Personal photos showing curvature of earth?

[tar]

Strange,

 

But wait...if the spherical Earth is just a simulation, wouldn't the flat earth be a simulation as well? What kind of evidence for a flat earth could he witness, that might not just as easily be a simulation by the foolers, and what they did was meant to hide the fact that the whole operation is happening INSIDE a glass orb which is a gamepiece on the field of some immense creatures, like at the end of one of the "Men in Black" movies.

 

If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.

 

I would think that any reasonable worldview would have to be internally consistent, and the pieces would have to fit together flawlessly. To that, you would have to start with something that you knew was NOT a simulation, but was actually real, in order to discern which parts were simulations. If you have no such evidence. No such starting point. Then ANYTHING and EVERYTHING could be a simulation, in which case the flat earth could be simulated, just as easily as a round one.

 

So either way, Matrix or not, its best to go with the facts that fit together the best. Then you have the best chance of dealing with reality, and finding something to eat for dinner.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

there is some interesting evidence for the flat earth

 

Such as? (It looks like this has backfired and your "friend" has persuaded you. You will be able to drop the pretence soon.)

 

 

But I have decided it is similar to the double slit experiment, the Earth is both round/particle-flat/wave until we take any kind of measurement/observation and you get what you are looking for.

What measurements can you (or your "friend") make that show the Earth to be flat?

But wait...if the spherical Earth is just a simulation, wouldn't the flat earth be a simulation as well?

 

I imagine the response would be "but that's what they want you to think!!1!". These sort of delusions can only make sense to the person suffering from them.

[StringJunky]

..

But I have decided it is similar to the double slit experiment, the Earth is both round/particle-flat/wave until we take any kind of measurement/observation and you get what you are looking for..

Yes, like spacetime, the Earth is locally flat and globally curved.

[tar]

Sunshaker,

 

What are you talking about with a building bending over the horizon? It seems you have some analogy or another backward or goofed up in your mind. You made a similar no meaning suggestion when you were talking about the salt flat being consistently flat. If it does not have any bumps in it, does not mean its not curved. Look at a crystal ball. Perfectly smooth. No dips, no rises. Like a salt flat. But the surface comes around, and touches itself. There is only one side to the Earth. The outside, or the surface we are standing on.

 

If you believe there is evidence for a flat earth AND the Earth is a 3 dimensional figure, what 3 dimensional figure do you figure it looks like, were you to view it from 50 thousand miles above where you are standing, from 50 thousand miles off to your right, from 50 thousand miles behind you, and from 50 thousand miles below you? Does this 3D geometrical figure that you believe there is evidence for, fit the evidence?

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

 

 

But I have decided it is similar to the double slit experiment, the Earth is both round/particle-flat/wave until we take any kind of measurement/observation and you get what you are looking for..

That assertion is absurd; you don't get to "decide" how it is.

As I said before- the measurements have already been taken. The flight times for international travel are measurements of distances and they only make sense if the Earth is round.

So, whatever measurements you may make tomorrow, they can not contradict the fact that the earth is actually round.

If you make a measurement to "confirm" that it's flat then that experiment will simply fail.

[sunshaker]

Sunshaker,

 

What are you talking about with a building bending over the horizon? It seems you have some analogy or another backward or goofed up in your mind. You made a similar no meaning suggestion when you were talking about the salt flat being consistently flat. If it does not have any bumps in it, does not mean its not curved. Look at a crystal ball. Perfectly smooth. No dips, no rises. Like a salt flat. But the surface comes around, and touches itself. There is only one side to the Earth. The outside, or the surface we are standing on.

 

with the salt flat the altitude did not vary more than 1metre over 12,000 square km, if you took into account the curvature of earth it would vary more than 1 metre over this distance.

 

I am not defending flat earth, just looking.

 

this video shows manhatten zoomed in, to me I can see the buildings below the horizon pointing to a spherical Earth but I also wonder why the buildings do not look tilted which they should do?

(6mins)

 

 

If you believe there is evidence for a flat earth AND the Earth is a 3 dimensional figure, what 3 dimensional figure do you figure it looks like, were you to view it from 50 thousand miles above where you are standing, from 50 thousand miles off to your right, from 50 thousand miles behind you, and from 50 thousand miles below you? Does this 3D geometrical figure that you believe there is evidence for, fit the evidence?

Regards, TAR

This I will keep to myself at the moment, It goes to far beyond flat/spherical earth, and after getting labled a "FLATY", WHICH i AM NOT. it is best to keep certain ideas quiet in a "science forum" .

 

 

[Strange]

with the salt flat the altitude did not vary more than 1metre over 12,000 square km, if you took into account the curvature of earth it would vary more than 1 metre over this distance.

 

Good grief. With this staggering depth of understanding, no wonder your "friend" has managed to convince you.

 

 

but I also wonder why the buildings do not look tilted which they should do?

 

How tilted should they look? And in which direction? (And please show your working.)

[sunshaker]

I was just thinking about the horizon, I imagined 8 points/people around the earth.(I know there is no up or down in space).

 

Person (A) would see H&B below them, even though H&B will see (A) below them/their horizon.

 

(A) would see H&B as being on the same level.

 

 

 

(B) would see A&C below them, seeing them at the same height/altitude

© would see B&D "

(D) would see C&E

(E) would see F&D

(F) would see G&E

(H) would see G&A

 

So (A) sees H&B on the same level, © also sees B&D on the same level, so H,B,D must all be on the same horizontal level,

you can follow this through and place every point is on the same horizontal level.

 

is there math that explains this?

 

if (A) see B as being below his horizon and (B) see (A) below his horizon, they cannot both be below each others horizon? so they must be something else?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2015 by sunshaker

[tar]

Sunshaker,

 

Really?

 

Your towers are really really tall, like 4000 miles tall.

 

Why don't you redraw the diagram more to scale, remembering that the Earth is almost 8 thousand miles in diameter and if your picture has the Earth at about 6 inches in diameter a mile high tower would show up on the circle about 1 thousandth of an inch high. Then draw your lines from tower top to tower top and you will see you can't see the top of a 1000th of an inch tower from the top of another 1000th of an inch tower just a tiny bit around the circumference of the circle.

 

Put a penny against a tree, and put your head close against the tree, a quarter of the way around with your outside eye closed. Can you see the penny? No. Its below your horizon.

 

Regards, TAR

Now put a pencil normal to the tree and move your head around till you can see the top half of the pencil. Does it look tilted away from you, or does it look normal to the tree?

[sunshaker]

Sunshaker,

 

Really?

 

Your towers are really really tall, like 4000 miles tall.

 

Why don't you redraw the diagram more to scale,

It is to scale they are 4000 mile high towers , I even removed all the land, just ocean, each tower "4000" miles high.

 

 

Put a penny against a tree, and put your head close against the tree, a quarter of the way around with your outside eye closed. Can you see the penny? No. Its below your horizon.

We are talking "Earth's" horizon/curvature.

 

why do A&B see each other below themselves, if i am (A) and see you going below horizon am I ABOVE (B)?

[StringJunky]

..why do A&B see each other below themselves, if i am (A) and see you going below horizon am I ABOVE (B)?

Gravity, which points to the centre of the Earth, gives you the sense of 'up' and 'down'. Whichever position you are in, the other one is 'below' you

[sunshaker]

Everywhere I read says the earth curves 8 inches every mile, 8in to 1.6km

 

In diagram below, I marked 3 points A,B,C, 3 brothers are at point A,

 

BROTHER1 stays at point A,

 

BROTHER2, travels to point C,

 

BROTHER3 travels to point B,

 

Brothers 2&3 both travel 10,000km, the 3 brothers cover half the circumference, if a then take the radius by distance traveled should the earth curvature be 6,335km every 10,000km?

 

 

If the earth only curves 8inches per mile, the diagram should look more like this?

[swansont]

Everywhere I read says the earth curves 8 inches every mile, 8in to 1.6km

 

That's a linear approximation. It fails over longer distances.

[Janus]

Everywhere I read says the earth curves 8 inches every mile, 8in to 1.6km

 

In diagram below, I marked 3 points A,B,C, 3 brothers are at point A,

 

BROTHER1 stays at point A,

 

BROTHER2, travels to point C,

 

BROTHER3 travels to point B,

 

Brothers 2&3 both travel 10,000km, the 3 brothers cover half the circumference, if a then take the radius by distance traveled should the earth curvature be 6,335km every 10,000km?

 

cir radius earth.png

 

If the earth only curves 8inches per mile, the diagram should look more like this?

earth inches mile.png

If you are going to use the 8 in per mile rule, the measurement would have to be done the following way for distances in multiple miles.

 

 

After 1 mile, the surface has dropped 8 in as measured along the radial line from the start point. For the next mile, the drop has to be measured along the new radial line starting from where the last measurement left off. Each successive measurement measures from where the last measurement ended in the same way.

 

As Swansont has already pointed out, the 8 in per mile rule fails over long distances unless you use this piecemeal method.

 

If you want to find the drop per distance as measured along the original radial line for any distance along the curve of the Earth, you need to use the following equation.

 

[math]R \left ( 1- \cos \left ( \frac{d}{r} \right ) \right )[/math]

 

Where d is the distance along the curve, and r the radius of the Earth. The cosine is in radians.

 

So for two miles you get a drop of 2 ft 8in and not the 1 ft 6 inches you would get by just multiplying 8 in by 2.

 

For a d of 1/4 the way around the Earth, you get a drop equal to the Earth's radius. ( 1/4 of the way around the earth is pi/2 times the radius, this divided by the radius leaves pi/2. the cosine( in radians) of pi/2 is 0, so the equation reduces to (1+0)r or just r.)

Edited July 6, 2015 by Janus

[tar]

Sunshaker,

 

Here is a picturetaken from the observation deck of One World in lower Manhattan by my sister-in-law and sent to me on the spot from her cell phone. She had no chance to doctor it in any way, and I had no chance or reason to change it either, as I am not part of any conspiracy to fool your friend.

 

The tower the photo is taken from is 1776 feet tall, counting the antenna, so I would guess you're looking West across the Hudson at Jersey city and a large portion of Northern NJ from about 1600 feet. The hills on the horizon are about where I live and are maybe 600 to 800 ft tall. I live about 35 miles from NYC and there is one place, going down Apshawa cross where I can see the top of the tower between two hill tops. If I can see the top of the tower from that spot then that spot on the hills I live on is probably in the distant haze of the picture, toward the right side, on the horizon.

 

My question to you is why can you not see over my hills? You should be able to see the Poconos in PA. Well maybe you can, I can not make out any details in the distance, but you should see the Delaware Water Gap (maybe you can with less haze), but it seems to me the horizon is probably the furthest West hilltops, that you can see NYC from. I have been on hilltops, like Highpoint in Northern NJ, which has a tower on top, and there are no points higher between Highpoint and NYC, but you cannot see NYC from Highpoint. You should at least be able to see the top of a 1776 foot tower, don't you think, if the Earth was flat?

 

And 1600 ft is pretty high up. On a flat Earth, you should be able to see any 1600 elevation that has no higher point between. I lived in PA for a while, and on the hills West of Allentown there was a lookout that looked over the Lehigh Valley, that had NO higher elevation between there and NYC...but you couldn't see New York's tall buildings on the horizon. Why do you think? If the Earth was flat, you should have be able to.

 

In the picture, the horizon is tilted a little, the left horizon is slightly lower than the right, but look at a tall building way up river and it looks almost vertical. Then look at the tall building just South, across the river in Jersey City. It seems to be tilting to the left.

 

Cause the Earth is curved.

 

Regards, TAR

The first ridge you see in the distance is 16 miles away. I know this because there is a famous look out in West Orange called Eagle Rock, that my parents often took me to. Within your horizon, from that spot, when I was young, lived a 10th of the population of the U.S. You could see up past the George Washington Bridge, and down to Perth Amboy, across into Western Long Island, and Southern Connecticut. I never was able to see Ireland from there. BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH.

Nor could I see the Atlantic Ocean horizon from Eagle Rock, other than beyond the Verazanno, in between Long Island and Staten Island. If the Earth was flat, I should have been able to see out to the tip of Long Island, as there are no big mountains on that island... and indeed, being on the first ridge, with no higher hills between me and the coast of Spain and Northern Africa, and Iceland, and Norway and such, I should have been able to see all the way across the sea. If the Earth was flat. Oh and I should have been able to see the Alps, and the Himalayas behind that.

 

Can you see Hawaii standing on a high mountain on the coast of California? Should be able to see a 4000 ft volcano like Kilauea. But you can't because of the curvature of the Earth.

(oh, the shadows on the river are not shadows of buildings, they are reflections off the inside of the window that the picture has been taken through)

Sunshaker,

 

Well let me adjust my claims a little. I have not been to Highpoint since 1 World Trade Center was built, so I could not say for certain that you could not see the antenna in the distance.

 

By the equation d (distance to the horizon in kilometeres) is approximately 3.57 times the square root of your height (in meters) that figures the horizon from One World, as about 80 miles.

Highpoint is 73 miles away so if it was not for blocking ridges, you might be able to see from the top of one tower to the other. I don't think you can see the one tower from the other, but it is possible.

 

As for Allentown and the Poconos they are about 100 miles from the city, so its possible that you could see a high point near Allentown from the top of 1 World, but it would certainly be just sticking up over the horizon.

 

I would have to understand the math of how far away a mountain or tower that had a height itself would have to be from NYC before it's top was below the 80 mile horizon of 1 World.

I suppose you could figure another 1776 foot tower 160 miles away would allow both towers to just see the tippy top of the other if there was no blocking terrain.

well wait

I forgot to change back to miles. Its 80 kms that is the approximate horizon distance from the Tower. Which is 50 miles. Upper Greenwood Lake, in my town is 53 miles from the city, so I was probably right the first time, that the hills on the horizon are my hills. And Highpoint, and Allentown are well over 80 kms distant.

Edited July 23, 2015 by tar

[tar]

Another correction on the details. Greenwood Lake, is a town in NY that is 53 miles, from NYC. Greenwood Lake itself is in both NJ and NY. The southern end is in West Milford, where I live, and I live closer to NY than the southern end of the lake, and the point in West Milford where I can see 1 World, through the side slopes of two interveening hills, is closer still. Upper Greenwood Lake is another lake in West Milford, whose distance from the city, may or may not be the distance from the NY town Greenwood Lake (which is on the upper part of Greenwood Lake, hence my mistake.)

Within your picture you see the majority of Hudson, Union, Morris, Essex, Passaic and Bergen Counties, or about 4 million people, or about 1.2 percent of the population of the U.S.A. If you where to take pictures in the other directions from the tower you would see the lower part of Upstate NY, the Southwestern populated portion of Connecticut, all of NYC and much of Long Island as well as the New Jersey counties of Monmouth, Middlesex, and Somerset. At least 13.8 million people are within your horizon, which is probably only 4 or 5 percent of the nation. If the Earth were flat you would see everything along the East Coast, Phili, Baltimore, Washington D.C.down to Florida and the Bahamas and Northward to Cape Cod and Boston. You can't though. You really can't. The Earth curves away from NYC in such a manner that all those points are below your horizon. The Earth itself is in your way. You have no line of sight to those distant cities. 'Cause we live on an oblate spheroid.

Edited August 13, 2015 by tar

[Scary Truth]

Clear demonstration of Earth's curvature on the Thames River, (skip to 5:00 to get to the beef):

Large schooner disappears behind the horizon -- from the hull upward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=35&v=dV0h68YU0iQ

Edited October 4, 2015 by Scary Truth

[michel123456]

You cannot prove that the Earth is a sphere by taking a picture from ground level and expect to observe any curvature of the horizon. In fact, the horizon is the intersection of a cone with a sphere, which is in this particular case a circle. It means that if you are on a ship in the middle of the ocean and look 360 degrees around you, you will see that the horizon line is a circle. It is curved around you but it is flat because geometrically because the circle belongs (also) to a plane. That means that numerous pictures in posts above (like the one of the salt lake) cannot be used.

That was to feed the animal.
http://apollonius.math.nthu.edu.tw/d1/gc08-exe/9621223/week06/tangent%20cone/tangent%20cone_html.png

In this diagram, the horizon is the red circle.

On the other hand, it is known from more than two thousands years ago the the Earth is curved.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

And if one is not convinced by the picture from Buzz Aldrin in Swansont post, there is no hope.

Edited October 4, 2015 by michel123456

[Scary Truth]

You cannot prove that the Earth is a sphere by taking a picture from ground level and expect to observe any curvature of the horizon. In fact, the horizon is the intersection of a cone with a sphere, which is in this particular case a circle. It means that if you are on a ship in the middle of the ocean and look 360 degrees around you, you will see that the horizon line is a circle. It is curved around you but it is flat because geometrically because the circle belongs (also) to a plane. That means that numerous pictures in posts above (like the one of the salt lake) cannot be used.

 

That was to feed the animal.

http://apollonius.math.nthu.edu.tw/d1/gc08-exe/9621223/week06/tangent%20cone/tangent%20cone_html.png

 

In this diagram, the horizon is the red circle.

On the other hand, it is known from more than two thousands years ago the the Earth is curved.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

 

And if one is not convinced by the picture from Buzz Aldrin in Swansont post, there is no hope.

I'd have to say that both videos I posted clearly demonstrate a pronounced convex curvature in the surface of large bodies of water over sufficient distance. In fact, I don't see how it could be misconstrued.

 

with the salt flat the altitude did not vary more than 1metre over 12,000 square km, if you took into account the curvature of earth it would vary more than 1 metre over this distance.

 

I am not defending flat earth, just looking.

 

this video shows manhatten zoomed in, to me I can see the buildings below the horizon pointing to a spherical Earth but I also wonder why the buildings do not look tilted which they should do?

(6mins)

 

This I will keep to myself at the moment, It goes to far beyond flat/spherical earth, and after getting labled a "FLATY", WHICH i AM NOT. it is best to keep certain ideas quiet in a "science forum" .

 

 

 

The Earth has a circumference of 24,901 miles. Divided by 360 (degrees) is about 69 miles.

A locally vertical structure would have to be at 69 miles distant to display a 1 degree tilt away from the observer. Most people cannot detect a 1 degree tilt in a structure at moderate distance and even when the tilt is sideways. http://urbanup.net/cities/west-virginia/charleston-west-virginia/downtown/union-building/

Also, at 69 miles distance, (terrain matters aside), the 1 degree tilted structure would be about 3,200 feet below the observer's horizon.

Finally, I cannot fathom how any person could view this video and come away with a strand of flat-Earth zaniness remaining.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Scary Truth

[michel123456]

I'd have to say that both videos I posted clearly demonstrate a pronounced convex curvature in the surface of large bodies of water over sufficient distance. In fact, I don't see how it could be misconstrued.

My guess is that it is because you are looking at a circle (the horizon) from a point above. It appears as an ellipse.

 

I remember in the pre-digital epoch, if you were to taken several consecutive pictures with a slight superposition, then collate all the picures together to obtain a panorama, then, if you took all pictures exactly horizontal, then the collage would appear with a curved horizon. In order to correct the effect I used to make a counter-balancing, taking the left picture with a slope to the right, the central picture horizontal, and the right with a slope to the left.

http://www.carteravenueframeshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Norwegian-family-farm-photo-collage1.jpg

 

That kind of effect.

Edited October 5, 2015 by michel123456

[Scary Truth]

 

with the salt flat the altitude did not vary more than 1metre over 12,000 square km, if you took into account the curvature of earth it would vary more than 1 metre over this distance.

 

I am not defending flat earth, just looking.

 

this video shows manhatten zoomed in, to me I can see the buildings below the horizon pointing to a spherical Earth but I also wonder why the buildings do not look tilted which they should do?

(6mins)

 

This I will keep to myself at the moment, It goes to far beyond flat/spherical earth, and after getting labled a "FLATY", WHICH i AM NOT. it is best to keep certain ideas quiet in a "science forum" .

 

 

 

Not sure how anyone could view this video and not see the obvious is beyond me. With the observer's eye-level around 10, (or more), feet above the water-line, the distant shore line is clearly obscured by the convex surface of the water. In fact, at around 11:10 of the video, distant boats on the water are far above the bases of the buildings even more distant.

 

Then -- with conclusive proof to the contrary, the videographer proclaims that "the Earth is flat, Jack". Remarkable.

 

The actual, visible curvature in the Earth is a function of distance and the observer's height of eye level. At 24,901 miles circumference at Earth's equator, any object would have to be 69 miles distant to demonstrate a 1 degree tilt away from the observer's eyes at 6 ft above the water's surface -- however -- at that distance, the object would be over 3,000 feet below the observer's horizon. (360 degrees into 24,901 = 69.17 miles). Then: 69 X 69 X 8 divided by 12 = 3174 feet.

In addition, light, especially over great distance and over water, tends to refract downward, skewing, (sometimes profoundly), visual results depending on a variety of atmospheric conditions.

 

The "tilt" of an object away from the observer will never be observable, even with an observation point of great height -- from an airliner, for instance. Discerning a 1 degree tilt/slant at 69 miles distance is impossible for obvious reasons.

Considering matters of refraction that can vary quite a bit, I believe the best way to observe and clearly demonstrate the Earth's curvature is to observe a large ship headed for open ocean, on a clear day. Viewing from a multi-storied structure with an unobstructed view of the ship's path is ideal. A decent telescope with tripod is very helpful.

 

From the ground floor, wait to observe the departing ship to reach the horizon. The ship will eventually begin to go past and behind the visible horizon and seem to slowly "sink" as the hull is more and more blocked from view. As the ship's distance grows, only the uppermost parts of the ship will be visible -- and eventually the entire ship will descend completely from view.

 

Move to the upper floors of the structure, (the higher, the better), and refocus the telescope. Even with the expected atmospheric distortion at a great distance, the ship's upper portions will be back in view. A ten story, (or more), structure is ideal, as an observation at ground level, the fifth story and finally from the tenth story would offer dramatic and unmistakable results.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Scary Truth

[Scary Truth]

 

Good grief. With this staggering depth of understanding, no wonder your "friend" has managed to convince you.

 

 

How tilted should they look? And in which direction? (And please show your working.)

A perfectly vertical object must be 69.17 miles distant to exhibit a 1 degree tilt away from the observer.

Earth's circumference -- 24,901 miles

Degrees in a circle -- 360

24,901 divided by 360 = 69.17.

However, an object at 69 miles distant from an observer will be over 3,000 feet below the observer's horizon.

Distance in miles squared x 8 divided by 12 = feet of drop. (69 x 69 x 8 divided by 12 = 3,174) This is the formula for determining arc/distance/drop over Earth's surface curvature.

Most people cannot detect a tilt in a structure, even when it's more than 1 degree to either side. The Union Building in Charleston, WV for example -- it's the building on the river bank:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Charleston,_West_Virginia#/media/File:Charleston_Kanawha_River.jpg

Finally, no conversation on such matters would be complete until matters of light refraction are addressed. Over distances and especially over water, light waves tend to deflect downward. Objects that are situated below and past the horizon can remain visible at longer distances, depending on a wide variety of atmospheric conditions.

[DrP]

Speaking of light... how can it be night time on one side of the planet and day on the other if it were flat? It would be night everywhere then day everywhere.

 

'Course it's round! ;-) lol.

[Scary Truth]

It would be easy enough to verify that the stars in the night-time sky, as viewed from the southern hemisphere, rotate clockwise around a fixed point. Viewed from the northern hemisphere, the stars rotate counter-clockwise around a fixed point, (Polaris).

With only basic logic, with no geometry required, this is indisputable proof of a spherical Earth -- rotating on its axis.

There is no other possible explanation. None.

[GodAmongGeeks]

This is a very simple way of putting a stop to just about any conspiracy whack job:

 

Ask them what proof they will accept as truth they are completely, and utterly wrong. If they are intellectually challenged, which I assume they are, then word it as: If you gave them a piece of paper right now, that convinced them they were wrong and science was right, what would that paper have to have on it?

 

This will generally silence all, but the most delusional. If they can't provide you with anything, then it is proof of a mental illness (I believe this more or less matches the definition of "insane") Anything they do say, can most likely be found fairly quickly.

Edited October 30, 2016 by GodAmongGeeks