I still just don't understand.... Why you can't see how stupid this sounds?
Look at this Video you posted....
Can you not see the problems with how he is judging perspective?
Let's say that this golden globe was the earth.
Please tell me how small this person would have to be in relation to the height of the average human on our earth.
Think of an atom on a basketball. That's basically... How we compare in size to the Earth. An Atom is never going to notice drop off or slop in the horizon, because at that size and from that perspective.... the curve will not be noticeable unless he is way above the earth's surface to the point where he can see almost the entirety of the object.
I think you are comparing humans to Ants on a Basketball. An Ant would clearly notice a curvature and drop in horizon, because at that size and that perspective... the world would be small enough to clearly notice a slope in the surface from his eye level.
Again... I'm not even relying on math for this. Because again... It's pure logic.
And again...
Your theory can not be held true because it continues to fails to truly account for Refraction...
Here is the video that you posted earlier and (God help my soul) I watched the entire thing.
1. This guy tries to support his argument, by using Google Maps. While at the same time, he says that Google believes the Earth is round and these numbers aren't correct. (So off the top.. His theory is fucked.)
2. He clearly uses Google to find articles to try to support his theory. While at the same time, says that Google believes the Earth is round. (So off the top again... His theory is fucked)
This is the equivalent of me walking up to a White Supremacist, ask him to tell me about the Black Experience, and take everything that he said as the word of God.
So back to your theory... Your Theory is Wrong from jump,
Because it fails to account for refraction and it fails to account for the distance to the horizon.
This is your main argument... I'm going to put in red the meet of your argument.
So the argument is that the Earth is Flat, because we would be looking down upon the horizon the higher we get up... since we don't look down or look up upon the horizon.. the Earth must be flat.
It is true that the Higher we get up... We would eventually start looking down into the Horizon and sometimes..
Without Refraction.. Determining the distance to the horizon isn't that hard..... Look at this diagram
This diagram shows a vertical plane through the center of the Earth (at C) and the observer (at O). The radius of the Earth is R, and the observer's eye is a height h above the point S on the surface. (Of course, the height of the eye, and consequently the distance to the horizon, are greatly exaggerated in this diagram.) The observer's astronomical horizon is the dashed line through O, perpendicular to the Earth's radius OC. But the observer's apparent horizon is the dashed line OG, tangent to the surface of the Earth. The point G is the geometric horizon.
Elementary geometry tells us that, because the angle between the dashed lines at G is a right angle, the distance OG from the observer (O) to the horizon (G) is related to the radius R and the observer's height h by the Pythagorean Theorem.
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared).
The distance to the geometric horizon is approximately 3.57 km times the square root of the height of the eye in meters (or about
1.23 miles times the square root of the eye height in feet).
For example 1.23 times the square root of 8 divided by 12 equals 1 mile. Inversely given the horizon distance in miles, the height in feet required to be visible equals the distance in miles squared divided by 1.513. Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an
angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees.
However due to the Earth's curvature, it would appear as though it was
only 1778 feet tall with the lowest 66 feet below the horizon.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT...
Atmospheric Refraction.
There are atmospheric effects of mainly ray refraction that
tend to cause objects beyond the theoretical horizon to sometimes be visible. Thus the visible setting sun is usually a little below the theoretical horizon.
In like manner, the effect is to increase the apparent height of distant peaks.
That's where the problem lies with these pictures..
For Example..
Let's look at the Distance to the Horizon with refraction.
Usually, the air is densest at the surface, so the rays of light are concave toward the surface.
Look at this diagram..
The solid arc OH now represents the curved line of sight; H is the (refracted) apparent horizon. Notice that refraction lets us see a little farther, if the ray is concave toward the Earth, as shown here.
If we can assume a constant lapse rate in the air between the eye and the Earth's surface, and if the observer's height h is small compared to the 8-km height of the homogeneous atmosphere, then we can assume the curved ray is an arc of a circle. This assumption makes things easy, because the
relative curvature of the ray and the Earth's surface is all that matters. In effect, we can use the previous result, but just use an effective radius of curvature for the Earth that is bigger than the real one.
Most surveying uses a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does (or, equivalently, the radius of curvature of the ray is about 7 times that of the Earth's surface).
So now we look at the effective radius of the Earth (typical value)...
1/R′ = 1/R − 1/(7R) = 6/(7R) ,so that R′ = R × 7/6 .
This would make R′ about
7440 km, so that the distance to the horizon in kilometers is about 3.86 km times the square root of the height in meters (or about
1.32 miles times the square root of the height in feet).
So right now the numbers are similar but None of this even matters because of the Variable Gradients in effect... due to atmospheric refraction...
Refraction varies considerably from day to day, and from one place to another. It is particularly variable over water: because of the high heat capacity of water, the air is nearly always at a different temperature from that of the water, so there is a thermal boundary layer, in which the temperature gradient is far from uniform.
These temperature contrasts are particularly marked near shore, where the large diurnal temperature swings over the land can produce really large thermal effects over the water, if there is an offshore breeze. This is particularly bad news for anyone standing on the shore and wondering how far out to sea a ship or island might be visible.
While the dip of the horizon depends only on an average temperature gradient, and so can be found from just the temperatures at the sea surface and at the eye, the distance to the horizon depends on the reciprocal of the mean reciprocal of the temperature gradient. But the structure of thermal boundary layers guarantees that there will be large variations in the gradient, even in height intervals of a few meters. This means that on two different days with the same temperatures at the eye and the water surface (and, consequently, the same dip), the distance to the horizon can be very different. In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. Not even counting that visibility is limited by the clarity or haziness of the Air.
Hell I haven't even mentioned the Duct phenomena or Dips in the Horizon... (Were even though we are standing on the surface of the Earth.. Standing doesn't mean our eyes are at the Surface. Typically when you observe Sunset and Mirage phenomena.. you are experiencing a Dip of the Horizon..)
BUT ALL THIS JUST GOES TO MY MAIN POINT HERE....
ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION DEALS WITH VARIABLES THAT HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
This is what Alfred Wallace found when he adjusted the findings of Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment to account for atmospheric refraction. He found a curvature consistent with a Spherical Earth.
THE END
- yeah - ok - you'd be mistaken to assume that with SelfScience and others here...
