Quote:
Originally Posted by towerguy3
In the first image below taken from 55 km (St. Catherines) you can clearly see the effect of the curvature of the Earth as the bottom halves of the other towers such as the TD towers are cut off by the water. The Earth's curvature is very apparent in this photo. If the Earth were truly flat you'd see those towers right down to their bottoms!
This is a great visual example of the curvature of the Earth! :
In the second one below the observer is elevated so the curvature is not noticable and you can see the Toronto towers down to their bottoms:
Keep in mind that a typical person 5.6 feet high can only see a horizon distance of 2.9 miles. That distance increases rapidly as your elevation increases. At an elevation of 100 feet you can see 12.2 miles.
Mathematically d varies as the square root of 13 times the height h in meters or the square root of 1.5 times the height h in feet. |
All this reliance on math to make assumptions that are actually quite complicated when pure empirical evidence is staring us right in the face to refute it, is amazing to me.
Let's take the two photos above.
1) shot from 50km at lake level elevation ( about same level as base of tower) in St. Catherines supposedly. I don't think so, but never the less the above poster assumes this. He says you can see the curvature cutting stuff off.
2) Here the view is from an elevation of 475 above tower base.
According to his math there should be a big difference.
As you can clearly see in both photos - there is the same amount of section below the restuarant level can be seen as referenced from the relative size of the section above the restaurant. Restaurant at 1100 feet - top observation at 1500 - tip at 1800. Its all there in both photos.
But as I said, I think the St. Catherines view is really from only 3 kms away with a short lens.
Anybody have images showing curvature blocking an object at 100km??
Why not just use the empirical evidence to make a deduction?
Using math just introduces all sorts of innacuracies, assumptions, half truths etc and the end result it bogus. When you have empirical evidence all theory is usually bogus or half bogus.
The initial assertion is - no matter 50 , 100 or 150 km, earth curvature is not the limiting factor by a longshot. Haze is.
Also - it's interesting - I've never seen the same equation quoted twice.
The stories about tall ships dissapearing below the curvature of the earth and leading to theory about a round earth i think is bogus. It was huge 50 to 60 foot swells, the ship and observer in swell troughs.
According to one equation with some apparent credibility, the Burj would have the bottom 140 feet cutoff when viewed from 150Kms. Since the Burj Dubai is 2650' tall, this cutoff would be barley noticable. And you would only need to view from the 15th story of a building to see it all.
Anybody watching car racing when Al Unser was an announcer might remember this........
The other announcer was going to great lengths to communicate the gap between the cars in seconds and fractions of seconds and calculating gain per lap etc all very complicating and distracting, when Al pointed out that the gap was small enuff that you can now see the gap between the cars, for crying out loud. So stop calculating. hehe LMAO
Prev
Linear Mode
