Earth curvature refraction experiments - debunking flat/concave Earth

[Abishua]

you could jet over there and hold an altimeter up to the door at that level

Hehe.. did visit Kali few times.. was in that exact place.. but don't have altimeter, so don't know how high I was.. pun unintended..
Bought many things recently.. not sure for how much they go for.. and if they are exact at this low increments.. since they go off air pressure I think they mostly round things up 5m+-

Seems possibly low. What was the camera on exactly?
View attachment 26609

Peer with two stone like thingys. Not the small wooden lower part of peer, but the concrete part.. arhh.. I'll just draw it.

So theres me.. on my belly.. not sunbathing but taking photos.. Keep in mind this is not a lake.. so tide varies between the very top of the peer at extreme cases to bottom of the peer at extreme low cases.. usually, when no heavy rains or wind it hangs out at cca 30cm-60cm lower than the peer top.

 

[Henk001]

When I compare two discernable distances in the two photographs below it seems there is something missing in the lower one (about 10%)

The trouble is that 11 km is not that much. In the calculator the rule of thumb of R = 7/6R for atmospheric refraction is only an average. When the line of sight is close to the water level it is probably more.

 

[Abishua]

When I compare two discernable distances in the two photographs below it seems there is something missing in the lower one (about 10%)
View attachment 26611
The trouble is that 11 km is not that much. In the calculator the rule of thumb of R = 7/6R for atmospheric refraction is only an average. When the line of sight is close to the water level it is probably more.

Higher refraction index is a plausable reason, but there is an experiment on looming, for scientific reasons, can we entertain the possibility that looming is responsible for obscuring lower part of land like experimentally demonstrated in this video? The experiment is demonstrated at 59th minute and ends on 60th minute mark.. so lasts only 1min and you can skip straight to it.


Source: https://youtu.be/I-Q-FuXJSTQ?t=59m

 

[Mick West]

can we entertain the possibility that looming is responsible for obscuring lower part of land like experimentally demonstrated in this video?

That experiment does not demonstrate looming. It demonstrates magnification. Looming makes things higher. This experiment by Rob Skiba is making them bigger, so the bottom of the image is cut off by the lens itself.

 

[Abishua]

That experiment does not demonstrate looming. It demonstrates magnification. Looming makes things higher. This experiment by Rob Skiba is making them bigger, so the bottom of the image is cut off by the lens itself.

Agreed. My mistake. I meant to say atmospheric lensing. Must have slipped because both start with L..

Anyway Rob claims that atmosphere in some conditions acts like a lens and enlarges objects and that's why their bottoms are cut off.

 

[deirdre]

atmosphere in some conditions acts like a lens and enlarges objects

why wouldn't the bottom get enlarged as well? where does the bottom go?

I was going to suggest that if you live in that area, you take photos on different days and different tides. it's a short distance but I like the area since we street access and photos from cruise/tour ships etc.

 

[Mick West]

Anyway Rob claims that atmosphere in some conditions acts like a lens and enlarges objects and that's why their bottoms are cut off.

They are not enlarged though. They are the correct size for the distance. If they were enlarged they would not line up with nearer objects.

 

[Hevach]

Lens effect applies to all light passing through it. It does not enlarge one object while leaving the terrain under it unaffected, the ground would be distorted and the base still visible. This is not a z-buffer render error.

 

[Abishua]

why wouldn't the bottom get enlarged as well? where does the bottom go?

I was going to suggest that if you live in that area, you take photos on different days and different tides. it's a short distance but I like the area since we street access and photos from cruise/tour ships etc.

I wanted to go today also.. sea was very peaceful and visibility good but as I was about to go out sun went behind some clouds so I gave up. The bottom goes the same place the bottom went in Rob Skibas experiment if you watched it in the video above.

They are not enlarged though. They are the correct size for the distance. If they were enlarged they would not line up with nearer objects.

if using the reference closeup image, to me there seems to be about 2m-3m hidden in my image. Since it's a short distance of 11km and not much is hidden in it, total enlargement of specific objects would not be easy to spot.

That being because if this lensing effect is correct, the small amount hidden below is the sum total result of everything else in the image getting just slightly bigger. So if everything in the image was just 1% bigger the image would "overflow".

Like if you have a glass full of tiny bubbles/foam.. if every bubble gets just 1% bigger the foam will overflow the glass.

 

[Abishua]

Lens effect applies to all light passing through it. It does not enlarge one object while leaving the terrain under it unaffected, the ground would be distorted and the base still visible. This is not a z-buffer render error.

Well this is assuming the humidity, precipitation/air density is not the highest just right above the sea level, but it is. This is why the greatest "blur" and distortion is in this very area, first meter or so above sea. Imagine a car driving away on a desert road.. after only few hundred meters it's not seen anymore. Disappears from bottom to top because density/distortion is highest closer to ground. This is extreme example.. but the image we look at is 11km away after all, taken from less than 0.5m above sea level, so camera needs to "cut through" all that sea evaporating humidity from one end to the other. This could lead to the same desert cumulative effect here, and become the blured "dividing line" between what's above and bellow it.

 

[deirdre]

The bottom goes the same place the bottom went in Rob Skibas experiment if you watched it in the video above.

but that means...
youre at 11 kms. and we lose approx. 14 feet off the bottom of buildings (that me judging door height sea level etc from photos)

but if you were at 30 miles we would lose [a lot more] feet off the bottom of the building. ergo by Robs theory, the buildings get BIGGER (magnification increases) the further back we get.

Objects are smaller the further from our eyes they are. I'm sure there is a math formula for this shrinkage that is consistent whether the object is 2 miles away or 30 miles away. no?
Robs theory would seriously mess with that math formula. and if 'the atmosphere/magnification' changes whenever, like he says in the video... can't wrap my brain around that concept.

 

[Abishua]

but that means...
youre at 11 kms. and we lose approx. 14 feet off the bottom of buildings (that me judging door height sea level etc from photos)

but if you were at 30 miles we would lose [a lot more] feet off the bottom of the building. ergo by Robs theory, the buildings get BIGGER (magnification increases) the further back we get.

Objects are smaller the further from our eyes they are. I'm sure there is a math formula for this shrinkage that is consistent whether the object is 2 miles away or 30 miles away. no?
Robs theory would seriously mess with that math formula. and if 'the atmosphere/magnification' changes whenever, like he says in the video... can't wrap my brain around that concept.

Heheh.. yes exactly.. it's a bit of a braintwister because it includes multiple effects and each has variables.. but same goes for refraction index for example.. it can be higher or lower depending on atmospheric density, content, even positioning of different layers.. so it's hard to just spit out a number and be done with it.. you can find a nice average like Mick made in his calculator.. but it's not going to be ideal for every situation. I would even go as far to say that due to multiple effects possibly mixing.. and along all that we insert the curvature.. if some of our assumptions were wrong in the beggining how would we know? Thats why I want to use the least amount of "givens" possible to figure this out.

Maybe all this hidden bottom stuff is just a combination of mirrage/lensing/blur.. and like you said.. the further away it is more is hidden and we account that to curvature.. I honestly do not know.. I research and try to be objective without using assumptions that would lead ether way.. I'm trying to do it raw.. like I don't have all this info given to me.. just use the tools I have an bother some nice people along the way to figure it out

It's interesting at least.. put's a smile to my face.. I feel like an explorer

 

[deirdre]

it includes multiple effects and each has variables..

the magnification theory can't have multiple factors and variables. That's what i'm saying, otherwise the size/distance math formula wouldn't work. and it does work. so...

 

[Abishua]

the magnification theory can't have multiple factors and variables. That's what i'm saying, otherwise the size/distance math formula wouldn't work. and it does work. so...

So you think that different humidity, or different positions of humidity layers have no effect on it? It's always a constant? Could be.. but with magnifying glass the shape comes to play, thickness.. etc

 

[deirdre]

So you think that different humidity, or different positions of humidity layers have no effect on it?

No I think, it cant have any effect on an alleged magnification. Because if it did the math wouldn't work. Your buildings would all be different sizes [width] on any given day. see? Of course you can photograph the building from the same spot with the same zoom etc on 10,30,60 days and see if the size ever changes.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

So you think that different humidity, or different positions of humidity layers have no effect on it? It's always a constant? Could be.. but with magnifying glass the shape comes to play, thickness.. etc

I would not expect the effect of water vapour concentration to be very significant. Although the mass mixing ratio is very structured in the troposphere, in general, the bottom 1km. or so (the 'planetary boundary layer') tends to have a relatively constant mass mixing ratio. It is mixed by convection and the mass mixing ratio is an intensive property.- You can only get rid of water vapour by condensation. In addition it is only about 1%, and I seem to remember from the 'Laser of the Lake' thread that water vapour did not change the refractive index much for visible light.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

What's wrong here: Skiba puts the camera below the level of the table. As the camera pulls back the edge of the table obscures the bottom of the photo. The lens is not a factor. This "trick" isn't unique to Skiba. It's been debunked innumerable times, but keeps popping up. It was used previously to explain the flat earth sunset. Now here's an updated version of the same simple fallacy.











What's wrong here:
The fundamental problem here is not magnification, it's field of view.

As Mick pointed out the lens is magnifying. As the camera pulls back, the magnification increases and the field of view decreases - just as it would with any zoom lens. You've used a zoom lens. When you zoom in, things on the top, the bottom and both sides of your viewfinder start disappearing, right? This Fresnel lens he's using is essentially just a viewfinder, just like on your camera.

Skiba very carefully uses a photo that is too small. Do you notice that the sides of the photo are also "disappearing"? It's because they are moving out of the shrinking field of view of this Fresnel lens. If he used a larger photo of Toronto, the top of the photo would also start disappearing right away. Do the tops of buildings start disappearing with distance?

To put it another way, a lens has a field of view - there are edges, top, bottom, and both sides. In this example the field of view is getting smaller as he pulls back and we can't see the bottom and both sides of the photo as the field of view gets smaller. But does the world have a field of view? Are there edges to what you see?

This is actually no different than if you put a rectangular picture frame on the beach. As you move forward, you would see more of Toronto inside the frame and if you move back you will see less of Toronto - top, bottom and both sides - inside the frame. In this case there would be no lens at all, right?

It's all about field of view.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

About "atmospheric lensing." There's no such thing. FE believers invented this term, apparently mixing up two things: gravitational lensing and atmospheric refraction.

About "humidity in the air" causing atmospheric lensing or atmospheric refraction. This is another casual folk belief that FE believers keep telling each other. If different layers of air are involved in a particular atmospheric refraction phenomenon, it's different thermal layers. It's all about heat. Even though humid air is slightly less dense this is not an important factor.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

So you think that different humidity, or different positions of humidity layers have no effect on it? It's always a constant? Could be.. but with magnifying glass the shape comes to play, thickness.. etc

"Standard refraction" is an idealized concept. If the atmosphere were "perfect" this is the amount of refraction we would expect. Since actual refraction can be more or less it's a rule of thumb.

If there are different thermal layers with different refractive indexes causing some atmospheric refraction thing, then there is a visible discontinuity in the image you see. Or multiple discontinuities.

 

[Abishua]

No I think, it cant have any effect on an alleged magnification. Because if it did the math wouldn't work. Your buildings would all be different sizes [width] on any given day. see? Of course you can photograph the building from the same spot with the same zoom etc on 10,30,60 days and see if the size ever changes.

Read my reply to Mick. Post number 289. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. Sorry.

For the rest of the comments I know all these claims already but I'm interested in practical evidence of these. I don't have a firm standpoint on this subject because I don't want to base it on a belief.

Is there any way we can prove earth to be a sphere or flat for ourselves? Without outside sources? Something we can check and verify and say.. oh yeah.. that's it, I can verify it, test it and know exactly what it is.. like counting my fingers.

Maybe it's much to ask.. I don't know.. but after all this time there should be a simple way to verify these things without having to theorize about it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Read my reply to Mick. Post number 289. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. Sorry.

For the rest of the comments I know all these claims already but I'm interested in practical evidence of these. I don't have a firm standpoint on this subject because I don't want to base it on a belief.

Is there any way we can prove earth to be a sphere or flat for ourselves? Without outside sources? Something we can check and verify and say.. oh yeah.. that's it, I can verify it, test it and know exactly what it is.. like counting my fingers.

Maybe it's much to ask.. I don't know.. but after all this time there should be a simple way to verify these things without having to theorize about it.

Yes. Absolutely.

First step: Become familiar with the night sky. Learn the constellations and the stars. You'll get to the point where the night sky is as familiar to you as your neighborhood. I can pick out some individual stars through windows in cloud layers without even seeing the constellation they're in because I've seen them so often I can recognize these old friends by their color and where they should be in the sky at the time. Planets are easy as pie.

Second step: Travel south. The night sky will change, exactly as it should if we are on the surface of a sphere, if light travels in a straight line, and if the simplest bit of geometry is true.

This is how the ancient astronomers determined the basic shape of the earth. Not just Greeks, but Islamic and Hindu as well.

The only bit of equipment, if any, you'd need is a cross-staff.

As you move south Polaris will appear lower and lower on the horizon. You can measure the angle with the cross-staff. Put pegs on the side of the cross piece. The farther you move south, Polaris will appear next to a lower peg. As you move south you will see new stars on the southern horizon that you've never seen before.

When you cross the equator, Polaris will disappear below the northern horizon. You'll start seeing the south celestial pole, and since you are now a seasoned amateur star gazer, you'll notice that the southern circumpolar stars are rotating clockwise, instead of counter-clockwise as do the northern circumpolar stars.








You could also teach yourself celestial navigation. It works. It has worked millions of times, and it could only work on a sphere. As you travel south check your position by using a sextant and what you know about celestial navigation.

Here's a primer:

 

[deirdre]

Read my reply to Mick. Post number 289. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. Sorry.

no, I get the overflow idea. but anything that gets bigger, gets bigger on all sides. even if we say 3 meters (minimum) that's 10 feet. so a 20 foot width variance. we can easily see the upper 3 feet of the doorway on the green building. so in absolutely identical photos (identical zooms from same place) we'd be able to see a two foot difference on the width of the green building pretty easy if we line up the photos.

just saying. so whatever this invisible magnifying glass is made up of, it cant be something that varies.

 

[Abishua]

Yes. Absolutely.

First step: Become familiar with the night sky. Learn the constellations and the stars. You'll get to the point where the night sky is as familiar to you as your neighborhood. I can pick out some individual stars through windows in cloud layers without even seeing the constellation they're in because I've seen them so often I can tell by the color and where they should be. Planets are easy as pie.

Second step: Travel south. The night sky will change, exactly as it should if we are on the surface of a sphere, if light travels in a straight line, and if the simplest bit of geometry is true.

This is how the ancient astronomers determined the basic shape of the earth. Not just Greeks, but Islamic and Hindu as well.

The only bit of equipment, if any, you'd need is a cross-staff.

As you move south Polaris will appear lower and lower on the horizon. You can measure the angle with the cross-staff. Put pegs on the side of the cross piece. The farther you move south, Polaris will appear next to a lower peg. As you move south you will see new stars on the southern horizon that you've never seen before.

When you cross the equator, Polaris will disappear below the northern horizon. You'll start seeing the south celestial pole, and since you are now a seasoned amateur star gazer, you'll notice that the southern circumpolar stars are rotating clockwise, instead of counter-clockwise as do the northern circumpolar stars.








You could also teach yourself celestial navigation. It works. It has worked millions of times, and it could only work on a sphere. As you travel south check your position by using a sextant and what you know about celestial navigation.

Here's a primer:

Thanks for a detailed response. I was always interested in the shiny thingys above. Unfortunately this does not help me reach a final conclusion since airplane fliesover my head and sets on my horizon just like the sun and stars do. Moving south could be just setting much closer stars and rising new ones on the plane. As far as planets go I still wonder how can I see mercury during the night since it's so close to the sun. Also why don't the moon phases light and shadow flip positions when we get to the opposite side of the sun?

You see I could go on like this for days.. so this just opens a huge can of worms for me..

no, I get the overflow idea. but anything that gets bigger, gets bigger on all sides. even if we say 3 meters (minimum) that's 10 feet. so a 20 foot width variance. we can easily see the upper 3 feet of the doorway on the green building. so in absolutely identical photos (identical zooms from same place) we'd be able to see a two foot difference on the width of the green building pretty easy if we line up the photos.

just saying. so whatever this invisible magnifying glass is made up of, it cant be something that varies.

I see. It's just that not every object is 3m bigger.. if every bubble of foam in the glass get's bigger by 1% and as a result 3mm of foam overflow the glass, that does not make every bubble 3mm bigger than it was.. sum total of all of them made those 3mm overflow..

I don't know maybe I don't get you.. actually tired will try to read again next time.

Have a good and blessed day/nite yall!

 

[Mick West]

Unfortunately this does not help me reach a final conclusion since airplane fliesover my head and sets on my horizon just like the sun and stars do.

Not really. Airplanes get bigger and look different as they fly over. The sun, the moon, and the stars all stay almost exactly the same - regardless of where you are on the planet (slight measurable differences for the sun and moon). That's probably the thing that first clued people into the fact that the earth is a globe.

 

[Mick West]

s far as planets go I still wonder how can I see mercury during the night since it's so close to the sun. Also why don't the moon phases light and shadow flip positions when we get to the opposite side of the sun?

You see I could go on like this for days.. so this just opens a huge can of worms for me..

You actually could figure these things out for yourself. It's not too complicated if you look at it from a broader perspective, like this:

Go here:
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/
Set the planet scale to 100x. Point of View to Earth. Look At Mercury, then press play:

Also, by a $2 eclipse filter for your P900

 

[Abishua]

Not really. Airplanes get bigger and look different as they fly over. The sun, the moon, and the stars all stay almost exactly the same - regardless of where you are on the planet (slight measurable differences for the sun and moon). That's probably the thing that first clued people into the fact that the earth is a globe.

what do you make of the dry air area time-lapse footage's? Some claim that the lensing increases the sun size as it moves away from us, and that makes it appear about the same size when above since it's passing through more atmosphere while setting.. and since in dry areas lensing is reduced due to lower water content thats why at those places sun visually shrinks as it sets.

You actually could figure these things out for yourself. It's not too complicated if you look at it from a broader perspective, like this:

View attachment 26626

Go here:
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/
Set the planet scale to 100x. Point of View to Earth. Look At Mercury, then press play:

Also, by a $2 eclipse filter for your P900

Thanks! I'll get that filter! Wanted to do it for a while! So I just type p900 eclipse filter into ebay and should find it?

As far as mercury goes I'll research it a bit more.

 

[deirdre]

what's with the non-refraction-experiment convo guys?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Let's talk about how light really travels. In Sphere Earth theory it travels in a straight line - with only very slight deviations due to atmospheric refraction. FE theory demands that light bend like a bow. I'll show you why.

...this does not help me reach a final conclusion since airplane fliesover my head and sets on my horizon just like the sun and stars do.

Be honest now, have you ever really seen a plane go under the horizon with your own eyes? I haven't. Or are you taking the word of the FE believers who say that's what happens?

Put a model plane over a basketball court. Now stretch a string straight from the model to any point on the court. What part of the court won't that string reach? There is no point that it can't reach in a straight line. And that is true now matter how far something away is on a flat plane. There is no point where the light can't travel in a straight line. Not convinced? Maybe the plane doesn't go down below the horizon. Maybe it just "merges" with the horizon, and if you looked at it through a telescope it would pop up over the horizon again, as ships are supposed to do.

Let's look at a different situation, then.

Moving south could be just setting much closer stars and rising new ones on the plane.

Meaning as you get farther away from Polaris it would appear to get closer and closer to the northern horizon until it actually merged with the horizon? And new stars to the south would pop up over the horizon as you got closer to them? FE perspective, again.

Here's a simple project you can do: Build a scale model of the flat Earth with Polaris above it. They say that the flat Earth is anywhere from 16,000 to 20,000 miles in diameter - or at least from ice wall to ice wall if the Earth is infinite. Let's go with the bigger number to get as far away as possible from Polaris.

Cut out a cardboard disk. The scale is one inch to one thousand miles, so the disk is 20 inches in diameter. How high is Polaris? They say the sun is 3,000 miles high so let's be ultraconservative and say Polaris is 3,000 miles high. So put a BB 3 inches over the cardboard earth. Now stretch a string from the BB to any spot on the model Earth. Is there any spot on the Earth model, even the ice wall, where you can't get the string to stretch from the model Polaris to the model Earth surface? Think of the string as a beam of light. How could light not travel from Polaris to you, even when you are on the rim of the Earth? You can't unless you bend into a bow. Not a little bend.

What shape would the string have to be if you couldn't even make it stretch half way to the rim of the model? That would be the equator of the model earth. You would have to bend it in a bow. Is that the way light really travels?

FE Earth perspective is just a seductive intuitive idea with nothing real behind it.

Not convinced? Ships are said to reappear when you zoom in on them. So:

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE POLARIS FROM THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE EVEN WITH THE MOST POWERFUL TELESCOPES IN THE WORLD? Why doesn't Polaris reappear?

If someone in Australia can zoom in on the northern horizon and show Polaris reappearing, I''l have to eat my hat.

Or just have anyone, anywhere zoom in on any horizon at night and show new stars rising above the horizon just because the camera is zooming in. If FE perspective works the way they say, this should happen.





I think people are having a hard time visualizing why stars appear and disappear on a sphere Earth as you move north and south (not east and west). I haven't seen a good visual demonstration of this anywhere. The best thing I can recommend is getting a really big ball, the kind they have in a gym. Put your eye up to it really close at the top and then and move your head - without moving the ball - down across the surface. Notice what parts of the room are visible and not visible.

Here's a crumby GIF I made:



The red line is your line of sight at your local horizon: things "below" the red line are hidden by the rim of the earth. Below the southern horizon, in other words. This is why new southern stars become visible as you move farther south on the sphere earth. Just reverse this and you'll see why Polaris disappears. The rim of the Earth is hiding it.

As far as planets go I still wonder how can I see mercury during the night since it's so close to the sun.

Be honest now, have you ever really seen Mercury with you own eyes? It's an elusive object. Only someone with real experience can pick it out. Are you trusting someone that it's even visible?

The reason it's visible just above the horizon during TWILIGHT is that we are on the rim of a sphere looking at something that's just ABOVE the Sun from our vantage point. The Sun has just gone down behind the rim and taken its glare with it and we can get a peek at pale little Mercury just before it sets. (Or the opposite in the morning, other times.) Mercury is not as close to the Sun in actual miles as you might think.

Also why don't the moon phases light and shadow flip positions when we get to the opposite side of the sun?

I can't make heads or tails out of this one.

 

[Raymond]

Also why don't the moon phases light and shadow flip positions when we get to the opposite side of the sun?

Because everything else has flipped. You need a fixed reference of view, the stars and constellations, to see that.

 

[Abishua]

Let's talk about how light really travels. In Sphere Earth theory it travels in a straight line - with only very slight deviations due to atmospheric refraction. FE theory demands that light bend like a bow. I'll show you why.



Be honest now, have you ever really seen a plane go under the horizon with your own eyes? I haven't. Or are you taking the word of the FE believers who say that's what happens?

Put a model plane over a basketball court. Now stretch a string straight from the model to any point on the court. What part of the court won't that string reach? There is no point that it can't reach in a straight line. And that is true now matter how far something away is on a flat plane. There is no point where the light can't travel in a straight line. Not convinced? Maybe the plane doesn't go down below the horizon. Maybe it just "merges" with the horizon, and if you looked at it through a telescope it would pop up over the horizon again, as ships are supposed to do.

Let's look at a different situation, then.




Meaning as you get farther away from Polaris it would appear to get closer and closer to the northern horizon until it actually merged with the horizon? And new stars to the south would pop up over the horizon as you got closer to them? FE perspective, again.

Here's a simple project you can do: Build a scale model of the flat Earth with Polaris above it. They say that the flat Earth is anywhere from 16,000 to 20,000 miles in diameter - or at least from ice wall to ice wall if the Earth is infinite. Let's go with the bigger number to get as far away as possible from Polaris.

Cut out a cardboard disk. The scale is one inch to one thousand miles, so the disk is 20 inches in diameter. How high is Polaris? They say the sun is 3,000 miles high so let's be ultraconservative and say Polaris is 3,000 miles high. So put a BB 3 inches over the cardboard earth. Now stretch a string from the BB to any spot on the model Earth. Is there any spot on the Earth model, even the ice wall, where you can't get the string to stretch from the model Polaris to the model Earth surface? Think of the string as a beam of light. How could light not travel from Polaris to you, even when you are on the rim of the Earth? You can't unless you bend into a bow. Not a little bend.

What shape would the string have to be if you couldn't even make it stretch half way to the rim of the model? That would be the equator of the model earth. You would have to bend it in a bow. Is that the way light really travels?

FE Earth perspective is just a seductive intuitive idea with nothing real behind it.

Not convinced? Ships are said to reappear when you zoom in on them. So:

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE POLARIS FROM THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE EVEN WITH THE MOST POWERFUL TELESCOPES IN THE WORLD? Why doesn't Polaris reappear?

If someone in Australia can zoom in on the northern horizon and show Polaris reappearing, I''l have to eat my hat.

Or just have anyone, anywhere zoom in on any horizon at night and show new stars rising above the horizon just because the camera is zooming in. If FE perspective works the way they say, this should happen.





I think people are having a hard time visualizing why stars appear and disappear on a sphere Earth as you move north and south (not east and west). I haven't seen a good visual demonstration of this anywhere. The best thing I can recommend is getting a really big ball, the kind they have in a gym. Put your eye up to it really close at the top and then and move your head - without moving the ball - down across the surface. Notice what parts of the room are visible and not visible.

Here's a crumby GIF I made:



The red line is your line of sight at your local horizon: things "below" the red line are hidden by the rim of the earth. Below the southern horizon, in other words. This is why new southern stars become visible as you move farther south on the sphere earth. Just reverse this and you'll see why Polaris disappears. The rim of the Earth is hiding it.

As far as planets go I still wonder how can I see mercury during the night since it's so close to the sun.

Be honest now, have you ever really seen Mercury with you own eyes? It's an elusive object. Only someone with real experience can pick it out. Are you trusting someone that it's even visible?

The reason it's visible just above the horizon during TWILIGHT is that we are on the rim of a sphere looking at something that's just ABOVE the Sun from our vantage point. The Sun has just gone down behind the rim and taken its glare with it and we can get a peek at pale little Mercury just before it sets. (Or the opposite in the morning, other times.) Mercury is not as close to the Sun in actual miles as you might think.

Also why don't the moon phases light and shadow flip positions when we get to the opposite side of the sun?

I can't make heads or tails out of this one.

These are all very interesting points and I certainly do consider them.

I have followed many times heavy contrail leaving planes "set" over the horizon.. when it flies overhead after a while plane can't be seen, but the trail can. Logic tells me every time I look at a plane do that it didn't crash.. it's the same altitude it was overhead.. it just sets due to perspective. Like when looking down a really straight peace of highway with lamps on the side.. eventually everything meets in one point and you can't see beyond it.

The thing with Polaris I wonder is how can I take timelapse with it being stationary from europe? If stars are spinning this makes sense, but if earth is spinning even tho camera is on a tripod it should be changing angles all the time. Stationary polaris timelapse makes sense to me personally only to be taken from the very north pole. I know the argument that polaris is very far away and thats why it's possible to do this.. but I don't buy this.. because earth spin changes the angles drastically and that movement of earth should be detected in a way that stationary polaris appears to be moving as angles change.. polaris should be all over the place if camera is the one thats moving.
I might be wrong but thats how I see it.

Also I don't like to make many assumptions so I can't comment on the sun or polaris being 3000 miles away.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have followed many times heavy contrail leaving planes "set" over the horizon.. when it flies overhead after a while plane can't be seen, but the trail can. Logic tells me every time I look at a plane do that it didn't crash.. it's the same altitude it was overhead.. it just sets due to perspective.

No, it "sets" due to the curvature of the Earth. If you could see a plane at 30,000ft all the way to the sea level horizon, it would disappear over the horizon after about 230 miles (taking refraction into account) - i.e., the same distance that a person on the plane would see the horizon at.

The plane is flying at a set altitude relative to the Earth's surface, so the plane's path is also curving over the horizon. However, even with a contrail, planes are pretty small to be spotting at 200+ miles (though it can be done!) so you won't often see contrails "setting" right to the horizon. Also they are usually associated with other clouds, which block the actual horizon. But yes in some cases you can see the trail going behind the horizon, and that is down to curvature, not "perspective".

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Spoiler

The International Space Station flies approximately 400 kilometres over thunderstorms visible during a nighttime pass. In this image, lightning can be seen flashing brightly inside the clouds below. A Russian Soyuz spacecraft (left) and Progress spacecraft (right) are seen in the foreground.

- Cosmos Magazine

This may be a touch off topic...if so, I apologize and please feel free to move this to a more suitable location. I just happened to run across this really sweet photo from the ISS. Ive been hunting around for what this is an actual image of (other than the storms) but havent been able to find anything concrete yet (then again Im at work so more than quick cursory google searches are difficult). The point to all this is the fact that you can very clearly see the curvature of the earth in the photo (and its just a really cool pic from the ISS) from a relatively close orbit.

Looks like Florida. Tampa in foreground, Miami on far right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Looks like Florida. Tampa in foreground, Miami on far right.

I tracked down this photo a while ago and it's actually Malaysia, looking south. Kuala Lumpur is the big light area hidden under the clouds just right of centre.

Rough and ready comparison:

[compare]

[/compare]

 

[Abishua]

No, it "sets" due to the curvature of the Earth. If you could see a plane at 30,000ft all the way to the sea level horizon, it would disappear over the horizon after about 230 miles (taking refraction into account) - i.e., the same distance that a person on the plane would see the horizon at.

The plane is flying at a set altitude relative to the Earth's surface, so the plane's path is also curving over the horizon. However, even with a contrail, planes are pretty small to be spotting at 200+ miles (though it can be done!) so you won't often see contrails "setting" right to the horizon. Also they are usually associated with other clouds, which block the actual horizon. But yes in some cases you can see the trail going behind the horizon, and that is down to curvature, not "perspective".

So without the curvature plane would never set when moving away from us?

Because everything else has flipped. You need a fixed reference of view, the stars and constellations, to see that.

Could be. But what about the moon craters? Are you honestly going to say that every single meteor that ever hit the moon did it at an 90 degree angle.. not a single 1-20 degree angle hit that would cause the crater to be elongated.. they are all perfectly circular.. and since that side of moon is facing earth, those meteors should have came from earth direction..

 

[Trailblazer]

So without the curvature plane would never set when moving away from us?

Correct. It would always be above the horizon. Given a sufficiently powerful telescope, you should always be able to see it, if it was flying away from you over the open ocean. It would never go behind the horizon. Draw yourself a diagram if you don't believe it.

 

[AdamP]

Could be. But what about the moon craters? Are you honestly going to say that every single meteor that ever hit the moon did it at an 90 degree angle.. not a single 1-20 degree angle hit that would cause the crater to be elongated.. they are all perfectly circular.. and since that side of moon is facing earth, those meteors should have came from earth direction..

Not every crater is circular. See the photos of oval craters that I attached.

Secondly, I'd recommend doing some research about why most of them are round.

From external source
The short answer is that the energy involved in an impact is so huge that when the impactor hits the ground, it explodes like a bomb, rather than just denting the surface like a rock thrown into mud. Explosions are generally symmetric, so the resulting crater from most impacts is circular. Only very very shallow impacts form elliptical craters, but they do exist!

 

[AmberRobot]

So without the curvature plane would never set when moving away from us?

Without the curvature, the Sun would never set either. It is nearly trivial to show that given the flat earth model with the sun circling above at about 3000 miles it would never get close to the horizon. That "perspective" trick that the videos claim for explaining the setting sun only works with objects that are much closer to the Earth. In fact, the Sun's movement in the sky in the flat earth model looks nothing like the way it moves in the round Earth's sky. It's very, very easy to show this and yet the videos never address it (probably because they know it blows their 'theory' apart, or maybe because they don't know any math).

I took the photo below from Oahu. This geometry is *impossible* (and easily proven so) on the flat earth model typically presented.

 

[Inti]

So without the curvature plane would never set when moving away from us?




Could be. But what about the moon craters? Are you honestly going to say that every single meteor that ever hit the moon did it at an 90 degree angle.. not a single 1-20 degree angle hit that would cause the crater to be elongated.. they are all perfectly circular.. and since that side of moon is facing earth, those meteors should have came from earth direction..

I see that @AdamP has already pointed out that most large craters tend to be circular even when the impact causing them was angled. This is because the crater is formed mainly by the release of kinetic energy by the impact, not by the impactors shoving the surface aside.

Exceptions are usually when the angle of impact is very shallow.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-impact-craters-al/

However, your question highlights how the moon's craters do pose a huge difficulty for those flat earth adherents who claim that the moon is a flat disc. If that were true, it's hard to understand why we see the elliptical craters arranged around the rim of the apparent disc, with their short axis consistently radial, while almost all craters near the central disc are circular. This would be a very remarkable coincidence if the moon was really shaped like a coin.

 

[AmberRobot]

However, your question highlights how the moon's craters do pose a huge difficulty for those flat earth adherents who claim that the moon is a flat disc. If that were true, it's hard to understand why we see the elliptical craters arranged around the rim of the apparent disc, with their short axis consistently radial, while almost all craters near the central disc are circular. This would be a very remarkable coincidence if the moon was really shaped like a coin.

The bigger issue is that it is very clear that the illumination angle, as evidenced by the shadows in said craters, varies dramatically across the face of the Moon -- not possible with a flat disc.

 

[Abishua]

Wow! Never saw those elongated craters before.. thanks. I never believed moon was a disc.. I can clearly see through my p900 it is sphere/oval shaped because of crater angles.

When it comes to refraction I found this interesting video. I think this mountain is the furthest object I found that can be seen.

Here is the data on it.

Mt. Height - 2784m
Mt distance - 263km
Observer location - Notre Dame du Château
Observer height - 310m