly flat large lake, a periscope would see a horizon out on the lake about 2 or 3 km out on that lake, do you know that?

The less above the surface we are, or see from above it, the closer a horizon forms on the surface.

A horizon doesn’t exist on the surface, they will form at any distance based on our height above the surface.

We cannot see further over a surface when we are lower down to the surface, and a horizon forms closer to us when we see it less above it, as we see more of it when higher above it.

We know the surface is flat because horizons form constantly at all heights above the surface at the same rate.

And that can only happen if the entire surface is constantly uniform over it, and only a flat surface is constantly uniform.

No other surface is uniform over the whole surface. A curved surface isn’t one uniform surface, it constantly varies over the surface, curves everywhere over it, curves more over more of it, and cannot ever be constantly uniform anywhere. It has a constantly changing surface, going ever lower down more and more over it.

The distance to any horizon is based on the height above the surface you see it at, as a constant rate of height to distance of a horizon.

Again, this only works if the surface is entirely flat and uniform. 

We do not calculate the distance to a horizon over a curved surface, at all heights seen above it, because it would never be a constant rate, over a surface that’s never constantly the same or uniform  over all distances, more height above it have lower surfaces over it.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #389 on: November 10, 2024, 11:07:29 PM »
When you claim that perspective makes the surface appear to rise up for about 5 km, until the curve is great enough to eliminate the effects of perspective, there is no more effects of perspective after 5 km. The curve is there, past the horizon at that distance.

If it curves more and more after 5 km out, perspective already lost out before then, so going up higher has a greater curve over it, after a smaller curve won over perspective already.

And our formula proves it is a uniform flat surface based on any and all heights above the surface, which proves it is a uniform, flat surface.