Curvature of earth - the definition

Kriss3d

New Member
Im quite active against the flat earthers by posting actual scientific sources. Ofcourse earth isnt flat. Its impossible.

My question is this. When claimed that according to the curvature charts and the various calculations ( 8 inch per mile squared) there will be something like "this distance shouldhave x feet of curvature where is it?".

I think i might not actually know what the "drop" is defined as ?
As I understand it, if you stand on earth 6 feet above sea level and look straight ahead - a line tangent to earth, and you look at something say 10 miles away. Wouldnt the drop be what is hidden beneath the bulge ? Or is the drop defined as the bulge itself ? (though this im pretty sure is NOT right as the bulge doesnt have to be very high.)

When people say something is x miles away. Wouldnt that normally be the distance along the curve then ? Then it should be possible to take the miles as the distance and calculate how much should be hidden ?

Most curvature calculators would take the distance as the straight line from your POV to the top of whatever youre looking at but the distances used by people would be the distance along the curve thus this distance would be longer as i understand it right ?


Basically im looking for how to take the poor measurements of the flat earthes which would be distance along the curvature and apply that to calculate how much should be hidden.
It doesnt seem to me that the curvature calculators i can find does this. So do any of you people know a formula i could use for this ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Most curvature calculators would take the distance as the straight line from your POV to the top of whatever youre looking at but the distances used by people would be the distance along the curve thus this distance would be longer as i understand it right ?
At normal distances (<100 miles) there's no real difference. Have a look at my calculator.
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Click on "advanced" and compare the "amount obscured" with "true hidden"
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=4&h=6&r=3959&u=i&a=a&fd=60&fp=3264
At 100 miles the difference is <0.1%
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My question is this. When claimed that according to the curvature charts and the various calculations ( 8 inch per mile squared) there will be something like "this distance should have x feet of curvature where is it?".

I think i might not actually know what the "drop" is defined as ?
There's two different things - there's the drop from the horizontal plane, and the amount of something that is hidden from a particular viewpoint. In the second one you have to account for the height of the viewer.

This video is a bit long, but if you watch it all you should understand the different numbers.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KJANfK71A
 

Kriss3d

New Member
Thank you very much. I just quite often get the memes with distances where its quite clear that buildings and such shouldnt be visible at the distance even using your calculator. So im trying to figurere out what im doing wrong..
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thank you very much. I just quite often get the memes with distances where its quite clear that buildings and such shouldnt be visible at the distance even using your calculator. So im trying to figurere out what im doing wrong..
Can you give an example?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Thank you very much. I just quite often get the memes with distances where it's quite clear that buildings and such shouldn't be visible at the distance even using your calculator. So I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.
I've probably seen a lot of those memes. In general they: a) get the distance wrong; b) don't factor in for the viewer's elevation; and c) show a "missing curvature" figure that is actually the "drop height" for a viewer at sea/lake/horizon level, rather than the "hidden amount" as outlined above.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
Thank you very much. I just quite often get the memes with distances where its quite clear that buildings and such shouldnt be visible at the distance even using your calculator. So im trying to figurere out what im doing wrong..
I think you really should take a look at those video's.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
There's two different things - there's the drop from the horizontal plane, and the amount of something that is hidden from a particular viewpoint. In the second one you have to account for the height of the viewer.

This video is a bit long, but if you watch it all you should understand the different numbers.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KJANfK71A
Just finished the fifth video, and there she corrected her first definition of "drop". Maybe something to bear in mind if someone is interested.
 

Kriss3d

New Member
Thanks a bunch guys.
Just a quick search got me this one which though not being entirely what i was going for but typical that you drown in shitty memes when not wanting them and cant ever find the right one when youre looking:
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
Thanks a bunch guys.
Just a quick search got me this one which though not being entirely what i was going for but typical that you drown in shitty memes when not wanting them and cant ever find the right one when youre looking:
Yes, that's a famous one. In another thread Mick already pointed out that the buildings are clearly partly hidden behind the horizon, thus proving there is at least a certain amount of curvature anyway. The picture was taken by Joshua Nowicky, I believe, taken from a dune at Grand Mere State Park. The dunes there go up to 200m.
Without atmospheric refraction or mirages taking into account let me take two possible standpoints, first at 5 m above the water level, 2nd at 200 m above the water level.
5m: 594m hidden behind the horizon
200m: 155m hidden behind the horizon.
Next to the Sears Tower you can see about 1/2 of 311 S Wacker building, which means that about 150 m is behind the horizon. My guess is that Joshua was standing on the highest dune. (which I would have done if I wanted to have the best view)
Note: according to me the distance is more like 56 mi, which reduces the numbers to 515m and 116m respectively.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Agreed.

You see a lot of the Nowicki photos around. This is one of the ones I was referencing above. In general, they get the distance wrong - I've usually seen it quoted as 60 miles, up to as high as 80 - and totally fail to take into account the viewer's elevation.

There are other claims about the Nowicki pictures, based on the weatherman who first reported them misstating that "Chicago shouldn't be seen from that distance due to a mirage." What he should have said was that "more of Chicago than normal was being seen due to a mirage."

I believe if you search on here for "Nowicki" you'll come to some good information. :)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, that's a famous one. In another thread Mick already pointed out that the buildings are clearly partly hidden behind the horizon, thus proving there is at least a certain amount of curvature anyway. The picture was taken by Joshua Nowicky, I believe, taken from a dune at Grand Mere State Park. The dunes there go up to 200m.
Without atmospheric refraction or mirages taking into account let me take two possible standpoints, first at 5 m above the water level, 2nd at 200 m above the water level.
5m: 594m hidden behind the horizon
200m: 155m hidden behind the horizon.
Next to the Sears Tower you can see about 1/2 of 311 S Wacker building, which means that about 150 m is behind the horizon. My guess is that Joshua was standing on the highest dune. (which I would have done if I wanted to have the best view)
Note: according to me the distance is more like 56 mi, which reduces the numbers to 515m and 116m respectively.
I made this as a response to those sort of memes, a while back. It's not exactly the same photo but it's the same principle.

roundchicago.jpg


As for the distance issue, this it the link for the photo: https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/i-3dCDGJX

It says it is from Grand Mere State Park. We don't know exactly where, but measuring the distance from the highest point on the dunes in the park, to N Michigan Avenue, I get 55.5 miles approximately, so I should probably amend that image:

upload_2017-1-10_11-18-27.png
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
H Illusions of Curvature - RC Boat Hidden on Small Pond Flat Earth 10
H The German WWII "Knickebein" Navigation System and the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 11
T Observations of a Wind Farm Over the Curve of The Earth Flat Earth 0
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
danno Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Soundly A Side View of the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 55
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
Mick West Earth Curvature Simulation by Walter Bislins Flat Earth 9
Mick West Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 91
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Mick West Curvature and Refraction in Surveying and Leveling Through History. Old Books, etc. Flat Earth 14
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Kriss3d Problem with earth curvature calculator - Hope for revised version ? Flat Earth 5
jeranism Explained: Observations of Canigou, Curvature of the Earth & Atmospheric Refraction Flat Earth 158
Yolo fish Demonstrating the curvature of the Earth by Flying in a "Straight Line" Near the Poles Flat Earth 33
Mick West Views of Toronto from Hamilton and Fort Niagara Illustrate Earth's Curvature Flat Earth 44
Greylandra Can you detect the curvature of the Earth with a taut line 3 miles long? [No] Flat Earth 55
DarkStar Earth curvature: Differences with Sphere/Ellipsoid/Geoid models for Visibility etc Flat Earth 8
huwp Ships beyond the horizon - Earth curvature demonstration Flat Earth 7
Bass In Your Face Curvature Experiment showing relation between x-axis and z-axis Flat Earth 15
Sandor Szekely Atmospheric sunlight refraction arguments on the Eratosthenes triangulation method Flat Earth 37
Mick West Folsom Lake Photographs Demonstrating the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 36
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Vogon Infra red cameras and curvature? Flat Earth 11
Vogon Crepuscular angles and the flat idea. Flat Earth 48
David Ridlen Earth curvature refraction experiments - debunking flat/concave Earth Flat Earth 344
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Stefan Leahu Using railways to view curvature Flat Earth 3
Stefan Leahu Proving curvature: a distant island, viewed from different heights Flat Earth 0
Kriss3d Can You Validate Earth's Curvature with a Drone? Flat Earth 14
R Can 3 towers placed equidistant at the same latitude demonstrate curvature? Flat Earth 2
Laser Water Level Showing Mountain and Horizon Dip Due to Curvature Flat Earth 32
PeteShasta Observations of Mallorca Island and the Earth's Curvature Flat Earth 28
sirtwentythree San Mateo Bridge to Bay Bridge 17 mile curvature test Flat Earth 36
wonderland78 Help with a debate about curvature and distance calculations Flat Earth 30
Mick West Video of New Orleans Superdome Illustrating Curvature and Refraction Flat Earth 5
Trailblazer Greenwich Meridian Laser - Can it Demonstrate Curvature? Flat Earth 20
Bass In Your Face Stephen Hawking's "Genius" Helicopter Demonstration of Lake Curvature Flat Earth 27
Clouds Givemethewillies Measuring the Curvature of the Horizon with a Level Flat Earth 121
G Seemingly Conflicting Curvature Observations in the Scottish Islands [Misidentified Islands] Flat Earth 6
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Wiggles Measuring the radius of Earth using Long Range Observations (LROs) Flat Earth 0
Patrick Gonzalez Need help explaining: NASA images of Earth from 2017 eclipse show different shadow sizes Flat Earth 2
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
J Are sun shadows only possible on a flat earth? Flat Earth 5
Mick West Satellite ADS-B Data in FlightAware24 - Blue Planes Prove Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top