Explained: The View of Toronto from Hamilton [600+ feet up]

DJC

Member
Do you think that video was filmed from sea level?
NO it wasn't ...but i have lived here for 45 years ..its the same view of tTronto from the beach .......nothing changes nothing is hidden ....zero curvature ...i live here right so I'm not just making this up ..also did you see him pan from right to left.....far right is rochestor NY far left is vaughn there is zero curve .its about 87 miles
 
Last edited:

DJC

Member
Great! Please take pictures and post them here.
maybe tmrw ill head down to the beach or tonight its only 20 min from here ....and 87 miles is about 5000 feet or a mile of curve give or take ....is that right ? there should be a mile of curve from right to left ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He's viewing it from what looks like a building over Mountain Face park (which he says in the video), which would be well over 600 feet.

With some triangulation, he's about here.
20160804-103340-lbquq.jpg

And no curvature of the horizon is visible below 60,000.
 
Last edited:

Chew

Senior Member.
..and 87 miles is about 5000 feet or a mile of curve give or take
"curve" is irrelevant; only the amount of the object you are looking at that is obscured is relevant. How much of an object is obscured depends on your height of eye.

....is that right ? there should be a mile of curve from right to left ?
No, it is not right. The usual "drop" formula flat earthers use is only for the how much the curve should drop in the direction who are referencing. Left-right curvature is an entirely different trigonometric function.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This would actually make a great example if someone were to take video or photos from up there, then halfway down the escarpment, and then at sea level. You would see the obscuration very clearly.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
At the location of the video, ground level is about 184 metres, or 604 feet: http://en-ca.topographic-map.com/places/Hamilton-812832/

upload_2016-8-4_18-58-10.png

So even assuming the cameraman is standing on the ground, call it 610 feet.

Central Toronto is 36 miles away from this location.

Plugging the numbers into the calculator at https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ we get a hidden height of a little over 20 feet:

upload_2016-8-4_19-1-18.png


Edit: Toronto is not at sea level, of course, and neither is the intervening lake. I'd need to think a little more to work out how this affects the calculation.


DJC said:
..also did you see him pan from right to left.....far right is rochestor NY far left is vaughn there is zero curve .its about 87 miles
Why would you expect to see a curve from only 600 feet above sea level?
 

DJC

Member
At the location of the video, ground level is about 184 metres, or 604 feet: http://en-ca.topographic-map.com/places/Hamilton-812832/

View attachment 20309

So even assuming the cameraman is standing on the ground, call it 610 feet.

Central Toronto is 36 miles away from this location.

Plugging the numbers into the calculator at https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ we get a hidden height of a little over 20 feet:

View attachment 20310




Why would you expect to see a curve from only 600 feet above sea level?
The same reason your saying there is one you can see from 33 miles away ? looking straight
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The same reason your saying there is one you can see from 33 miles away ? looking straight
Apples and oranges. You won't see the curve of the horizon until you are high enough to be "looking down on" the plane of the horizon sufficiently. That doesn't prevent things from disappearing over the horizon. At the extreme where you place your eye right at sea level, the horizon will be infinitely close - all you will see is the straight line of the surface of the water intersecting your eyeball.

Think about it. The horizon doesn't "dip" from one place to the other. The horizon forms a perfectly level circle, formed by taking a slice through the Earth. The higher your eyeline, the larger the slice, and the lower the horizon is below you. But the horizon is always the same distance below your eye, all the way round the circle. The higher you are, the larger the circle will be, but the more you will be "looking down on" it, until, at an extreme distance, the perimeter of the circle becomes effectively the circumference of the globe.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The visible curvature of the horizon from a vantage point h kilometres above the Earth is given by:

k = sqrt [(1 + (h/6371))^2 - 1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

For a height of 600ft, or 0.2km, that gives a curvature of 0.0079.

That would be the same equivalent curvature as the rim of a circle 10 metres across, viewed from a point less than 8cm above the centre.

(As an aside, if the Earth was a flat disc, the horizon would still appear more curved the higher above it you got. The horizon itself is FLAT, whether you are on a globe or a flat disc!)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What units is that in?
Radians-1​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon
i.e. 1/(angle subtended at the eye by the radius, when looking straight at the center of the circle)
I think.
[edit] although I don't understand it.
[edit2] suspect that wikipedia definition is wrong. Or at least not very clear.
 
Last edited:

Chew

Senior Member.
Radians-1
0.0079 radians = 0.4526°.

Ok. That is close to the standard dip (height of eye) correction used in celestial navigation for the depression of the horizon. Dip in arcminutes = sqrt(height of eye in feet)*-0.97'

sqrt(600')*0.96' = 23.8' = 0.40°
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
ah it seems to be the angle of the dip, as you mention, which would be arccos(r/(r+h))

arccos(6371/(6371+0.2)) = 0.00792356295 rad
sqrt [(1 + (0.2/6371))^2 - 1] = 0.00792372877

Which suggests the units are radians. I'm a little confused, is this a non-trig approximation function? What do they mean by "is the reciprocal of the curvature angular radius"? I seems like it's 1-(curvature angular radius), but reciprocal implies 1/(curvature angular radius)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Which suggests the units are radians. I'm a little confused, is this a non-trig approximation function? What do they mean by "is the reciprocal of the curvature angular radius"? I seems like it's 1-(curvature angular radius), but reciprocal implies 1/(curvature angular radius)
The formula given on Wikipedia implies that the horizon will have a curvature of 1 at a height of (√2 -1) x the Earth's radius, in other words about 2639 kilometres. At this altitude, the distance to the horizon is equal to the Earth's radius, and thus the angular diameter of the horizon is 90 degrees:

upload_2016-8-4_22-40-13.png
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member

Rory

Senior Member.
Also did you see him pan from right to left? Far right is Rochester, NY; far left is Vaughan. There is zero curve. It's about 87 miles.
When people talk about 'curvature' they're generally talking about the curve between you (the observer) and the horizon, or something beyond the horizon. The curve, of course, cannot be detected with the naked eye, but its effects can, such as the obscuration of the lower parts of distant buildings and ships.

The 'left to right' curve is something different, and cannot be seen until you're way up there. At least 60,000 feet, and more like 100,000 feet for it to be significantly pronounced.

To demonstrate:

image.jpg

The line ab is the horizon. The observer is at o. The object you're looking at is at v.

When people talk about curvature, and use the curvature calculator, it's the line ov that they're measuring: the "straight ahead" curve.

Determining the curvature for the horizon - for ab - is an altogether different calculation, as outlined above.

Toronto is not at sea level, of course, and neither is the intervening lake. I'd need to think a little more to work out how this affects the calculation.
For "viewer height in feet" just put in the difference between the viewer and the lake (ie, the elevation of the horizon).

So if I go down to the beach tmrw and take a pic of Toronto from Hamilton or Stoney Creek how much of Toronto should be hidden? I get almost 700 feet.
Yep, that's right. Will be interesting to see how much of the SkyDome you can see, and how it compares to this photo:

 
Last edited:

DJC

Member
Heres a pic i found taken from van wagers beach ......ill go down today and take my own .....but this looks about right today is much clearer


VWB.jpg
 

DJC

Member
When people talk about 'curvature' they're generally talking about the curve between you (the observer) and the horizon, or something beyond the horizon. The curve, of course, cannot be detected with the naked eye, but its effects can, such as the obscuration of the lower parts of distant buildings and ships.

The 'left to right' curve is something different, and cannot be seen until you're way up there. At least 60,000 feet, and more like 100,000 feet for it to be significantly pronounced.

To demonstrate:

View attachment 20340

The line ab is the horizon. The observer is at o. The object you're looking at is at v.

When people talk about curvature, and use the curvature calculator, it's the line ov that they're measuring: the "straight ahead" curve.

Determining the curvature for the horizon - for ab - is an altogether different calculation, as outlined above.


For "viewer height in feet" just put in the difference between the viewer and the lake (ie, the elevation of the horizon).


Yep, that's right. Will be interesting to see how much of the SkyDome you can see, and how it compares to this photo:

I don't know where you got this photo ....but its not real ....your missing about 200 buildings in it as you can see in the above photo
 

DJC

Member
The actual skydiome when closed is 282 feet at centre field .....otherwise the building itself is only 50 - 60 feet high ..and the stadium is built under ground ...
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I don't know where you got this photo ....but its not real ....your missing about 200 buildings in it as you can see in the above photo
It is real, but it is taken from a different direction, so of course the relative positions of the buildings will differ. It is from Olcott NY.

upload_2016-8-5_15-31-34.png

Looking from the southeast, from Olcott, the CN Tower is some way to the left of the other tallest buildings:

upload_2016-8-5_15-48-39.png

Looking from the southwest, from Hamilton, it is more or less in front of them:

upload_2016-8-5_15-49-58.png


---------------------------------


Now, compare the photo you posted, from near the beach in Hamilton:



With the photo from up on the hill. Can you spot the difference? Why are all the lower buildings missing?

upload_2016-8-5_15-33-30.png



Edit: perhaps this will make it clearer? (screenshot from video contrast-enhanced and resized to roughly match the buildings).

output_0Ze0pK.gif

Why is more of the skyline hidden from lower down towards the lake if the Earth is flat?
 
Last edited:

DJC

Member
It is real, but it is taken from a different direction, so of course the relative positions of the buildings will differ. It is from Olcott NY.

View attachment 20350


Now, compare the photo you posted, from near the beach in Hamilton:



With the photo from up on the hill. Can you spot the difference? Why are all the lower buildings missing?

View attachment 20351



Edit: perhaps this will make it clearer? (screenshot from video contrast-enhanced and resized to roughly match the buildings).

View attachment 20353

Why is more of the skyline hidden from lower down towards the lake if the Earth is flat?
Ijust found that pic this morning ..im going to actually go myself because i want to figure this out .....toronto had the most condo starts in the world the past few years i think 180 or so a year so if the pics old ur going to be missing a lot of things......some time today i will fly down the hill to the beach ....im curious now very curious
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Ijust found that pic this morning ..im going to actually go myself because i want to figure this out .....toronto had the most condo starts in the world the past few years i think 180 or so a year so if the pics old ur going to be missing a lot of things......some time today i will fly down the hill to the beach ....im curious now very curious
That's good. Experimenting for yourself rather than taking people's word for it is something people should be doing more of, so thumbs up for that! :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
These two photos are excellent examples that perfectly illustrate the curvature of the Earth, even better than the Chicago photos. We can verify the obscuration with Google Earth. Let me make a quick video explaining it, but here's the Google Earth file with both photos overlaid from their approximate viewpoints. Note the red line is required to get the correct water surface height, and GE renders lake water surfaces at sea level.
20160805-081955-v0ns3.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

DJC

Member
These two photos are excellent examples that perfectly illustrate the curvature of the Earth, even better than the Chicago photos. We can verify the obscuration with Google Earth. Let me make a quick video explaining it, but here's the Google Earth file with both photos overlaid from their approximate viewpoints. Note the red line is required to get the correct water surface height, and GE renders lake water surfaces at sea level.
View attachment 20365
Wait ..i thought that photo shows all of Toronto from 35 miles away ?...ill go down to the beach in one hour
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wait ..i thought that photo shows all of Toronto from 35 miles away ?...ill go down to the beach in one hour
No, that's the photo from the beach. It shows several hundred feet obscured. I'll upload an explanatory video, probably about 30 minutes, as I have slow internet.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
ill go down to the beach in one hour
If by chance you've not gone yet. Try taking some photos from:
A) as close to the water as possible, like 1 foot above it. (661 feet hidden)
B) eye level while standing near the water, so 6 feet (600 feet hidden)
C) back in the car park, up a bit, maybe 12 feet (551 feet hidden)

You should see differences between all of these (depending on haze, zoom, etc)
 

DJC

Member
I Just got back from the beach ..there is zero visible today i can walk to the water and sit on a rock so ill be around 4 feet from the water .....now I'm obsessed with getting the right pic so sometime over the weekend i will get down there again when its nice..im gonna go by bestbuy and get a camera what should i buy ? what model etc

IM positive you can see all of Toronto from the beach i could see to Mississauga to the left right to the ground . its about half way but my phone took nothing you could recognize ...

i will get the shot and we will see ...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I Just got back from the beach ..there is zero visible today i can walk to the water and sit on a rock so ill be around 4 feet from the water .....now I'm obsessed with getting the right pic so sometime over the weekend i will get down there again when its nice..im gonna go by bestbuy and get a camera what should i buy ? what model etc
You want something with 50x zoom or better (the longer zoom superzoom camera)
Any of these:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
20160805-115256-bmiep.jpg

P900 is ideal.

Slightly older models should be fine, for example the Canon SX50

While you can just point and shoot, it's better if you use of a tripod (can be a very cheap one) and take some of the photos with a timer to minimize camera shake.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Minor tip, if you've got an iPhone, etc, then after getting a good picture then take an iPhone picture of the picture displayed on your camera (while still at the same viewpoint). That way you get a GPS record of exactly where the picture was taken, including altitude.
20160805-125907-6w1h7.jpg
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
DJC:

These three videos were taken by the same person.

This is from Ryerson Park, Niagara-on-the-Lake, NY. Google Earth says that park is 251 feet above sea level, while the lake level is 246 feet above sea level (which varies of course). So the park is 5 feet above lake level. Approximate values, but close I think.


Also from Ryerson Park on a different day with rougher water. Interesting that the ship is just on the horizon. There's a word for that part of the sea (or lake) that's closest to the horizon - "offing."


It's important to know what the horizon is. It's the line at which your line of sight intersects the water. I'm borrowing David Ridlen's illustration from page 3 of the Earth curvature refraction experiments thread.

https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curv...nts-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/page-3

The horizon line is marked "C."



This is a view from Queenston Heights Park. Google Earth says the elevation is about 580 feet above sea level. (Approximate, because I don't know what part of the park he was in.) That's 329 feet higher than Ryerson Park. Again approximate, but the important fact here is that it's hundreds of feet higher.


Queenston Heights Park is inland and about 7 miles farther away from Toronto than Ryerson Park is, yet much more of Toronto is visible. Why? Well, why did lookouts in the age of sail go aloft to the main topgallant yard (or "crow's nest," ye lubber)? Because the higher you are, the farther you can see on a spherical earth.

I think you should look at this interactive illustration. It's worth a thousand words.

https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curv...g-flat-concave-earth.t6042/page-3#post-161317

Think of the "target" as Toronto, and the "camera" as you. The higher you get, the more of Toronto you can see.


The relationship of Queenston Heights Park to Ryerson Park to Toronto.



 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
IM positive you can see all of Toronto from the beach i could see to Mississauga to the left right to the ground . its about half way but my phone took nothing you could recognize ...

i will get the shot and we will see ...
Are you still planning to do this?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 69
Cassi O Polaris Height Perspective Explained (No math required) Flat Earth 1
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
A Explained: astronaut's movement causes lunar flag to wave in Apollo 15 footage Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Explained: The "Many Faces" of Patrick Crusius, the El Paso Shooter Conspiracy Theories 22
Mick West Explained: "Beam of Light" in To The Stars Academy header images UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Qulaey Explained: 17.61 Mile Mirror Flash Supposedly Proves Flat Earth [Refraction] Flat Earth 5
Mick West Explained: The Navy's New "UFO" Reporting Guidelines UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Mick West Explained: Jet Chasing UFO: X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
MikeG Explained: EU Army Deployed to Paris Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Explained: Unexplained Green Light During Thunderstorm Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Explained: Flashes of Light During the World Trade Center Collapse 9/11 5
Mick West Explained: House "Cut in Half", Tubbs Fire, Santa Rosa, Coffey Park Wildfires 0
Mick West Explained: Burnt Cars on California Beach [TV Set] Wildfires 1
Mick West Explained: Unknown Brewing Company UFO UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Why Kavanaugh's Calendar PDF looks Edited [OCR] Current Events 0
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Podesta 14 + Fish [Promotional Tweet for UN Global Sustainability Goals] Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West Explained: Dark Streak UFO Photo - Barn Swallow + Motion Blur UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: DEW Energy Beam Starting Forest Fires - Dirty Lens, Light Streak Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West Explained: A Dozen Or More Southern Valley UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Floating Triangle UFO in Buenos Aires Google Maps [Bridge] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Rory Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window] Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West Explained: Washington State Island "Mystery missile" - Helicopter Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 49
Andrew Gillett Explained: Squares in the sky? [Reflection of lights in a window] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Mick West Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
Mick West Explained: Why Some Marjory Stoneman Douglas Shooting Google Search Results Predate the Event Conspiracy Theories 1
Priyadi Explained: Why We Don't See Satellites in Photos Taken From The ISS Flat Earth 1
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre Explained: Mysterious burning crater in Mexico spurs UFO crash speculation (Garbage pit) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Benjamin Moore Explained: Why Earth Has A Magnetic Core Even Though the core is Molten Metal Flat Earth 2
FlightMuj Explained: Photo from ISS shows "open window" [Scratch Cover] Flat Earth 2
Mick West Explained: "Smoke Trails" On 9/11 World Trade Center Falling Debris [Dust/Powder] 9/11 10
Mick West Explained: Roy Moore Two Color Yearbook Signature [Depth of Field Chromatic Aberration] Conspiracy Theories 34
Mick West Explained: Why Planes Get Dented Nosecones - It's Mostly Birds General Discussion 4
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 119
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Mick West Explained: Mexico City Earthquake Lights [Power Line Arcing and Transformer Explosions] Science and Pseudoscience 30
Mick West Explained: Cloud Seeding Weather Modification in Texas before Hurricane Harvey Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Bunkmeister Explained: Coast Guard Geographic Range Table promoted by flat earthers Flat Earth 15
Mick West Explained: Charlottesville Car Attack License Plates - Ohio GVF 1111 (and GVF 1122) Conspiracy Theories 2
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
FlightMuj Explained: 443 km distance- mountains visible. Flat Earth 13
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top