DUBAI | Burj Khalifah (Burj Dubai) | 828 M / 2,716.5 FT - Pinnacle | 162 FLOORS

[towerguy3]

quote: "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."

Graham, by saying this are you claiming the world is not round?

Provide the formula showing the bottom part of Burj Dubai would be cut off by the Earth's curvature from a distance of 150 km (it would indeed) and relate your equation to my formula SQRT (2Rh + h EXP 2)

[verbl]

I have a quick question with huge amount ( and use huge lightly 'cuz it's more like gargantuan lol ) of construction and skyscrapers in Dubai who is occupying all of these places? The population is about 1,679,272 and a small middle class who is in these places they cannot be all filled if anything I think most of them are empty shells and it seems like these guys are building just to build and making a status symbol out of them. I am just speculating but if anyone has any answer for me that would be nice, and in no way am I trying to be an a$%hole with this comment I just am so amazed by this city "popping" out of nowhere and it is about the same size as Phoenix and they have all of this.

[gsgeorge]

Sorry to get back to this again but I'm coming to this late. I gotta defend myself and my photograph of the Toronto skyline.

GRAHAM ---


I took the above photograph from the pier at Port Dalhousie, immediately outside of St Catharines on Lake Ontario, April 6, 2004. Here is another shot of the whole scene. The Toronto skyline is easily visible with the naked eye.



Also, you can view an original size here

Also, a map of the exact spot with other people's photos as well. In fact, this image by Jeff Epp is the best I could find that also shows the skyline. He doesn't have the largest size posted, but if you look close enough you can see the skyline.



I don't know what else I need to do to prove it but you're welcome to call my friends and family who were there with me. Many thanks to towerguy3 and his MATH, as well--the numbers don't lie, and neither do the photographs. Thanks for all the hard work you put into it though---

So to get back to the BURJ DUBAI-- YES, you would be able to see it from ~50km away, and probably some of the "smaller" skyscrapers along Sheikh Zayed Road as well.

PS -- yes, the Earth is round. Roundish, actually. It's not a perfect sphere, but it's pretty damn close.

[graham]

Originally Posted by towerguy3

I've been to Toronto and that view in photo 1. is definitely not from 3 km away.

Are you suggesting the Earth is not round?

Of course not - let's not visit the bizzare here - lol.
If a wide angle lens was used it very well could be from 3 kms.
I should know since I make my living doing architectural photography.

Now that we see the natural angle of view shot from the St Catherines dock we can see the real effect.
The first shot was cropped hard making it look much closer.
If we compare this with my shot from 50 kms, the tower itself is about the same size on comp screen, as they should be, so we are in agreement.
There is no curvature affect noticable in either shot.

Let's all remember that using a tele lens or a wide lens or cropping the image will always decieve the image viewer about distance from object.

Anyways - back to The Burj Dubai. Yes, as suggested, about the haze - 60 kms sounds right. But IF it was a perfectly clear day AND you had good binoculars from 150 kms , you would see the Burj with only a paltry 145 feet cut off the bottom of 2650 feet, curvature being an almost non existant effect. For every 10 miles ( 16.5 kms) the curvature drops off 16 feet, I think is correct. Not sure how that relates to your formula towerguy3. It's more of a tool designed with a formula I guess. I use it this way... 150kms/16.5kms = 9.09 x 16 feet = 145 feet.
One could say roughly "1 foot per kilometer" to keep it simple. Or 1 meter per 3 kilometers.
It sure is an interesting topic though, which is even more relevant since the advent of buildings like the Burj Dubai.
50kms across lake Ontario to the CN tower would be 48 feet missing off the bottom - not a noticable effect in a photo unless is was taken with a looong tele lens and cropped hard so you could actually see the 48 feet missing. Need a very sharp lens too.

[JDRCRASH]

It's about 160 stories tall now....sheesh.

[JDRCRASH]

[JDRCRASH]

edit

[gsgeorge]

Originally Posted by graham

If a wide angle lens was used it very well could be from 3 kms.
I should know since I make my living doing architectural photography.

....

There is no curvature affect noticable in either shot.

....

50kms across lake Ontario to the CN tower would be 48 feet missing off the bottom - not a noticable effect in a photo unless is was taken with a looong tele lens and cropped hard so you could actually see the 48 feet missing. Need a very sharp lens too.

Graham, you're wrong again, but I'm not going to go to lengths to argue with you since you disproved your own point in your response. First, you say there is no curvature effect noticeable in either shot (this is wrong, it's visible in mine but not in yours since yours was taken at a higher elevation than mine). Then a paragraph later you say there IS a curvature effect, which is hiding about 50 feet of the buildings. I notice a difference in the height of the buildings, and so does towerguy3 and a number of other people here. Anyone who has ever been 3km from a major metropolitan center can tell you that the level of detail in the skyline would be far greater than my very first shot which is very obviously taken from an extreme distance. Your stubbornness is troubling.

[gsgeorge]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

What a shot! How accessible is the site? I'm always seeing these shots from up really close. I can never get this close to major construction sites. Do Imre and the other have some kind of special access?

Also is it still on schedule?

[graham]

Originally Posted by gsgeorge

Graham, you're wrong again, but I'm not going to go to lengths to argue with you since you disproved your own point in your response. First, you say there is no curvature effect noticeable in either shot (this is wrong, it's visible in mine but not in yours since yours was taken at a higher elevation than mine). Then a paragraph later you say there IS a curvature effect, which is hiding about 50 feet of the buildings. I notice a difference in the height of the buildings, and so does towerguy3 and a number of other people here. Anyone who has ever been 3km from a major metropolitan center can tell you that the level of detail in the skyline would be far greater than my very first shot which is very obviously taken from an extreme distance. Your stubbornness is troubling.

You misquote me.
I said no noticable efect - no noticable effect both times.

Quote 1 ) no curvature affect noticable.
Quote 2 ) 48 feet - not a noticable effect.

These two statements are entirely consistent.

I know better than to argue with a person who only wants to argue and obviously misses the point in the first place.

Did you see the shots from the island??? did you see how the tower reproduces at the same size as your cropped tele shot from St. Cath??

You claimed your shot is a great example of curvature when in fact there is no noticable effect at all .
So - you are wrong sir! not I.

Why can't you just acknowledge that earth curvature has no noticable effect when viewing skyscrapers from long distances.
It's the haze that limits the view.
This is the crux - if you can try to stay on point - I thank you very much.

[JDRCRASH]

Hey hey...no fighting.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by gsgeorge

What a shot! How accessible is the site? I'm always seeing these shots from up really close. I can never get this close to major construction sites. Do Imre and the other have some kind of special access?

Also is it still on schedule?

I wouldn't be suprised if Imre has special access.

Yes, it is on schedule. Steel Framing continues.

[verbl]

I have a quick question with huge amount ( and use huge lightly 'cuz it's more like gargantuan lol ) of construction and skyscrapers in Dubai who is occupying all of these places? The population is about 1,679,272 and a small middle class who is in these places they cannot be all filled if anything I think most of them are empty shells and it seems like these guys are building just to build and making a status symbol out of them. I am just speculating but if anyone has any answer for me that would be nice, and in no way am I trying to be an a$%hole with this comment I just am so amazed by this city "popping" out of nowhere and it is about the same size as Phoenix and they have all of this.



yeah I posted this earlier..... nobody wants to answer or they don't know?

[graham]

Originally Posted by verbl

I have a quick question with huge amount ( and use huge lightly 'cuz it's more like gargantuan lol ) of construction and skyscrapers in Dubai who is occupying all of these places? The population is about 1,679,272 and a small middle class who is in these places they cannot be all filled if anything I think most of them are empty shells and it seems like these guys are building just to build and making a status symbol out of them. I am just speculating but if anyone has any answer for me that would be nice, and in no way am I trying to be an a$%hole with this comment I just am so amazed by this city "popping" out of nowhere and it is about the same size as Phoenix and they have all of this.



yeah I posted this earlier..... nobody wants to answer or they don't know?

Hi verbl........
They are investing for the future.
Some of the financing is coming from oil which will eventually run out.
They planning ahead for that day.
Not a problem if not all rented out right soon. They will be in future.

[graham]

I'll let these pics do the talking........

from 48 Kms at lake level on the left, and from 3 kms at about 200 feet on the right. Results - no NOTICABLE affect of the earth curvature as might be expected to show up on the left as a difference from the right. Case closed.

For the huge Burj Dubai - any effect would be extremely limited from 100kms or 150kms, no matter haze or no haze or binoculars on no binocs.

[verbl]

Originally Posted by graham

Hi verbl........
They are investing for the future.
Some of the financing is coming from oil which will eventually run out.
They planning ahead for that day.
Not a problem if not all rented out right soon. They will be in future.

Thanks man I just really needed to know but what you said makes sense to me.

[towerguy3]

No you're right the curvature of the Earth over 50 km is not that pronounced however keep in mind that the photo on the left (the one that was taken from St. Catherines) was taken with a telephoto lens to make the buildings look closer.

[towerguy3]

The Guinness Book of Records states that on the Verazano Bridge in New York, the two main towers are 1 3/4 inches out of parallel to account for the curvature of the Earth. The distance between the spans is about 4200 feet.

[kraggman]

Originally Posted by towerguy3

The Guinness Book of Records states that on the Verazano Bridge in New York, the two main towers are 1 3/4 inches out of parallel to account for the curvature of the Earth. The distance between the spans is about 4200 feet.

It's interesting that they would even bother to worry about 1.75 inches over 4200 feet. Is that just standard procedure for bridge building, or was that particular engineer just a perfectionist ??

[towerguy3]

If you were kneeling down on the beach in St. Catherines and your eye was 1 foot above the water and you looked at Toronto from 50 km you would see some more cutoff than in that photo. As it's a short distance of only 50 km, any slight elevation, even standing up, and you can't see the effect.