The original Bedford Level experiment was deeply flawed and its results are invalid. Later replications of the experiment show the amount of curvature expected from a globe of radius 6,371km.
8 inches per mile when you square the mile. That’s why it’s impossiball to see Chicago from other side of Great Lake at ground level. Like you can’t see any of it let alone all of it. Oh, wait you can. Is there any pics showing curvature that do t use camera tricks?
You have it backwards. You should be asking: "Are there any photos showing *no* curvature that *weren't* taken during specific and rare weather conditions?" If Chicago can be seen from the other side of the lake due to the Earth being flat, then that should be the normal. So why was it a story worthy of an evening news segment? What does the news normally report? "Man bites dog" or "dog bites man?"
@@okreylos You have it backwards because you can not prove that a liquid curves over the horizon, you do know the word horizon means HORIZON(tal) right? I would love to have a live debate with you about gravity and curvature.
Guess so. But it turns out even globeheads have sometimes wrong expectations about the amount of visible curvature. I've seen lots of comments like "no way to see the curvature from an airplane." It's not a particularly intuitive concept.
"Do you know ther field of view for the P900/P1000 at max zoom and the lens size?" No, but that should be somewhere in Nikon's spec sheets. You need the focal length of the lens in question and the horizontal size of the imaging sensor to get full-sensor FoV, and then divide that by whatever digital zoom factor was used.
@@okreylos WHAT CURVE? OH THE ONE ON YOUR PAPER DIAGRAM....OK BUT YOU CANT CURVE WATER OVER SOMETHING WITHOUT IT CONSTANTLY FLOWING DOWNWARD SO YOUR THEORY OF GRAVITY DEBUNKS YOUR THEORY OF CURVATURE.
As long as there is some interesting math or visualization problem involved, I'm game. :) I've been polishing up some particle simulation code to answer the age-old question "why doesn't the vacuum of space suck away our atmosphere?" I think answering that good question using only first principles is a novel and valuable approach. So don't be shocked if there's another video soon. And keep in mind that I work in an Earth & Planetary Sciences department, so this could count as outreach.
This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works that I feel compelled to address it. The topic of the video is "if Earth *were* a sphere, what *would* the horizon look like from different altitudes?" Notice that there are an "if," a "were," and a "would" in that question. In other words, what this video establishes is an "if A, then B" statement, or "A => B" in the usual notation. How would you expect an *experiment* to support or contradict that specific statement? It's simple geometry, as explained at the beginning of the video: *if* Earth were a sphere, *this* is what the horizon would look like. Now, how would you use this "A => B" statement in an actual argument? Say someone took a photograph of the horizon from sea level (that's an experiment), and then said that "the horizon appears straight, therefore Earth must be flat" (that's a conclusion). That conclusion is implicitly based on another "A => B" statement, namely "if Earth were a globe, the horizon would have to appear curved." But as this video shows, that statement is false, and therefore the argument "horizon appears straight, therefore Earth is flat" is false. Makes sense now? On one point I agree with you: based on your comment, our school system is indeed in big trouble.
@@okreylos Flat earthers are ignorant of simple geometric concepts. They are also very lazy. They can't/won't show any flat earth calculations that would allow them to describe everyday observations.
I have never heard a man speak so many words that actually says nothing
Thanks for this! It's a valuable resource for dealing with those few flat earthers who are educable.
You can make the curve of the horizon more apparent by downscaling the image width, while keeping the original height. This compresses the curve.
bedford level experiment, no curve, what so ever
The original Bedford Level experiment was deeply flawed and its results are invalid. Later replications of the experiment show the amount of curvature expected from a globe of radius 6,371km.
Glad you're back!
Lovely and simple and elegant.
8 inches per mile when you square the mile. That’s why it’s impossiball to see Chicago from other side of Great Lake at ground level. Like you can’t see any of it let alone all of it. Oh, wait you can. Is there any pics showing curvature that do t use camera tricks?
You have it backwards. You should be asking: "Are there any photos showing *no* curvature that *weren't* taken during specific and rare weather conditions?" If Chicago can be seen from the other side of the lake due to the Earth being flat, then that should be the normal. So why was it a story worthy of an evening news segment? What does the news normally report? "Man bites dog" or "dog bites man?"
@@okreylos You have it backwards because you can not prove that a liquid curves over the horizon, you do know the word horizon means HORIZON(tal) right? I would love to have a live debate with you about gravity and curvature.
No real photos show curvature dumbass.
@@jelliottnesss The word "horizon" means "limiting circle".
Amazing videos man keep it up!
Excellent, my experience at airliner cruise altitude matches the math.
Don't tell me these flat earthers still exist in 2020 ?
Guess so. But it turns out even globeheads have sometimes wrong expectations about the amount of visible curvature. I've seen lots of comments like "no way to see the curvature from an airplane." It's not a particularly intuitive concept.
"Do you know ther field of view for the P900/P1000 at max zoom and the lens size?"
No, but that should be somewhere in Nikon's spec sheets. You need the focal length of the lens in question and the horizontal size of the imaging sensor to get full-sensor FoV, and then divide that by whatever digital zoom factor was used.
@@okreylos WHAT CURVE? OH THE ONE ON YOUR PAPER DIAGRAM....OK BUT YOU CANT CURVE WATER OVER SOMETHING WITHOUT IT CONSTANTLY FLOWING DOWNWARD SO YOUR THEORY OF GRAVITY DEBUNKS YOUR THEORY OF CURVATURE.
@@jelliottnesss Problems arise when you realise that there isn't exactly a universal up and down in space
good job
Brilliant!
Is this English ?
Excellent. Bonkers flat earthers please take notice.
Water does not curve, horizon mean horizontal and horizontal means flat, lever, straight.
Two videos on this in a year? I'm begging to feel concerned... :)
As long as there is some interesting math or visualization problem involved, I'm game. :)
I've been polishing up some particle simulation code to answer the age-old question "why doesn't the vacuum of space suck away our atmosphere?" I think answering that good question using only first principles is a novel and valuable approach. So don't be shocked if there's another video soon.
And keep in mind that I work in an Earth & Planetary Sciences department, so this could count as outreach.
@@okreylos well I enjoyed the previous video very much and shared it, so my vote is stay the course.
Very nice, good work! By coincidence I uploaded this yesterday: THIS is how you see the CURVATURE of the EARTH ua-cam.com/video/E5CGfUrdDlo/v-deo.html
Why do starting talking fast when explaining something?
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. I kept waiting for an actual experiment- all I got was lines and rhetoric. Our school system is in big trouble.
This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works that I feel compelled to address it.
The topic of the video is "if Earth *were* a sphere, what *would* the horizon look like from different altitudes?" Notice that there are an "if," a "were," and a "would" in that question. In other words, what this video establishes is an "if A, then B" statement, or "A => B" in the usual notation.
How would you expect an *experiment* to support or contradict that specific statement? It's simple geometry, as explained at the beginning of the video: *if* Earth were a sphere, *this* is what the horizon would look like.
Now, how would you use this "A => B" statement in an actual argument? Say someone took a photograph of the horizon from sea level (that's an experiment), and then said that "the horizon appears straight, therefore Earth must be flat" (that's a conclusion). That conclusion is implicitly based on another "A => B" statement, namely "if Earth were a globe, the horizon would have to appear curved." But as this video shows, that statement is false, and therefore the argument "horizon appears straight, therefore Earth is flat" is false. Makes sense now?
On one point I agree with you: based on your comment, our school system is indeed in big trouble.
@@okreylos
Flat earthers are ignorant of simple geometric concepts. They are also very lazy. They can't/won't show any flat earth calculations that would allow them to describe everyday observations.
Jesus is Lord halleluja!❤️🙏
you talk a load of crap now go and test it in reality works in maths but don't work in reality
He knows that he can't show us water curving over a spinning ball, he also lied about the atmosphere and vacuum of space on his other video.
It’s been 6 months Darren. Fo you still think earth is flat?
🤦🏽♂️🤣🤣
🙄
@@okreylos math is fun:) that guy must have really enjoyed your explanation. Or he's too stupid.