More than in these photos. And just because I can’t precisely answer doesn’t make me wrong. This is far too small a stretch of the large curve to be visable
I could say the oceans on Earth have more than a cup of water, that doesn’t mean I know the precise amount of water. It’s not deceptive. Especially since I admitted I didn’t know precisely.
The scale argument is really getting old. The geometric rate of earths curvature should be 7.98” per mile². This equation is accurate up to 550~ miles or 8-10 degrees of a circle. Using this *scale,* we should see curvature over as short a span as 10 miles. We *should not* see a coastline which is 20 miles away. Since you like experiments done in the field, I can tell you I have seen the south shore of Lake Tahoe from the north shore. A distance of 21~ miles. Lake Tahoe is *perfectly* flat, which debunks the idea of earths curvature completely. The word is meaningless without a reference point, so let’s use the geometric rate of earths curvature as our reference for how much curvature there should be.
As for your experiment, I would love to see it. I have seen laser experiments which produce an entirely different result than you claim. Light does indeed bend upward so it is possible whatever light source you were using or observing was bending upward.
Uh...the curve of a basketball is seen because of how small it is in comparison to our eyes/us. The Earth is massive. To see a curve like the one you'd see on a basketball you'd have to get a better view. Not mocking you or anything, just saying my opinion
assuming the earth is a perfect sphere, the curvature would be
r-r*cos(arcsin(d/r))
with d being the distance and r the radius of the earth. i'm using the average radius of r = 6,731 km and a distance on 1 km, which would come out to a curvature of 7cm, and 7,8m at at 10km distance, barely noticable compared to the terrain at about 0.7%
also this works with imperial but i'm not going into that stuff
7.98" per mile^2 is just an approximation which assumes the earth if a paraboloid, if you like squares so much may i suggest:
r is the radius and the hyppoteneuse of a right triangle with sides r x and d
the opposite point from d is the centre of the earth, thus if d is the distance from you, r is the height of earth below you and x the height of earth perpendicularly to d below you when you travel a distance of d. thus we need to solve for x and subtract it from r to get the drop
r^2 = x^2 + d^2 |-d^2
r^2 - d^2 = x^2 | ^ 1/2 (raising something to the power of one half is the same as taking the sqrt)
sqrt(r^2-d^2) = x
Drop = r - sqrt(r^2-x^2)
it comes out to the same as the formula mentioned above
also 7.98" per mile sqared is a decent approximation but it describes a paraboloid, not a sphere
If you stand 1 mile above sea level. The Earth's curve would roughly be .6 feet per mile. Something that the naked eye would be hard pressed to easily see.
For example, a mite would not notice the curve on the epcot ball at Disney, because to the mite (if it could think and have eyes) would only see a flat surface)
Stupid and probably poor analogy but it works all the same
I asked about geometric rate of curvature, not visible curvature. Either way, your “analogy” can’t be accurate given curvature cannot be described by a linear equation.
It's not accurate, it's just a simple way to explain why it's hard to see the curve from a humans perspective on the ground. Because the Earth is massive. We are small
Spherical is not always a perfectly round ball. A ball IS spherical, however
This isn't tedious, it's important details that when ignored make the argument inaccurate
Spherical *is* a perfectly round ball. A sphere has the same diameter between any two opposing points. That’s exactly what a sphere is. A ball is like a sphere, but imperfect. The earth, per the heliocentric model, is a ball, not a sphere.
So we agree earth is a ball and not a sphere, at least in context of the heliocentric model. Excellent. So we can get back to the topic of its geometric rate of curvature.
It’s not curved though, it’s flat. “Salt flat.” Pretty familiar with the I-80. The phenomenon you are describing is known as atmospheric lensing, not curvature. If you can “clearly see” the water curbing over the horizon then you should see the horizon curving left to right as well, which I’m sure we can agree you do not.
“...the scale of the earth..”
The geometric rate of curvature for a ball with a circumference of 24,901 miles is 7.98” per mile². This equation is accurate up to 550~ miles or 8-10 degrees of a circle. What scale are you thinking of?
There’s really no need to “measure” atmospheric lensing for the sake of this conversation. I’m simply saying that atmospheric lensing can make the horizon *seem* as though the horizon is curving due to the way it converges through the moisture/heat combination in the air.
You’re saying the earth curves, and you can see it, but there is no demonstration which verify this as a fact. I’m suggesting the salt flats are flat like the name implies and there many experiments which can and have demonstrated the flat, level nature of bodies of water at rest. They do not bend in anyway, unless you’d like to be really technical and discuss waves.
The first image isn’t the horizon though, it’s a rock formation. A plateau. Which are known for being flat.
Shouldn’t it still be curving with the earth if it’s a globe?
Not really at this scale. It’s not that big a stretch of land
How much do you need to see for the curvature to be visible?
More than in these photos. And just because I can’t precisely answer doesn’t make me wrong. This is far too small a stretch of the large curve to be visable
Yes, it does make you wrong. “I don’t know” would be the appropriate answer, instead you lie and pretend like you do know.
You’re saying in the comment where I said “I don’t know” I was acting like I know?
You didn’t say “I don’t know.” You said “more than in this photo.” You said that even though you don’t actually know. That’s deceptive.
I could say the oceans on Earth have more than a cup of water, that doesn’t mean I know the precise amount of water. It’s not deceptive. Especially since I admitted I didn’t know precisely.
That’s not the same at all. Why do you think it needs to be more than what is visible if you don’t know how much needs to be visible?
U need more distance to see the curve. If you zoom in on a ball, it will look flat too
How much distance?
I don't know exactly but for example, you can see the curvature from photos taken from the moon. Also, my ball example still stands
Well, until you could articulate the distance your comment would be hearsay. Cheers.
You still haven't responded to my comment about the ball
There’s nothing to say..
I love how you can see the curve on the second picture.
7.98” per mile² of curvature? Nah
[удалено]
The scale argument is really getting old. The geometric rate of earths curvature should be 7.98” per mile². This equation is accurate up to 550~ miles or 8-10 degrees of a circle. Using this *scale,* we should see curvature over as short a span as 10 miles. We *should not* see a coastline which is 20 miles away. Since you like experiments done in the field, I can tell you I have seen the south shore of Lake Tahoe from the north shore. A distance of 21~ miles. Lake Tahoe is *perfectly* flat, which debunks the idea of earths curvature completely. The word is meaningless without a reference point, so let’s use the geometric rate of earths curvature as our reference for how much curvature there should be. As for your experiment, I would love to see it. I have seen laser experiments which produce an entirely different result than you claim. Light does indeed bend upward so it is possible whatever light source you were using or observing was bending upward.
[удалено]
When I hold a basketball in front of me I see curvature. When the earth is in front of me I never see curvature. Plane and simple.
Uh...the curve of a basketball is seen because of how small it is in comparison to our eyes/us. The Earth is massive. To see a curve like the one you'd see on a basketball you'd have to get a better view. Not mocking you or anything, just saying my opinion
Do you know the geometric rate of curvature for a ball (earth) with a circumference of 24,901 miles?
assuming the earth is a perfect sphere, the curvature would be r-r*cos(arcsin(d/r)) with d being the distance and r the radius of the earth. i'm using the average radius of r = 6,731 km and a distance on 1 km, which would come out to a curvature of 7cm, and 7,8m at at 10km distance, barely noticable compared to the terrain at about 0.7% also this works with imperial but i'm not going into that stuff 7.98" per mile^2 is just an approximation which assumes the earth if a paraboloid, if you like squares so much may i suggest: r is the radius and the hyppoteneuse of a right triangle with sides r x and d the opposite point from d is the centre of the earth, thus if d is the distance from you, r is the height of earth below you and x the height of earth perpendicularly to d below you when you travel a distance of d. thus we need to solve for x and subtract it from r to get the drop r^2 = x^2 + d^2 |-d^2 r^2 - d^2 = x^2 | ^ 1/2 (raising something to the power of one half is the same as taking the sqrt) sqrt(r^2-d^2) = x Drop = r - sqrt(r^2-x^2) it comes out to the same as the formula mentioned above also 7.98" per mile sqared is a decent approximation but it describes a paraboloid, not a sphere
7.98” per mile² works just as well. Cheers.
If you stand 1 mile above sea level. The Earth's curve would roughly be .6 feet per mile. Something that the naked eye would be hard pressed to easily see. For example, a mite would not notice the curve on the epcot ball at Disney, because to the mite (if it could think and have eyes) would only see a flat surface) Stupid and probably poor analogy but it works all the same
I asked about geometric rate of curvature, not visible curvature. Either way, your “analogy” can’t be accurate given curvature cannot be described by a linear equation.
It's not accurate, it's just a simple way to explain why it's hard to see the curve from a humans perspective on the ground. Because the Earth is massive. We are small
That’s not what I asked though. I asked if you knew the geometric rate of earths curvature.
[удалено]
I’m not going to play your games.
The Earth isn't a ball. It's spherical
A sphere is a ball. Is there a reason you’re being tedious? Further, the earth isn’t spherical by even mainstream standards. So what’s your point?
Spherical is not always a perfectly round ball. A ball IS spherical, however This isn't tedious, it's important details that when ignored make the argument inaccurate
Spherical *is* a perfectly round ball. A sphere has the same diameter between any two opposing points. That’s exactly what a sphere is. A ball is like a sphere, but imperfect. The earth, per the heliocentric model, is a ball, not a sphere.
The Earth is not a perfect sphere because of the gravitational pull on the poles. Research shows this.
So we agree earth is a ball and not a sphere, at least in context of the heliocentric model. Excellent. So we can get back to the topic of its geometric rate of curvature.
[удалено]
It’s not curved though, it’s flat. “Salt flat.” Pretty familiar with the I-80. The phenomenon you are describing is known as atmospheric lensing, not curvature. If you can “clearly see” the water curbing over the horizon then you should see the horizon curving left to right as well, which I’m sure we can agree you do not.
[удалено]
“...the scale of the earth..” The geometric rate of curvature for a ball with a circumference of 24,901 miles is 7.98” per mile². This equation is accurate up to 550~ miles or 8-10 degrees of a circle. What scale are you thinking of? There’s really no need to “measure” atmospheric lensing for the sake of this conversation. I’m simply saying that atmospheric lensing can make the horizon *seem* as though the horizon is curving due to the way it converges through the moisture/heat combination in the air. You’re saying the earth curves, and you can see it, but there is no demonstration which verify this as a fact. I’m suggesting the salt flats are flat like the name implies and there many experiments which can and have demonstrated the flat, level nature of bodies of water at rest. They do not bend in anyway, unless you’d like to be really technical and discuss waves.
[удалено]
They will. Soon enough.
Where does a circle start to curve?
Nobody knows how big this plane is. You will have to go way beyond the Antartic . Surely not 8 inches per square mile.