# Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

Hi, I have a simple model of the big tower https://ufile.io/vscje (3ds)
Due to refraction it does not match perfectly with Soundly's observations, but it is enough.
And we do not know exact height of the observer.
The big tower in google maps
The height of the big tower is 64.3 meters.
I copied the photo of whole tower and pasted it on the frame from the video and got the same result as in model photo of yours. While scaling I tried to get whole tower visible and match it's lines but I failed. At least 10% percent is hidden behind the horizon according to my work. I won't post this photo of my work here since it is very, very rough and I lack video/photo editing skills. However, tall tower along with the power lines undeniably shows that the Earth is round.

Also, I decided not to post anymore on FE subject trying to prove or help others to prove what is proven for centuries. There is sooo much proofs, especially in celestial mechanics, that the FE model is only a wishful thinking and any reasonable person can debunk it in a minute or two.

NobleOne, in my screenshot of the model I used an average height of the observer. We do not know exact height of Soundly. But anyway it matches pretty much.

NobleOne, in my screenshot of the model I used an average height of the observer. We do not know exact height of Soundly. But anyway it matches pretty much.
Actually, height or altitude of observation is not so important here (it's not very high). On fictive FE model there is no hidden by the horizon effect so we don't need to know how much of it is hidden or doing any math. So I tried to paste this tall tower to be seen completely above the horizon with scaling while respecting it's contours on the photo and I failed. Contours only match when bottom part (very roughly 10%) of it is hidden by the horizon. This is the most simplest experiment anyone can do without any calculation.

Just created. I think it matches very nice.

You must be seeing the effects of refraction, because your model curves down a bit more toward the end than the photo does.

You must be seeing the effects of refraction, because your model curves down a bit more toward the end than the photo does.

I agree, also there might be a very minor difference due to the towers not being in a perfect straight line. The are certainly close enough to demonstrate the curve, but a very minor shift could adjust the shape of the curve.

That could be determined by comparing the same shot from both sides.

I agree, also there might be a very minor difference due to the towers not being in a perfect straight line. The are certainly close enough to demonstrate the curve, but a very minor shift could adjust the shape of the curve.

That could be determined by comparing the same shot from both sides.
I agree, they are not perfect due to refraction. But anyway, it matches pretty much.

Last edited by a moderator:

In any event, flat earthers demand visual evidence, but where is their model? Essentially they are claiming most of modern physics is wrong, and with what evidence? Almost nothing. And what do they replace it with? The absurd usefulness of modern physics belies their claims.

So anyway, when I see a coherent flat earth model that accomplishes all that Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, etc do, then I'll give them more [consideration].

Last edited by a moderator:
51 people shared this when I just posted it to my FB wall. =)

51 people shared this when I just posted it to my FB wall. =)

160,000 views of the first video on YouTube

And over 400,000 views on Metabunk

Or course a lot of those (probably >95%, if not 99.9%) are not Flat Earthers, but a combination of people amused by the whole thing and people who like the cool photo of the curve.

Also, I decided not to post anymore on FE subject trying to prove or help others to prove what is proven for centuries. There is sooo much proofs, especially in celestial mechanics, that the FE model is only a wishful thinking and any reasonable person can debunk it in a minute or two.

I insist that the simplest proof is that the shape and size of the earth has been tested millions of times by people traveling across it.

https://www.metabunk.org/all-the-ships-at-sea-a-pragmatic-test-of-earths-shape.t8954/

Shame, AR Wallace.
The pillars are not perpendicular to the curvature.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/cKKZJQoVJVGPJulJ3

Wallace's diagram is from 1870. Interestingly I came across a similar diagram in a (later) 1887 surveying textbook that does have the rods perpendicular to the curve of sea level. I wonder what the earliest version of this "three rods" diagram is. Soundly's experiments are basically a better version of this.

Shame, AR Wallace.
The pillars are not perpendicular to the curvature.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/cKKZJQoVJVGPJulJ3
Starting the experiment by supposing that the pillars are perpendicular to curvature could be seen as "begging the question" (ie assuming at the outset the thing which is to be proved).

Starting the experiment by supposing that the pillars are perpendicular to curvature could be seen as "begging the question" (ie assuming at the outset the thing which is to be proved).

No, it's not. It'd be showing the setup consistent with the model being tested. If the curvature is shown as it is in Figure 1 then so should the perpendicular pillars. The experiment is to discriminate between two models; the two models should be shown accurately.

The towers are not in a straight line ......

The towers are not in a straight line ......

The towers are not in a straight line ......
be sure to read the description text on youtube videos. there is a fairly popular video 'debunking' soundly, but the video uploader explains in the description that he was looking at the wrong towers.

This thread is going somewhat viral on facebook. 17,000 shares and counting.

Update: 31,000 now! The push was getting shared by the Skeptics Guide to the Universe this morning. Hopefully this will direct the right people to Soundly's videos.

So we have established that these power lines are in a straight line, is there any way to tell if refraction of any sort interfered with the image making the power lines seem curved when they are not?

is there any way to tell if refraction of any sort interfered with the image making the power lines seem curved when they are not?

Atmospheric refraction is certainly at play: It's what causes the apparent "inverted", almost-upward curve towards the far end of the power line. An apparent downward curve, on the other hand, cannot be created by atmospheric refraction. Here's why:

Because the atmosphere's density gradually decreases with height, Snell's Law dictates that light rays traveling through the atmosphere at an angle must always be bent downward:

(source)​

The net result for the viewer is that objects (including the horizon) appear raised from their actual position (highly exaggerated here):

(source)​

Mutatis mutandis, this means that in order for a downward curve to appear to the viewer, the light rays would somehow have to be refracted upwards while traveling through the atmosphere. Which would imply the atmosphere is less dense near the surface than higher up, which is evidently nonsensical.*

* Small print: Now of course there is the inferior mirage, which does involve upwards bending of light rays. However, this is a very local phenomenon: The bending upwards does not take place until the light rays have already passed through most of the atmosphere and are close to Earth's surface. The resulting image, therefore, is not a smooth, downward-curving horizon, but rather a (distorted) mirror image of whatever happens to be in view (the sky, ships, mountains, etc.).

I haven't done any calculations myself, but this clip takes refraction into account, and concludes the findings are consistent with a spherical Earth:

Last edited:
An apparent downward curve, on the other hand, cannot be created by atmospheric refraction. Here's why:

You forgot temperature. Pressure decreases with height (hydrostatic equation), but density needs not to do so.

Pressure decreases with height (hydrostatic equation), but density needs not to do so.

True dat; I was speaking in a general sense. Taken as a whole, density does decrease from bottom to top, making the net refraction curve through the atmosphere a downward one, never up.

I would be mortified if someone put "nitpicker" on my grave..

I would be mortified if someone put "nitpicker" on my grave..

...and misspell it

...and misspell it
"cryptic" would be fine, but I probably wouldn't get it, although I would have plenty of time to think about it.

Are there any other photos like this, maybe a little bit higher?

Are there any other photos like this, maybe a little bit higher?

Looks to me like eye level is above the horizon, based on the view of the cross-beams. Right?

Looks to me like eye level is above the horizon, based on the view of the cross-beams. Right?

Yes it is. I was just asking if there were some other photos, maybe taken a little bit higher than that, so that you could see the top of the towers too from a straight POV.

Looks to me like eye level is above the horizon, based on the view of the cross-beams. Right?
I wouldn't say so. The photographer there is barely any distance above the water - probably you'd need to be at least a hundred feet or more in elevation, with a good, clear shot of the horizon, and something suitable to measure it. There's not really anything in that picture to use as a gauge.

here's another way to prove curvature of the earth .

I have found that with FE people. The simpler you keep your reply, the less likely they are to pick some small part of it apart. I pretty much use the kiss method against them to make sure they keep their replies lucid .

No one has been able to give me an argument for the previous picture. Sometimes they try vanishing point using the definition nobody else on earth was previously aware of?

that GIF is cool also it's got the blue green flash .

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/electromagnetism/physics-of-sunsets/

Lack of zoom, a bad camera position, very poor quality image from low resolution and atmospheric distortion.

Even then there's still a bit of a curve.

that GIF is cool also it's got the blue green flash
I don't think the green color that you see in the GIF are related to atmospheric refraction. They look rather like normal chromatic effects caused by the camera lens. You can clearly see them around bright spots, not just above and not after the sun is gone as explained in your link.

So yes, refraction - but not that of the atmosphere.

Wouldn't be so easy to just look at the horizon from left or right and save the hassle? Earth should curve from the sides also doesn't it?

Wouldn't be so easy to just look at the horizon from left or right and save the hassle? Earth should curve from the sides also doesn't it?
Look at the chess pieces on the car roof photos in the start of the thread to understand why the left to right curve is not as easy to see.

I did think of measuring it this way with a telescope. The problem is that it relies on how you adjust the axis of rotation, which means FEers trusting it that was done correctly! If the axis of rotation is vertical and the telescope tilted down to the horizon the answer comes out flat. If the axis of rotation is tilted down to be at a right angle to the horizon at the centre of the pan, the answer comes out as a curve.

Replies
19
Views
885
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K