+John Michaelson - Yes I have to agree with you on that. I need to get the exact same view when it is on the ground in the hanger looking at a horizontal line on the wall to prove it is not being caused by the window. Once I have that I will make the public video.
"I need to get the exact same view when it is on the ground in the hanger looking at a horizontal line on the wall to prove it is not being caused by the window. Once I have that I will make the public video." You have done that.
John Michaelson I agree, also if he had waited a bit longer he may have been able to get Mercury in the shot as well.. but the horizon may not have been as clear.
This was taken before Mercury was around, but Mercury should be bright enough to appear. It can hit mag -1 when approaching or re-emerging from behind the sun, almost as bright as Sirius.
The horizon line on the HUD is straight but the earths horizon is slightly curved and it's dropped 3.5 degrees. Jeez its almost like the earth is a sphere. Great video Wolfie!
Janne Laitinen Photoshopped because of various satellites taking pictures of a planet that’s circumference of 24900 miles. But flat earthers think NASA can take a picture of earth with an I phone and that earth is only 21 inches in circumference.
You're right, very clear curve in the same direction above and below the center of frame! There seems to be a little bit of distortion to the right at some point (I might be mistaken), but not in general. Even in Rob Skiba's famous video the curve is clearly visible in the center of the frame, so the excuses were moot anyways.
The glass on the plane is curved.....have you you ever looked into a large aquarium before? Same thing happens. Even without curved glass, if it is thick enough and poorer quality glass, it will distort vision
I guess this is what can be seen on the right side. It depends on were and how you look through the glass (at which angle the light rays travel to the camera's lens). The large aquarium has not the same effect as a curved glass pane, because refraction is different for air and water - a bad comparison, at least when it comes to the severity of the distortion.
How dare you fly up to 46000 feet and do some actual observations. The flat head way is just to make an unsubstantiated statement and leave it at that.
Hey Wolfie, that is the single best flat busting footage I have ever seen. HUD showing strait and level flight, the horizon clearly below eye level and a beautiful curve seen through the window. Love your videos.
+Christoph Hippmann Thanks Christoph. Some will try to blame the window but I have a follow planned up that will blow that idea "out the window" Here is a nice independent verification that what you see matches the expected curve from this altitude. imgur.com/JzcdVE1
Wolfie6020, re the window I actually think that is busted in the video. You can see the curve (dip) on both end. From other clips I believe you fly a XRS and you are taking the clip from the left seat. (only half the cockpit window is visible. With that if it were just the window I would expect to only see the dip OK the left as the window "curves". But then again for some people any evidence will either be ignored or counted by "it's the cammera" or "cgi" Love your videos and slightly jealous of the metal you get to play with every day.
They say trust your senses... I say, do you really think your brain and eyes can pick up a 1-3 degree drop off the horizon? That's why we make tools for measurements. They think their eyes are better than this. Thanks for this video of precise instruments doing what I claim their senses can't detect. You're awesome
I like to think of a calculator. Sure, we ourselves can do math in our heads to a degree (besides the rare savant who is amazing at math), but does not a calculator make math MUCH easier to the other 99% of the population? Is it not much better than our brains at adding numbers? we have senses sure, but we also have created tools that are better in some regards. humans have amazing eyesight, but we cant 'zoom in' at all, that is why we have telescopes and other tools to aid us.
I do not know why people use the Bible to support this flat earth theory. The Bible does not confirm this. It just says the earth was created first. Then came the sun and the moon and it sure does look like we are perfectly placed in between them. Also “Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.” Isaiah 48:13 NKJV That definitely alludes to an expanse
The problem with Scripture is that it is open to many interpretations. Take Genesis 1:7 (KJV) for example, the separation of the waters above and below the firmament. Which explains why the sky is and blue why space cannot exist! There is clearly a theological debate to be had between the majority of flattards, who rely on Biblical authority, and the overwhelming majority of their fellow Christians who have no problem with a spherical earth and the heliocentric model. I offer Biblically inspired flattards the wise words of Augustine of Hippo (354-430): “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons...and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh at it to scorn.”. [From 'De Genesi ad Litteram')]
Well, I'm a glober Earther, but there certainly are verses in the bible that only make sense from the perspective of a flat Earth. For example, when Daniel has his dream, he sees a tree "growing in the center of the Earth" that "all can see". How could this be possible on a sphere? And when the devil takes Jesus to the top of the exceeding high mountain, he shows Him "all the kingdoms of the world" which would also be impossible on a sphere no matter how high the mountain was. It also _explicitly_ says several times that the Earth is "immovable". The sun and moon were created on the fourth "day", so how did the first 3 "days" happen? Obviously this person knew that the sun came out DURING the day, but had no idea that the sun CAUSED the day to happen, so having the sun (and moon) created on the fourth day was no big deal. And we know they were supposed to be thought of as actual days because at the end of each day of creation it says, "And the evening and the morning were the [blank] day". Just saying...
JustWasted3HoursHere Daniel's dream is a dream that uses symbolism. Surely you will not going to suggest there are trees that are miles high? Also, HaSatan taking Yeshua to the highest mountain to show all the kingdoms of the world how suggests the earth is flat exactly? Could not HaSatan have used the supernatural to achieve that task? Of course he could! Besides, we know too well that the highest mountain in the world above the sea level, mount Everest, that people successfully summited many times over, does not allow us to see all the countries of the world. That is a fact! If HaSatan took Yeshua to Everest there is no way Yeshua could physically be able to see "all the kingdoms of the world". The purpose of the adversary taking Messiah to a highest peak is to give Him a sense of authority, a sense of being elevated above everything and everyone in the world. In cases where Scriptures use word "immovable" concerning the earth, did you happen to read those passages in their entirety IN CONTEXT? Or do you automatically believed the assertions con man Skiba made about the meaning of immovable earth in those "controversial" passages?
Hi Wolfie! Absolutely amazing, as always! May you please give me the field of view of your camera? I would like to compare the footage with Walti's horizon app. Thx:) Cheers, Flo
Hi Wolfie, thanks for the response! I’ve made another overlay with Walter’s app: imgur.com/JzcdVE1 I’ve also scaled the image horizontally in order to emphasize the curvature. Again, the curvature matches quite well! The level indicator of your HUD is slightly below the level in Waltis simulation, which is expected since the HUD is not exactly in the focal plane. Cheers, Flo
Oh, and I’ve made a little unlisted video showing how I made the overlaid image: ua-cam.com/video/B9PZOjtbdpo/v-deo.html Maybe you have use for it. Cheers, Flo
Nice work. You want to see Mr thrive and survives latest attempt using a theodolite app. It's titled "say no to refraction". Right at the start he has the app showing. But wait.... His camera is pitched down by 2.3 degrees and he is claiming that the horizon rises to meet eye level because the horizon marker on the left is at zero. He forgot the difference between pitch and yaw. Or maybe it's intentional....
FrenchCrow Cheers dude. I did have a quick look and pitch, roll and yaw (rudder) are the most used terms. And bank refers to the act of measuring the degree of roll. I'm sure wolfie will correct this or give better detail if it's incorrect lol.
More excellent footage. Having seen curvature from 65,000 feet myself I can assure the FE community you have chosen the losing side. Also, for those commenting on lens distortion, remember you are looking through two lenses in this footage. One being the cockpit glass (high quality non distortion) and the second being the IPhone. If there is any distortion at the edges it will be from the IPhone. We accept your unconditional surrender, now move on to something else.
+The Flat-U-Lator. Thanks. Yes they have most certainly chose the losing side. Their team lost before any of them were born. Every comment they post, experiment they attempt, video they make are all in vain, utterly futile because the Earth is a Globe and they can't do a thing about it except realise it.
As far as I can see from the comments, people did not understand what to look at. Everyone talking about the curvature of the horizon, and not about its drop! You need to focus the audience's attention on the altitude (46,000 feet) and the angle of descent (about 3.5 degrees).
daybit, I suspect those you are referring to are just adding to the topic and not misunderstanding it. The vast majority of commenters here are very familiar with Wolfies work.
Edit: Ray*, are you trying to say that the curve seen is the edge of a disc shaped flat earth, not the curve of a globe? I'd been wondering about this. On a flat earth, the horizon shouldn't be at eye level, and there would be a curve if you could see the edge of the world. It's been funny watching flatters make an argument that didn't fit their own idea :D
Allow me to explain Ray's point a little bit more. Until you are "infinitely" far away from the ball, you always are seeing a horizon that forms a circle around you (if you had 360° field of view). This horizon circle is always smaller than the diameter of the globe, and is in a plane that is perpendicular to your down vector to the center of the earth. The horizon circle is always constrained to a plane, and is geometrically "flat". You are never looking at the "curvature of the earth", per se, but are looking at the curvature of a flat horizon viewed from above that horizon. It's a bit pedantic, but that's why he's saying the horizon is always flat (on a globe earth). Of course, saying that a circle doesn't curve goes a bit against the definition of a circle, but...
Facts and Things Think about this. On a flat earth a 6’ man has a horizon that goes 3 miles in all direction. A flat circle that is level with the feet of the viewer. On a globe, the same man would have the same horizon, but it would be 6’ lower. The WHOLE line would be lower. If it is flat on a flat earth, it’s flat on a globe earth. With enough height and view angle you can start to see the circle of that horizon but it always remains flat!
Well so would I. Keep on the good work mate! Love it when I don't need anymore to write a novel to debunk flat earth. I just link some of your videos and the flatties gone or i am banned/blocked :D
You'll never see a flat earthers provide videos and or images with such clarity. Nor will they pan up and down for that matter.. They even have difficulty at times panning left to right.. It tends to expose their cherry pickings .. no pun intended lol
Very similar view that I've seen from 50,000 feet. Nice work to take it at this time of day to show the curvature. I've had flerfers say they don't believe me. I will link this video next time they say such things.
+Bender2497 Thanks, I already have one claiming the window caused this curvature. He is posting this image as "proof" and claims it is not a fisheye lens. drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly0oOWxtMejp8eQKBnBLDbtbCXhzz_-b/view Note the centre pillar curving - clearly it is a fisheye lens as it does not curve on the real aircraft.
Amazing how they'll flip "it's the curved glass" and "that's a fish eye lens" to suit their needs. When they would tell me that my canopy was curved, hence why I'm seeing a curve at 50K, I'd point out that the same curve was not observed at lower altitudes. If it were the canopy, then that curve should be apparent at every altitude. Usually they wouldn't respond to that. I haven't bothered with these idiots in a long time. But every so often I like to see what their latest argument is. To my disappointment, they have nothing new. Just the same old misunderstandings (or the same trolling). I always enjoy your videos, thanks for keeping them going!
+Perry Mathews. Thanks, the horizon is razor sharp on a clear day just after Sunset South of Australia, No pollution and perfect visibility. You can even see Venus clearly here.
If this was flat, I would expect there to NEVER be a razor sharp horizon, as the atmosphere hazes out the distance... Only a globe setup would offer a clear, clean horizon line.
@@noloferratus Pay attention. Nobody said anything about the curve of the horizon. I said the horizon does not rise to eye level and it doesn't. But since you brought it up, the canopy is NOT curved. Wanna see? ua-cam.com/video/EL4Fmk7S_yk/v-deo.html
Good way to show it. I was thinking about looking through a pipe/telescope parallel to the earth surface from a high view point. The low tech approach.
Gisbert Geier curved windshield, fisheye lens and to be sure a little bit of spherical eyes, and and... And a lot of reasons, something plus, never forget, the atmospheric lens effect. Take that globetard 😂😂
Gisbert Geier i would imagine that it won’t be long before Jesus is Satan pops up, calls everyone ‘monkeyboy’ and slam dunks us all with a looooooool. That seems to be his usual way.
Since I'm not a pilot and have never seen a 'Heads Up Display' some of the information has no meaning to me...I do recognize the altitude and see the 46000 is in a box on the right but the bulls-eye in the middle is lined up with 46500. I would like to know what that means. Would you be a good sport Wolfie6020 and explain on a facsimile what we are seeing at precisely 0:04 in your video? I see compass graduations at the top with pointy things on it, almost perfectly aligned. I see the corners of a box with 5's at the top and -5's at the bottom. I see a floating -W- just above the bulls-eye, and the bulls-eye is very close to perfectly aligned to the longer lines that are left and right of it. *I also see the very dark curved Earth meet the horizon where the atmosphere is putting on a colorful show.* And I bet when all this is tied together *globe Earth has been observed* AGAIN. Thank you, Wolfie
Wolfie6020 yes you could do one on cruising altitude nose angle also. Also how that would affect the horizon shown at that angle. That would be interesting I think..... Maybe you already have one done and can post me a link ☺
Great footage. This should be the new reference for everybody crying "show me the curve" and "the horizon is always at eye level". The best is that at 0:29 both the artificial horizon and the real horizon are visible!
Gisbert Geier - That's the point I like the best. It literally shows what Wolfie has been telling everyone for a while yet they never believed him. Now they will have to accept defeat.
Flat Earth Logic: “Photographers always point their camera toward the horizon. Therefore, the horizon is always at eye level. Therefore, the Earth is flat.” Flat Earth Logic applies to zoology: “According to science, dogs are animals that bark. Here is a short video of an animal that is not barking. This proves that it is not a dog.”
+Craig Burridge - Craig linking to P-Brane’s video again just makes you look twice as silly. Here is my first reply to you again in case you missed it. LOL, so many fails in one comment. 1. No P-Brane was never blocked and is still not blocked. 2. His video is nonsense and I have absolute proof he is 100% wrong. 3. P-Brane and I discussed this over a year ago and I showed him the 100% proof there is no drop caused by the window. So he deliberately lied to you. 4. Go and look at the images linked under my video and then apologise to your Dad for growing up to be a fool. 5. Go and get a wet cloth ready to wipe all the egg off your face when you see my response to him. Dude, every day Flat Earthers continue to prove they are the most gullible People on Earth. Congratulations. You did it again. You actually think we use saucepan lids as cockpit windows? Don’t take flying lessons please. P-Brane just gave me another easy opportunity to show the world how silly Flat Earthers really are.
Wolfie6020 so triggered ...so desparate to peddle misinfo disinfo...truly sad dude. Earth is flat and motionless and convergence of the horizon aint curvature and it always raises to and at eye level. P brane is spot on and true. I love how you love your own shit that stinks of bs to high heaven and your followers just eat it up. funny you guys lap up the ball indoctrination and propaganda ...,sad how you defend and promote the deception. The trigger in you guys is hilarious.
+Craig Burridge. Craig - you are reading this totally wrong mate. Listen carefully to my voice in my videos. This is just a game. Do you really think aircraft use saucepan lids for windows? He was shown this a year ago and knows the window produces no drop. He just plays his flute and all the gullible follow. You are the one on my channel constantly in damage control Craig. If you had one ounce of faith in your fairytale you would not care what I do. Look at all the videos popping up with my name in them. You guys are totally spooked as Flat Earth enters its death rattle phase.
MrLieAndConnive is going to have to do his best to circle talk out of this.... considering he just tried to use the whole horizon rises to eye level bullshit
Of course it isn’t. Well done. Even if it were, it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Just like 90% of flat earth arguments. Also. Nice curved horizon.
How high up were you? We could estimate the radius of the earth using your height and the angular drop of the horizon from eye level, and I'm curious to try it.
zero132132 46000 feet, convert to meters - 14 kilometers, then the expected drop of the horizon (without refraction) is approximately 3.8 degrees. Because of the refraction, the drop of the visible horizon is slightly less. Say, 3.5 degrees. That is approx what we are witnessing in the video.
There are two horizons we can talk about. 1) The horizon as we generally understand it, the line where the surface and the heavens apparently meet when we look out. 2) The perspective drawing horizon, which is at zero degree (looking straight ahead) eye level, below which we perceive objects situated at a relatively lower angle, and the opposite for above. If horizon 1 and horizon 2 meet at the same line, regardless if you're at a high or low altitude, then that means there is no drop/rise in horizon 1, which inevitably leads to the conclusion of a flat surface below, and not some convex or concave one. Here's the thing with your video: 1) The HUD shows where the aircraft is pointed and heading, not where your camera/eyes are pointed. You can have the HUD on your lap, and it will still show the same thing. You could look at it from a higher angle, and it will still show the same thing, because it is connected to the aircraft's properties, not that of your camera. But if in this case you look at the HUD from a higher angle, you can visually get the horizon 2 line meet the horizon 1. But it still says nothing, because the HUD has nothing to do with your camera or whatever angle or position it is at. 2) The watermark (elongated W) is clearly above the horizon 2 line in the HUD. This means that the aircraft is tilted approximately 2 degrees upward, estimated from the 5 degree increment lines there. This in turn means that when you use your camera from your cockpit, you should actually tilt the camera downwards a bit in order to compensate for the 2 degree upward tilt of your aircraft. 3) On the image, your flightpath marker (the circle with wings/lines on the sides) is level with the horizon 2 line on the HUD. And you say that this is proof. But this has nothing to do with you looking at the horizon. This means that your aircraft is flying at a straight line. Your flightpath marker shows where the aircraft is headed, not where it is pointed. As should be expected, your aircraft is actually pointed about 2 degrees upwards in order to maintain a level flight, which it does since the FPM meets the horizon 2 line. 4) If you want to show that horizon 1 is below horizon 2, then use a camera with a watermark connected to it. Then point that camera over the HUD so that we can see where the aircraft nose is pointed at the same time, since here your aircraft is pointed upward, and we have no idea what angle your camera is pointed at relative a level watermark horizon. This video further shows that the airplane is flying straight ahead without gaining any altitude due to curvature drop, as would be expected when the airplane flies over a plane surface. The VS (vertical speed) indicator on the lower right corner just moves slightly up and down due to surface or pressure perturbations, but on average just stays at zero, as should be expected when flying over a flat surface.
The horizon is never at eye level at high altitude. You can do a simple experiment to prove this like seymoresaymore just showed you. Or get a hot air balloon and on the basket strap a camera say the p900 since FE's have a crush on it. And point it level with the basket and lift off at higher altitudes the horizon will drop. Your "horizon 1" the red and orange is what I'm guessing your talking about. Is actually cloud's in the distance and you can clearly see this. Your horizon 2 is the real and actual horizon of the earth.
seymoresaymore, You can't expect me to go to a link which in turn links to 4 other videos, 2 of them being of the same nature as this one, and have me analyze them instead of analyzing the topic we have at hand here. If every argument was conducted in that manner one would have an exponentially growing number of links to analyze instead of talking about the subject that you initially started out with. I'll refrain from responding to you in like manner by linking to 4 flat earth videos for you to debunk and circumvent the actual case at hand here in this clip. The topic at hand here is this clip, where the nose of the aircraft based on the HUD is pitching about 2 degrees up, the airplane from that flying level, and a camera pointed at some unknown angle in order to attempt to prove that the perspective horizon is above the visual horizon. Further also that the aircraft is maintaining a constant altitude during a level flight. If you wish to reply, don't do so by linking to a link that links to 8 other topics.
Nephilim Gabriel, Horizon 1 is the visual horizon, where land and sky apparently meet. In this case it's where the dark (land) and red (sky) apparently meet. Horizon 2 is the perspective horizon, in the HUD it's the long horizontal line. For the airplane's case, the HUD's horizon line represents an imaginary surface going through the airplane, parallel to the surface of the ground below. Since the watermark on the HUD is above the HUD's horizon line, it means the airplane is pitched up, somewhere about 2 degrees based on the 5 degree increments there on the HUD. That the flightpath marker (circle with wings) and the horizon line on the HUD meet each other, means nothing else but that the airplane is flying level. You can film it from any angle or distance, it won't work to prove anything, since the HUD displays the state of the airplane, not that of the camera. If you still insist on pointing the camera parallel to the ground below, then you have to at least take into consideration that the airplane there is actually titled 2 degrees up, which you have to compensate for by tilting the camera 2 degrees down relative the nose of the airplane. There's a difference between perspective horizon (horizon 2) and the common terminology of horizon (horizon 1) where land and sky apparently meet. I don't have the money to spend on a P900, let alone a hot air balloon. I don't have the time to waste on peoples efforts of redirecting me to links which in turn link to more links and derail the actual topic I present here.
Underheaven8 no you just don't want see actual evidence that proves a curve which the video does. And the FACT that the horizon is NOT always at eye level. Guess your a butt hurt flattard and deny anything that shows you wrong as you have proven.
It really looks like curvature, but NAV Balls don't respond to feelings and eyes. I just feel for more study on the left to right curvature before I give that a name. The forward curve is acceptable to me as something in the globe direction.
It's never occurred to me before, but I guess you have to adjust the head-up display to the eye-line of the pilot so that the artificial horizon is where it should be? That is, a shorter pilot than you would have to adjust it down to meet their eye-line?
You have to adjust your seat height until you can see all of the information, so that fact that you are seeing the HUD projection means your eye is more or less level with no parallax.
+NelC - Yes we have eye alignment balls in the aircraft and when you adjust your seat you have to line up the balls. When they are in line you have the perfect eye position. The eye position will be the same for each pilot even if the Seat position is different. I cover it a little more in this video around 3:30. ua-cam.com/video/P3dwvAW88Tg/v-deo.html
NelC That’s a very good observation, and some flat earthers will claim that Wolfie has cheated by simply holding the camera outside the eye box to force the result he wants to show. In reality, moving around in front of the HUD has very little impact on where the zero pitch line appears in relation to the real horizon, but it has a HUGE effect on how much of the HUD symbology is visible. This short clip demonstrates that it’s not possible to fake what Wolfie has shown here by purposely holding the camera outside of the eye-box ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html
Wolfie, Again I see Flatwits commenting that the curvature is caused by the cockpit window. May I suggest taking a short vid from a suitably lower altitude. I'm guessing during decent would be best. By the way. Have you put in an order for the P1000 yet? I can't wait. Fixed the horrible manual focusing method of the P900 is enough for me. :)
+Rob Guyatt. Yes they will try that window curvature every time. I have this video from 6000 ft that shows no curvature but will try to get one through the HUD when possible. We don't spend much time flying level at low altitudes - even here it was only a few seconds level at 6000 ft before starting the final approach. ua-cam.com/video/qJtxXWP4mgY/v-deo.html I'll definitely pick up the P1000 when it is available. It looks great.
Thanks Wolfie, I suppose if it's just a comparison of when curve can be seen or not, the HUD is not so important. Re the P1000, I've talked to Diamonds in Adelaide where I get all my kit, and they expect it to be a couple weeks. :)
Unfortunately it seems your camera is inside the cockpit instead of mounted externally therefore the observed curvature could simply be caused by the canopy of the aircraft. Again you have proved nothing.
FEs could say that horizon is at eye level but looks lower only because the plane is flying "nose up"... Please *tell me is this is correct or not* because avionics has never really been my thing: on the video we are flying "level" and the HUD shows the velocity vector -- ϕ -- above horizon (or horizon about 3.5° below eye level). The pitch attitude -- w -- is above the velocity vector (which defines the angle of attack).
Thank you! Earth radius calculation: If α=3.5° at altitude h=46,000 ft= 14 km, then R=h*cosα / (1-cosα) = 7492 km with standard refraction it would be 7/6*R=7492 km then R = 6421 km (official value 6371 km)
Clouds behind the Sun!! Err…. does reflected sunlight from clouds on other planets count? I mean, Venus is still farther away than the Sun is, and therefore - kind of, technically - behind it, right? 😊 BTW, beautiful, upward curvature, even when the horizon was near the bottom of the frame! BTW2, at that altitude (46,000 ft) the horizon is 423 km away if refraction is ignored.
With a screen width of 195mm and only 3mm curvature max, it actually goes down to 2mm, where is your earth curvature? There should be 5mm curvature of that horizon on my screen. You need a fish eye lens wolfie if you want to see earth curvature and not just be looking at the limit of what’s visible. How wide do you estimate that horizon to be?
Honest question: does your plane have gyroscopic instruments? I'm curious how they work, because a physical gyroscope would maintain orientation as you fly around the curve. Again this is an honest question, not trolling or setting up an argument :)
+Tom Bombadil. Hi Tom. Planes do have gyroscopic instruments. The artificial horizon has correcting mechanisms that will always keep it adjusted to show horizontal. These mechanisms correct for flying around the curve. Here are some videos I made looking inside at how the mechanism works. ua-cam.com/video/z1QGRPVBZvw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/-0n-UDrB3Ys/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/TbqcT05YWeo/v-deo.html
Great video, but you might need to explain the symbology to the general public. If somebody understands exactly what they are seeing here, they would have a whole new appreciation for horizon dip and the earths curvature.
Wolfe can I please share this with Nick (Phuket idiot) on his latest attempt to decry curvature, please please please as it will make his day I just know it 🤣
+SuperSi Thedogs, Sure, and ask him why he refused to accept the free solar filters so he could do his Sun size experiment properly. I offered it many times and he made excuses each time which is why I gave up on him months ago.
What is the view when on the ground from this view? Or will it show that stuff aimed lower then what the optics here seems, because if no proof it shows true level to start with, no way to prove insane claim.
the proof is that the plane hasn't crashed, if the instruments did not accurately represent reality then it would be a serious risk to the safety of anyone onboard. It isn't such a good idea to kill the people that give you money with faulty equipment.
@@thetobyntr9540 Because you say something is not proof of what was asked. Do you have a mental defect in reading? Because you did not address anything, Are you that stupid?
@@glenn_gallaher "Because you say something is not proof of what was asked." Nothing you say can nullify fact that faulty instruments can lead to crashes. That's what I was getting at, and if you don't understand that then you are more deserving of being subjected to your next question than I am. "Do you have a mental defect in reading?" Not at all, in lower grades I won awards at my school for proficiency in English and in high school I maintained better grasp of what the textbooks said than a decent portion of my classmates. It actually seems to be you that has the language issues here, going by how bad your grammar is. Seriously, how do you type out a set of barely connected fragmented statements like that and expect anyone to have a good idea of what you're trying to say? "Because you did not address anything" No, I did. I addressed your claim that the instruments on the plane could possibly be faulty in this bit: "no proof it shows true level to start with". However, you didn't show an adequate enough mastery of English to make it clear to tell exactly what you meant, I just assumed that and the word salad that came after it meant that the instruments on the plane were faulty, and that the claim they are being used to support is insane. "Are you that stupid?" I mean, you are the one here who seems to have no clue how my mention of proof has anything to do with your statement that included the mention of a lack of proof. The fact that the plane did not crash or have anything wrong with it as far as the pilot could tell is proof enough that the instruments are likely not faulty in any noticeable way, let alone faulty enough to project the horizon a whole ~4.4° higher than where you think it should be.
@@glenn_gallaher "you can not prove what it acts like on ground level to start with." Since you didn't bother to mention what you were talking about (from context I can tell it's about the plane at least) i'm going to assume you're talking about the HUD. Your statement is wrong, and I can prove it, since wolfie posted a video showing it operating while on the ground: ua-cam.com/video/kWKFW_V_Fug/v-deo.html You can clearly see that in the video, the virtual horizon matches with the actual horizon to within a fourth of a degree, and if it's the same system as in the video above this then it's very easy to deduce at least that the horizon does appear to drop with altitude. That discrepancy of about .25° is due to the ground in that direction being a short hill.
That looked like a beautiful flight! And there also is the horizontal curve Flatties always demand to see. You can't just look out your bedroom window and see the curve, guys! Nor buildings tilting away which is even more stupid.
I've heard this one a few times from them. "I know we live on a flat Earth because the buildings across my road aren't leaning back". Ok, I said, so what about the people observing from buildings situated down the closest T-junction then? Should they also see buildings leaning back? Exactly how big do you think this planet is? Honestly, it's like dealing with preschoolers. Oh, and if I did happen to get a response, of course it completely ignored my point and either called me an ugly witch or told me to "do my own research" Yawn.
Just Kate Yeah they're an idiotic bunch! The 'do your own research' retort is a lame one; Flatties can't tell their arses from their mouths! In fact, they have them so confused that what comes out of their mouths is crap. I wouldn't worry about insults from them. Especially if they call you ugly. They have no taste.
The horizon seems to be 3° below the velocity vector, but according to my calculation it should be 3.8° at 46,000 ft. Is that difference caused by refraction, or was the horizon we see here actually the top of a cloud layer a few kilometres above sea level? Or maybe the camera wasn't precisely aligned with the HUD?
Dejan Haskovic The horizontal line on the HUD is _level,_ which by definition is perpendicular to the local direction of gravity, also known as _down._ The double circle in the middle is the _velocity vector,_ the direction the plane is flying at the moment. It's positioned on the level line, meaning that the plane is not climbing or descending. If it was, the altimeter to the right (reading 46,000 ft) would be changing. The "w" symbol above the horizontal line marks the plane's _angle of attack,_ the angle the nose is pointing relative to the velocity vector. It's normal for many planes to have the nose pointing slightly up when flying level. And finally, as clearly shown in most of the video, the horizon is about 3/5 of the way down from level to the minus 5 degree mark, meaning that the horizon has dropped 3 degrees.
FromNorway Keep in mind that the altitude shown in the HUD is not the true altitude above sea level. Depending on sea level pressure at the time, and the actual pressure lapse rate between the ground and the airplane, he could be actually higher or lower than the altitude indicated in the HUD.
53C52 Yes, I know that the real altitude will differ somewhat from the indicated altitude depending on the sea level pressure and pressure gradient because the altimeter is basically a barometer. When flying above a certain altitude (18,000 ft in the US) the altimeter is calibrated to a standard sea level pressure of 1013.25 hectopascals or 29.92 inches of mercury. It may be interesting to note that if the horizon actually was at true eye level and this plane's velocity vector was pointing 3° up, it would be climbing more than 2500 ft per minute, assuming a speed of 900 km/h.
FromNorway Flat earthers tend to get all wound up if the math doesn’t match up perfectly out to 6 decimal places. They ignore the fact that when you apply the math to their model it’s off by a factor of 2, but if you’re off by a mere 2% it’s somehow proof that the globe is wrong. Just wanted to put it out there for them that there are unknown variables at play here, so we shouldn’t expect to be able to calculate the *exact* dip angle from the information in this video. I doubt any of them understand that the true altitude can easily differ from the pressure altitude displayed on the HUD/altimeter by thousands of feet at normal cruising levels.
@Richard Petrus - www.metabunk.org/curve/ Use this metabunk calculator and at 46K feet Wolfie can see 260 miles in all directions...to the horizon. He is flying in the center of a giant projected cone *17.26 miles high above the horizon.* That's 8.7 miles immediately under the plane *_AND_** an additional 8.5 miles of drop **_AROUND_** the globe Earth.* Wolfie's jet is in the middle of a 520 mile diameter circle...that meets at the horizon. The calculator has a great interactive illustration (below all the data) where you can see how the geometry inter-relates.
The plane points slightly up indeed. The pitch attitude -- w -- is above the velocity vector -- ϕ -- which is aligned with eye level. And the horizon is about 3.5° below eye level.
If the horizon really was at eye level - as flattards believe - and the velocity vector was 3.5° above it, the plane would be climbing about 3000 ft per minute!
It's not just the horizon, according to flatards, all Australians are photoshopped by NASA too, so Wolfie can't have made this video. Move along, nothing to see here.
Miguel Ferreira Mouta Junior you have been deceived all your life, the moon is just a projection by NASA to keep you thinking the Earth is round when it is actually flat. We know this because "reasons". ;)
Playing devil's advocate, this video could be shot from a lower perspective than the HUD (i.e. holding the camera at chest-level). That would also mean the horizon appears to be below eye level.
Christer Toll No, the HUD doesn’t work like that. You can see for yourself in just 11 seconds... ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html Note that the horizon line move up when the camera moves up and moves down when the camera moves down. The relationship between the horizon line in the HUD and the world outside is virtually unchanged, but the symbology near the top or bottom of the HUD begins to disappear very quickly as soon as the camera is moved out of the eye-box.
Well.. Cue excuses, panic, panic, panic, Some wheel on Lielly as a distraction STAT! And the latest scores are Wolfie6020 1000,000 FE et al minus several billion^28.
+Joe Cooksey. It is 10am here and I am about to set up the telescope for a Moonrise early morning. Might grab a few hours sleep somewhere in between. My schedule changed at short notice so I have two weeks at home I wasn't expecting. Happy days.
I think you mean 10PM.... lol. I just looked.... moon rise is at 4:32 am.... with about 4% lit. I hope you can get me a moon shot after the sun comes up! Have a good one.
I agree it’s not flat. But it’s not moving either. Earth is definitely a globe, but heliocentrism is wrong. Earth is stationary. The stationary geocentric model is the most likely explanation of where we live.
Alright, interesting perspective, can you explain how a gyrocompass works on a stationary earth? Do you agree with gravitational models? And why are objects lighter at the equator than the poles?
@@timetraveler7 who verified that objects at the poles are heavier than at the equator? Can I have a video of the experiments carried out to prove these facts and not fiction?
@@John_Johnson746 yes, there is a video by a guy named Wolfie6020, he's a pilot he verified this by measuring a weight near the poles and near the equator.
+max dbb - Read the video title. I think you missed the point. However if you want to analyse the window. Do it properly with this footage. See the eye alignment balls? That is the line you need to focus on because that is where the camera was - it needs to be exactly the right portion to see the symbology in the HUD. An inch or two either way and you would lose the display. Here you go. Let me see what you have got and please try to do better than the last guy who used the wrong part of the window entirely. ua-cam.com/video/i4T9YsSwYcc/v-deo.html
i didnt miss the point , i have worked in an airport and done testing inside the aircraft and outside of the aircraft . The windows fitted in all of the aircrafts are curved . to point out the obvious lie is the camera lense ( fish eye lense ) during the footage showing the curved effect . Horizon stays flat no matter what .
+max dbb. Sorry Max, your second comment also shows me you still miss the point of this video. Read the title again and repeat it back to me please. No it is not a fisheye lens at all. That proves you don't know what you are talking about. A fisheye lens would distort the instruments at the bottom of the image but they are straight horizontally and vertically even bottom frame. So that proves you wrong right there. You worked at an airport. Ok, but how many hours do you have in the pilot seat above 45,000 ft? Be honest.
@wolfie honestly though , should u take a 0.47 seconds of a video footage to prove horizon ? were is explanation how horizon works in different aspects of the observation that claims the proof ?? all experiments shows us the earth is undeniably flat .
*_"the obvious lie is the camera lense ( fish eye lense )"_* Umm since when has the iPhone had a fisheye lens? And if the camera was fisheye then why are no instruments distorted and why doesn't the curve look different when at the top and bottom of the frame? That's a _very_ strange fisheye. Are NASA providing Wolfie with special custom made lenses now?
Also, Wolfie... one more thing... as your sled is cruising along nicely in level flight, and your AH indicates *level flight* , you should take note that if you were actually flying around the curved surface of a massive globe shaped earth, your *pitch attitude* would be increasingly nose-down and you would be in a descent with the power levers back a good ways. You do realize that on a *3000 mile* flight... if the earth is a sphere... that you would need to lose *6 million vertical feet of curvature* , and your accumulated nose down pitch would be somewhere in the neighborhood of - 38 degrees by the time you arrive at your destination... correct? Not possible when you are flying along nice and level;)
khatun 777 8” per mile squared is a observation from a fixed point. That does not apply to a moving aircraft... And even if it did, a plane flying 600 mph would only have to account for .22 inches every second... and all flights gain or lose that amount constantly! Your argument is lame and invalid!
khatun 777 - Its amazing that somebody like you actually has no idea how the basic things on the earth actually work. Actually shocking that adult humans can be this dumb!!! An everage 6 year old could undesrtand this!! Hope you don't mind im actually going to share this comment on my Instagram,(wont use your name) Its just too good for the masses not to see!!
khatun 777 Picture this. Take a camera on a string and spin it around. Now slow the film down so one orbit around you takes about 48 hours. That is what a plane sees as it is going around the earth... that string is the force of gravity... or if you prefer... that fact we all fall at 9.8m s^s and if you do not change your flight dynamics (thrust/drag lift/gravity) then you will remain at the same altitude.
+khatun 777 C'mon my friend. I have addressed that many times. Are you really still confused by the geometry of a circle? Try this mate. Hold a model aircraft above a model globe and just spin the globe underneath it. How much does the attitude of the aircraft change? If I lost 6 Million vertical feet then I would be more than a thousand miles underground. The point you are missing here is that the direction of "vertical" changes the minute you start moving. 1 degree per 111 km. Secondly, to follow a circle you must remain the same distance from the centre of the circle. That equates to flying a constant altitude in an aircraft. No descent required. Think about it. If the Earth's surface is curved and you maintain 40,000 ft above that surface as you fly then you are flying a curve too. 3rd grade geometry.
Wolfie....Nice try, but painfully obvious is the fact that your eye/lens height is low here and looking UP to "level" on the HUD. Also, if you flew a Boeing with a flat windscreen, your "curved" horizon would no longer be curved. Just a hunch;) Looks beautiful out there.
+khatun777 Hi and yes it was beautiful on this flight. Am I correct in saying you never used a HUD in a Global Express? The field of view is tiny and if your eyes are one inch too high or too low you can lose the HUD symbology completely. That is why we must use the eye alignment balls carefully when adjusting the seat before take off. The same thing happens with the phone camera. If I had the camera even slightly lower than the HUD it would not show any of the data you see here. I'll cover that fully in a future video - I don't have access to the plane for two weeks now.
Wolfie, I have never stepped foot into a Global sled, nor have I used that HUD. I also know that aside from precisely adjusting my seat for takeoff/landing... I always used to ride nice and low in the saddle during flat level cruise flight....occasionally eating dinner;) I do see what you are saying about viewing the HUD data. Cheers.
khatun 777 I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone tried to make the BS claim that the camera angle is what is causing this. It only proves you know little about a HUD. Changing the viewing angle does virtually nothing to affect the relationship between the zero pitch line and the actual horizon. It does have a massive effect on how much of the HUD symbology is visible as this short clip shows... ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html You can’t force the HUD’s horizon to move more than 3 degrees above the Earth’s horizon by moving the camera up and down. Nice try though.
If your eye level is looking upward to the HUD - you ain't gonna see jackshite on the combiner(glass part). Safe to say Khatun has never looked through a HUD on any type of airplane. It's extremely sensitive to eye height.
In addition to Venus and the horizon drop, that's also by _far_ the best curved horizon vid you've posted as well. Beautiful!
+John Michaelson - Yes I have to agree with you on that. I need to get the exact same view when it is on the ground in the hanger looking at a horizontal line on the wall to prove it is not being caused by the window. Once I have that I will make the public video.
Yes very nice work. Capturing the curved horizon from ground is a bit more difficult, flic.kr/p/WcGDHb
"I need to get the exact same view when it is on the ground in the hanger looking at a horizontal line on the wall to prove it is not being caused by the window. Once I have that I will make the public video."
You have done that.
John Michaelson
I agree, also if he had waited a bit longer he may have been able to get Mercury in the shot as well.. but the horizon may not have been as clear.
This was taken before Mercury was around, but Mercury should be bright enough to appear. It can hit mag -1 when approaching or re-emerging from behind the sun, almost as bright as Sirius.
That's a gorgeous twilight. Venus and the curved horizon just make our beautiful spheroid earth even more stunning.
The horizon line on the HUD is straight but the earths horizon is slightly curved and it's dropped 3.5 degrees. Jeez its almost like the earth is a sphere. Great video Wolfie!
Its called a canopy. Proof that he forgot to mount the camera externally.
Wow! To see curvature above and below center of frame just blew the lens distortion excuse right out the window! Killer footage!!
"But it's photoshopped. Even Nasa says photos are photoshopped."
Janne Laitinen Photoshopped because of various satellites taking pictures of a planet that’s circumference of 24900 miles. But flat earthers think NASA can take a picture of earth with an I phone and that earth is only 21 inches in circumference.
You're right, very clear curve in the same direction above and below the center of frame! There seems to be a little bit of distortion to the right at some point (I might be mistaken), but not in general. Even in Rob Skiba's famous video the curve is clearly visible in the center of the frame, so the excuses were moot anyways.
The glass on the plane is curved.....have you you ever looked into a large aquarium before? Same thing happens. Even without curved glass, if it is thick enough and poorer quality glass, it will distort vision
I guess this is what can be seen on the right side. It depends on were and how you look through the glass (at which angle the light rays travel to the camera's lens). The large aquarium has not the same effect as a curved glass pane, because refraction is different for air and water - a bad comparison, at least when it comes to the severity of the distortion.
How dare you fly up to 46000 feet and do some actual observations. The flat head way is just to make an unsubstantiated statement and leave it at that.
Earth's curvature is the one of the best parts of being a pilot.
Hey Wolfie, that is the single best flat busting footage I have ever seen. HUD showing strait and level flight, the horizon clearly below eye level and a beautiful curve seen through the window. Love your videos.
+Christoph Hippmann Thanks Christoph. Some will try to blame the window but I have a follow planned up that will blow that idea "out the window"
Here is a nice independent verification that what you see matches the expected curve from this altitude.
imgur.com/JzcdVE1
Wolfie6020, re the window I actually think that is busted in the video. You can see the curve (dip) on both end. From other clips I believe you fly a XRS and you are taking the clip from the left seat. (only half the cockpit window is visible. With that if it were just the window I would expect to only see the dip OK the left as the window "curves". But then again for some people any evidence will either be ignored or counted by "it's the cammera" or "cgi"
Love your videos and slightly jealous of the metal you get to play with every day.
stop at 0:35 and scroll down till the horizon touches the top of the browser
They say trust your senses...
I say, do you really think your brain and eyes can pick up a 1-3 degree drop off the horizon? That's why we make tools for measurements. They think their eyes are better than this.
Thanks for this video of precise instruments doing what I claim their senses can't detect. You're awesome
I like to think of a calculator. Sure, we ourselves can do math in our heads to a degree (besides the rare savant who is amazing at math), but does not a calculator make math MUCH easier to the other 99% of the population? Is it not much better than our brains at adding numbers? we have senses sure, but we also have created tools that are better in some regards. humans have amazing eyesight, but we cant 'zoom in' at all, that is why we have telescopes and other tools to aid us.
Nautical twilight, the best time to view Earth's silhouette.
I do not know why people use the Bible to support this flat earth theory.
The Bible does not confirm this.
It just says the earth was created first. Then came the sun and the moon and it sure does look like we are perfectly placed in between them.
Also
“Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.”
Isaiah 48:13 NKJV
That definitely alludes to an expanse
The problem with Scripture is that it is open to many interpretations. Take Genesis 1:7 (KJV) for example, the separation of the waters above and below the firmament. Which explains why the sky is and blue why space cannot exist!
There is clearly a theological debate to be had between the majority of flattards, who rely on Biblical authority, and the overwhelming majority of their fellow Christians who have no problem with a spherical earth and the heliocentric model. I offer Biblically inspired flattards the wise words of Augustine of Hippo (354-430):
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons...and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh at it to scorn.”.
[From 'De Genesi ad Litteram')]
Well, I'm a glober Earther, but there certainly are verses in the bible that only make sense from the perspective of a flat Earth. For example, when Daniel has his dream, he sees a tree "growing in the center of the Earth" that "all can see". How could this be possible on a sphere? And when the devil takes Jesus to the top of the exceeding high mountain, he shows Him "all the kingdoms of the world" which would also be impossible on a sphere no matter how high the mountain was.
It also _explicitly_ says several times that the Earth is "immovable".
The sun and moon were created on the fourth "day", so how did the first 3 "days" happen? Obviously this person knew that the sun came out DURING the day, but had no idea that the sun CAUSED the day to happen, so having the sun (and moon) created on the fourth day was no big deal. And we know they were supposed to be thought of as actual days because at the end of each day of creation it says, "And the evening and the morning were the [blank] day". Just saying...
JustWasted3HoursHere Daniel's dream is a dream that uses symbolism. Surely you will not going to suggest there are trees that are miles high?
Also, HaSatan taking Yeshua to the highest mountain to show all the kingdoms of the world how suggests the earth is flat exactly? Could not HaSatan have used the supernatural to achieve that task? Of course he could! Besides, we know too well that the highest mountain in the world above the sea level, mount Everest, that people successfully summited many times over, does not allow us to see all the countries of the world. That is a fact! If HaSatan took Yeshua to Everest there is no way Yeshua could physically be able to see "all the kingdoms of the world". The purpose of the adversary taking Messiah to a highest peak is to give Him a sense of authority, a sense of being elevated above everything and everyone in the world.
In cases where Scriptures use word "immovable" concerning the earth, did you happen to read those passages in their entirety IN CONTEXT? Or do you automatically believed the assertions con man Skiba made about the meaning of immovable earth in those "controversial" passages?
JustWasted3HoursHere How did creation of the sun on the 4th day even remotely suggests the flat pancake earth?!
i'll admit that i didn't get all the way through this, i think i called it quits at about 30 minutes
ua-cam.com/video/jszkiXTdvRM/v-deo.html
Hi Wolfie! Absolutely amazing, as always! May you please give me the field of view of your camera? I would like to compare the footage with Walti's horizon app. Thx:)
Cheers,
Flo
+Flo Plus. Hi Flo, sorry I did not see your comment. This was the iPhone 7 again.
Hi Wolfie, thanks for the response! I’ve made another overlay with Walter’s app: imgur.com/JzcdVE1 I’ve also scaled the image horizontally in order to emphasize the curvature. Again, the curvature matches quite well! The level indicator of your HUD is slightly below the level in Waltis simulation, which is expected since the HUD is not exactly in the focal plane.
Cheers,
Flo
Oh, and I’ve made a little unlisted video showing how I made the overlaid image: ua-cam.com/video/B9PZOjtbdpo/v-deo.html Maybe you have use for it.
Cheers,
Flo
+Flo Plus. Perfect, thanks I'll use that in a follow up.
Appreciate the tutorial also. That is very helpful.
Nice work. You want to see Mr thrive and survives latest attempt using a theodolite app. It's titled "say no to refraction". Right at the start he has the app showing. But wait.... His camera is pitched down by 2.3 degrees and he is claiming that the horizon rises to meet eye level because the horizon marker on the left is at zero. He forgot the difference between pitch and yaw. Or maybe it's intentional....
My bad. I think it's pitch and roll. My avionic terminology is rather bad. I should have checked before posting the previous comment.
Some flat earth "pilot" speak about "nose and bank" instead of "pitch and roll", so don't worry ;-)
it's definitely intentional with him. Rich is a professional liar just like all flat earth channels. He just wants to make a buck.
FrenchCrow
Cheers dude.
I did have a quick look and pitch, roll and yaw (rudder) are the most used terms. And bank refers to the act of measuring the degree of roll.
I'm sure wolfie will correct this or give better detail if it's incorrect lol.
I think "bank" is more from everyday language, and "roll" more directly related to boats/planes, but maybe the equivalents in French influenced me.
I still don't see the curve.
Just kidding. Cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
4 dislikes...the butthurt is strong already.
More excellent footage. Having seen curvature from 65,000 feet myself I can assure the FE community you have chosen the losing side. Also, for those commenting on lens distortion, remember you are looking through two lenses in this footage. One being the cockpit glass (high quality non distortion) and the second being the IPhone. If there is any distortion at the edges it will be from the IPhone. We accept your unconditional surrender, now move on to something else.
+The Flat-U-Lator. Thanks. Yes they have most certainly chose the losing side. Their team lost before any of them were born.
Every comment they post, experiment they attempt, video they make are all in vain, utterly futile because the Earth is a Globe and they can't do a thing about it except realise it.
As far as I can see from the comments, people did not understand what to look at. Everyone talking about the curvature of the horizon, and not about its drop! You need to focus the audience's attention on the altitude (46,000 feet) and the angle of descent (about 3.5 degrees).
daybit, I suspect those you are referring to are just adding to the topic and not misunderstanding it. The vast majority of commenters here are very familiar with Wolfies work.
Rob
I will be glad if I was mistaken )
Irrefutable evidence of both the existence of the curvature and the horizon being below eye level. Nice one Wolfie!
100% correct Daryl!
Daryl White
Texhinically the horizon is not curving... you are just viewing the circle... the horizon always remains flat
Edit: Ray*, are you trying to say that the curve seen is the edge of a disc shaped flat earth, not the curve of a globe?
I'd been wondering about this. On a flat earth, the horizon shouldn't be at eye level, and there would be a curve if you could see the edge of the world.
It's been funny watching flatters make an argument that didn't fit their own idea :D
Allow me to explain Ray's point a little bit more. Until you are "infinitely" far away from the ball, you always are seeing a horizon that forms a circle around you (if you had 360° field of view). This horizon circle is always smaller than the diameter of the globe, and is in a plane that is perpendicular to your down vector to the center of the earth. The horizon circle is always constrained to a plane, and is geometrically "flat". You are never looking at the "curvature of the earth", per se, but are looking at the curvature of a flat horizon viewed from above that horizon.
It's a bit pedantic, but that's why he's saying the horizon is always flat (on a globe earth). Of course, saying that a circle doesn't curve goes a bit against the definition of a circle, but...
Facts and Things
Think about this.
On a flat earth a 6’ man has a horizon that goes 3 miles in all direction. A flat circle that is level with the feet of the viewer.
On a globe, the same man would have the same horizon, but it would be 6’ lower. The WHOLE line would be lower.
If it is flat on a flat earth, it’s flat on a globe earth.
With enough height and view angle you can start to see the circle of that horizon but it always remains flat!
What does your pilot partner think when you are making these videos all the time? I bet he thinks "wtf, people seriously thinks the earth is flat?" :D
+radeee87. They don't really care. They take photos too quite often but for "normal" reasons. i.e to show the family.
Well so would I. Keep on the good work mate! Love it when I don't need anymore to write a novel to debunk flat earth. I just link some of your videos and the flatties gone or i am banned/blocked :D
+Wolfie LOL "normal reasons". :-)
You'll never see a flat earthers provide videos and or images with such clarity. Nor will they pan up and down for that matter.. They even have difficulty at times panning left to right.. It tends to expose their cherry pickings .. no pun intended lol
Mate, what a beautiful work deck you have. Once again I'm so jealous..
Very similar view that I've seen from 50,000 feet. Nice work to take it at this time of day to show the curvature. I've had flerfers say they don't believe me. I will link this video next time they say such things.
+Bender2497 Thanks, I already have one claiming the window caused this curvature.
He is posting this image as "proof" and claims it is not a fisheye lens.
drive.google.com/file/d/1Ly0oOWxtMejp8eQKBnBLDbtbCXhzz_-b/view
Note the centre pillar curving - clearly it is a fisheye lens as it does not curve on the real aircraft.
Amazing how they'll flip "it's the curved glass" and "that's a fish eye lens" to suit their needs. When they would tell me that my canopy was curved, hence why I'm seeing a curve at 50K, I'd point out that the same curve was not observed at lower altitudes. If it were the canopy, then that curve should be apparent at every altitude. Usually they wouldn't respond to that. I haven't bothered with these idiots in a long time. But every so often I like to see what their latest argument is. To my disappointment, they have nothing new. Just the same old misunderstandings (or the same trolling). I always enjoy your videos, thanks for keeping them going!
The Flerfer's are so broken.
Jake ua-cam.com/video/vxUhvtYbTjg/v-deo.html
Nice video. That is so cool. Everyone will comment on the curvature or lack thereof but ignore the fact that the video is about horizon drop.
Critical Think
To bad there is no lack of curvature then :).
Probably the best curvature capture I've seen.
+Perry Mathews. Thanks, the horizon is razor sharp on a clear day just after Sunset South of Australia, No pollution and perfect visibility. You can even see Venus clearly here.
This will definately be my go to video when I read the '' Wheres the curvature'' chant. Cheers Wolfie.
+Perry Matthews. Thanks Perry. If they try to blame the window back it up with this video.
ua-cam.com/video/i4T9YsSwYcc/v-deo.html
Wolfie, you should put the link in description. Not that FEs read video description usually, but...
If this was flat, I would expect there to NEVER be a razor sharp horizon, as the atmosphere hazes out the distance... Only a globe setup would offer a clear, clean horizon line.
Yep, that horizon is most definitely NOT at eye level.
Unless you are really short. :-)
wrong the canopy is curved.
@@noloferratus Pay attention. Nobody said anything about the curve of the horizon. I said the horizon does not rise to eye level and it doesn't. But since you brought it up, the canopy is NOT curved. Wanna see? ua-cam.com/video/EL4Fmk7S_yk/v-deo.html
Man, I would buy you a beer...
Can you do something about that blooming annoying curve that shouldn't be there!
and bring the horizon back to eye level!
I saw a flat earth video where they showed how they can remove the curve using a "computer program".
Good way to show it. I was thinking about looking through a pipe/telescope parallel to the earth surface from a high view point. The low tech approach.
I suggest a fun contest: what explanations will flatearthers allege to "debunk" this video?
My proposal: You are flying over Australia and as everybody knows, Australia is a convex continent! Therefore: curvature!
Don't you know that Australia doesn't exist? The whole country is CGI.
Gisbert Geier curved windshield, fisheye lens and to be sure a little bit of spherical eyes, and and... And a lot of reasons, something plus, never forget, the atmospheric lens effect. Take that globetard 😂😂
Gisbert Geier i would imagine that it won’t be long before Jesus is Satan pops up, calls everyone ‘monkeyboy’ and slam dunks us all with a looooooool. That seems to be his usual way.
Amazing, best curvature so far. Is that 46k feet aka 14km? Edit: just read description :)
Since I'm not a pilot and have never seen a 'Heads Up Display' some of the information has no meaning to me...I do recognize the altitude and see the 46000 is in a box on the right but the bulls-eye in the middle is lined up with 46500. I would like to know what that means.
Would you be a good sport Wolfie6020 and explain on a facsimile what we are seeing at precisely 0:04 in your video?
I see compass graduations at the top with pointy things on it, almost perfectly aligned.
I see the corners of a box with 5's at the top and -5's at the bottom.
I see a floating -W- just above the bulls-eye, and the bulls-eye is very close to perfectly aligned to the longer lines that are left and right of it.
*I also see the very dark curved Earth meet the horizon where the atmosphere is putting on a colorful show.* And I bet when all this is tied together *globe Earth has been observed* AGAIN. Thank you, Wolfie
ua-cam.com/video/rNcVW5u2gM0/v-deo.html in this video Golf Bravo use the HUD to land a 737 in flight simulation.
+Ben Lundquist. Hi Ben, No problem I will try to do a video on that soon.
Thanks so much!
Wolfie6020 yes you could do one on cruising altitude nose angle also. Also how that would affect the horizon shown at that angle. That would be interesting I think..... Maybe you already have one done and can post me a link ☺
Oh god i'm so jealous...best job in the world
Senses, flight instruments, maths, logic.....all agreeing on a sphere.
Great footage. This should be the new reference for everybody crying "show me the curve" and "the horizon is always at eye level".
The best is that at 0:29 both the artificial horizon and the real horizon are visible!
Gisbert Geier - That's the point I like the best. It literally shows what Wolfie has been telling everyone for a while yet they never believed him. Now they will have to accept defeat.
Kinda weird how the sky is lit up like that but you can’t see that close-sun up there. Guess you must need to zoom in a bit or something 🤪🤣
Flat Earth Logic: “Photographers always point their camera toward the horizon. Therefore, the horizon is always at eye level. Therefore, the Earth is flat.”
Flat Earth Logic applies to zoology: “According to science, dogs are animals that bark. Here is a short video of an animal that is not barking. This proves that it is not a dog.”
flawless logic
Globe Earth logic " views through curved canopy material can not curve".
noloferratus What “curved canopy”?
Thank you, Wolfie. I will use your video to show others.
+john underwood. Thanks John.
ua-cam.com/video/vxUhvtYbTjg/v-deo.html
+Craig Burridge - Craig linking to P-Brane’s video again just makes you look twice as silly.
Here is my first reply to you again in case you missed it.
LOL, so many fails in one comment.
1. No P-Brane was never blocked and is still not blocked.
2. His video is nonsense and I have absolute proof he is 100% wrong.
3. P-Brane and I discussed this over a year ago and I showed him the 100% proof there is no drop caused by the window. So he deliberately lied to you.
4. Go and look at the images linked under my video and then apologise to your Dad for growing up to be a fool.
5. Go and get a wet cloth ready to wipe all the egg off your face when you see my response to him.
Dude, every day Flat Earthers continue to prove they are the most gullible
People on Earth. Congratulations. You did it again.
You actually think we use saucepan lids as cockpit windows?
Don’t take flying lessons please.
P-Brane just gave me another easy opportunity to show the world how silly Flat Earthers really are.
Wolfie6020 so triggered ...so desparate to peddle misinfo disinfo...truly sad dude.
Earth is flat and motionless and convergence of the horizon aint curvature and it always raises to and at eye level.
P brane is spot on and true.
I love how you love your own shit that stinks of bs to high heaven and your followers just eat it up. funny you guys lap up the ball indoctrination and propaganda ...,sad how you defend and promote the deception.
The trigger in you guys is hilarious.
+Craig Burridge. Craig - you are reading this totally wrong mate. Listen carefully to my voice in my videos. This is just a game.
Do you really think aircraft use saucepan lids for windows?
He was shown this a year ago and knows the window produces no drop. He just plays his flute and all the gullible follow.
You are the one on my channel constantly in damage control Craig. If you had one ounce of faith in your fairytale you would not care what I do.
Look at all the videos popping up with my name in them. You guys are totally spooked as Flat Earth enters its death rattle phase.
Another great video!
MrLieAndConnive is going to have to do his best to circle talk out of this.... considering he just tried to use the whole horizon rises to eye level bullshit
Nice yet again At 0:21 as the frame and horizon meet in the middle with gaps in the edges.....
clear horizon from dark land and lit amospherr. they cant deny that
shlibber lol. on 2nd thought. they deny everything. lol
almarjyou - I'll just deny it before they can deny it. When they do, then two deniers equals an acceptance.
almarjyou of course they can, they don't think, only swallowing flarfers guru and denying reality. Bunch of assholes
@almarjyou
Yes they can!
Of course it isn’t. Well done. Even if it were, it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Just like 90% of flat earth arguments. Also. Nice curved horizon.
Hi. May I ask what plane were you flying on? Wonderful video and good job explaining them.
+Luis Angel. Hi Luis this is a Bombardier Global Express. A long range business jet.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_Express
Wolfie6020 Thank you. Beautiful plane.
How high up were you? We could estimate the radius of the earth using your height and the angular drop of the horizon from eye level, and I'm curious to try it.
+zero132132 46,000 ft.
zero132132
The altimeter display says 46,000.
zero132132
46000 feet, convert to meters - 14 kilometers, then the expected drop of the horizon (without refraction) is approximately 3.8 degrees. Because of the refraction, the drop of the visible horizon is slightly less. Say, 3.5 degrees. That is approx what we are witnessing in the video.
0:30 is that line above the horizon (the one with the little circle in the middle) showing you your level?
In middle of my screen open eyes dude
They keep saying the first thing you are taught when learning to fly, is that the earth is flat. Gotta lie to flerfs.
There are two horizons we can talk about.
1) The horizon as we generally understand it, the line where the surface and the heavens apparently meet when we look out.
2) The perspective drawing horizon, which is at zero degree (looking straight ahead) eye level, below which we perceive objects situated at a relatively lower angle, and the opposite for above.
If horizon 1 and horizon 2 meet at the same line, regardless if you're at a high or low altitude, then that means there is no drop/rise in horizon 1, which inevitably leads to the conclusion of a flat surface below, and not some convex or concave one.
Here's the thing with your video:
1) The HUD shows where the aircraft is pointed and heading, not where your camera/eyes are pointed. You can have the HUD on your lap, and it will still show the same thing. You could look at it from a higher angle, and it will still show the same thing, because it is connected to the aircraft's properties, not that of your camera. But if in this case you look at the HUD from a higher angle, you can visually get the horizon 2 line meet the horizon 1. But it still says nothing, because the HUD has nothing to do with your camera or whatever angle or position it is at.
2) The watermark (elongated W) is clearly above the horizon 2 line in the HUD. This means that the aircraft is tilted approximately 2 degrees upward, estimated from the 5 degree increment lines there. This in turn means that when you use your camera from your cockpit, you should actually tilt the camera downwards a bit in order to compensate for the 2 degree upward tilt of your aircraft.
3) On the image, your flightpath marker (the circle with wings/lines on the sides) is level with the horizon 2 line on the HUD. And you say that this is proof. But this has nothing to do with you looking at the horizon. This means that your aircraft is flying at a straight line. Your flightpath marker shows where the aircraft is headed, not where it is pointed. As should be expected, your aircraft is actually pointed about 2 degrees upwards in order to maintain a level flight, which it does since the FPM meets the horizon 2 line.
4) If you want to show that horizon 1 is below horizon 2, then use a camera with a watermark connected to it. Then point that camera over the HUD so that we can see where the aircraft nose is pointed at the same time, since here your aircraft is pointed upward, and we have no idea what angle your camera is pointed at relative a level watermark horizon.
This video further shows that the airplane is flying straight ahead without gaining any altitude due to curvature drop, as would be expected when the airplane flies over a plane surface. The VS (vertical speed) indicator on the lower right corner just moves slightly up and down due to surface or pressure perturbations, but on average just stays at zero, as should be expected when flying over a flat surface.
_"If horizon 1 and horizon 2 meet at the same line"_
They don't. imgur.com/a/0iqqzgG
The horizon is never at eye level at high altitude. You can do a simple experiment to prove this like seymoresaymore just showed you. Or get a hot air balloon and on the basket strap a camera say the p900 since FE's have a crush on it. And point it level with the basket and lift off at higher altitudes the horizon will drop.
Your "horizon 1" the red and orange is what I'm guessing your talking about. Is actually cloud's in the distance and you can clearly see this.
Your horizon 2 is the real and actual horizon of the earth.
seymoresaymore,
You can't expect me to go to a link which in turn links to 4 other videos, 2 of them being of the same nature as this one, and have me analyze them instead of analyzing the topic we have at hand here. If every argument was conducted in that manner one would have an exponentially growing number of links to analyze instead of talking about the subject that you initially started out with.
I'll refrain from responding to you in like manner by linking to 4 flat earth videos for you to debunk and circumvent the actual case at hand here in this clip.
The topic at hand here is this clip, where the nose of the aircraft based on the HUD is pitching about 2 degrees up, the airplane from that flying level, and a camera pointed at some unknown angle in order to attempt to prove that the perspective horizon is above the visual horizon.
Further also that the aircraft is maintaining a constant altitude during a level flight.
If you wish to reply, don't do so by linking to a link that links to 8 other topics.
Nephilim Gabriel,
Horizon 1 is the visual horizon, where land and sky apparently meet. In this case it's where the dark (land) and red (sky) apparently meet.
Horizon 2 is the perspective horizon, in the HUD it's the long horizontal line. For the airplane's case, the HUD's horizon line represents an imaginary surface going through the airplane, parallel to the surface of the ground below. Since the watermark on the HUD is above the HUD's horizon line, it means the airplane is pitched up, somewhere about 2 degrees based on the 5 degree increments there on the HUD.
That the flightpath marker (circle with wings) and the horizon line on the HUD meet each other, means nothing else but that the airplane is flying level. You can film it from any angle or distance, it won't work to prove anything, since the HUD displays the state of the airplane, not that of the camera.
If you still insist on pointing the camera parallel to the ground below, then you have to at least take into consideration that the airplane there is actually titled 2 degrees up, which you have to compensate for by tilting the camera 2 degrees down relative the nose of the airplane.
There's a difference between perspective horizon (horizon 2) and the common terminology of horizon (horizon 1) where land and sky apparently meet.
I don't have the money to spend on a P900, let alone a hot air balloon. I don't have the time to waste on peoples efforts of redirecting me to links which in turn link to more links and derail the actual topic I present here.
Underheaven8 no you just don't want see actual evidence that proves a curve which the video does. And the FACT that the horizon is NOT always at eye level. Guess your a butt hurt flattard and deny anything that shows you wrong as you have proven.
It really looks like curvature, but NAV Balls don't respond to feelings and eyes. I just feel for more study on the left to right curvature before I give that a name. The forward curve is acceptable to me as something in the globe direction.
Very good video, spectacular, I'll place it among my favorites
It's never occurred to me before, but I guess you have to adjust the head-up display to the eye-line of the pilot so that the artificial horizon is where it should be? That is, a shorter pilot than you would have to adjust it down to meet their eye-line?
You have to adjust your seat height until you can see all of the information, so that fact that you are seeing the HUD projection means your eye is more or less level with no parallax.
+NelC - Yes we have eye alignment balls in the aircraft and when you adjust your seat you have to line up the balls. When they are in line you have the perfect eye position. The eye position will be the same for each pilot even if the Seat position is different.
I cover it a little more in this video around 3:30.
ua-cam.com/video/P3dwvAW88Tg/v-deo.html
Or adjust the seat, of course, derp. :s
Meanwhile, it's always important to keep your balls aligned. ;)
NelC
That’s a very good observation, and some flat earthers will claim that Wolfie has cheated by simply holding the camera outside the eye box to force the result he wants to show.
In reality, moving around in front of the HUD has very little impact on where the zero pitch line appears in relation to the real horizon, but it has a HUGE effect on how much of the HUD symbology is visible.
This short clip demonstrates that it’s not possible to fake what Wolfie has shown here by purposely holding the camera outside of the eye-box ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html
+53C52 Nod. You can see Wolfie's HUD clipping the display just from the floating of his camera the little it does.
Hi wolfie how is going? Amazing video again.
+Kombinin Hi, and thanks Busy but home for a little while now. Our Perth trip was changed so I went back to Sydney.
No fair your HUD is CGI.
Wolfie, Again I see Flatwits commenting that the curvature is caused by the cockpit window. May I suggest taking a short vid from a suitably lower altitude. I'm guessing during decent would be best.
By the way. Have you put in an order for the P1000 yet? I can't wait. Fixed the horrible manual focusing method of the P900 is enough for me. :)
+Rob Guyatt. Yes they will try that window curvature every time.
I have this video from 6000 ft that shows no curvature but will try to get one through the HUD when possible. We don't spend much time flying level at low altitudes - even here it was only a few seconds level at 6000 ft before starting the final approach.
ua-cam.com/video/qJtxXWP4mgY/v-deo.html
I'll definitely pick up the P1000 when it is available. It looks great.
Thanks Wolfie, I suppose if it's just a comparison of when curve can be seen or not, the HUD is not so important. Re the P1000, I've talked to Diamonds in Adelaide where I get all my kit, and they expect it to be a couple weeks. :)
+Rob Guyatt. Nice. I'll check my local camera store for an arrival date too.
Unfortunately it seems your camera is inside the cockpit instead of mounted externally therefore the observed curvature could simply be caused by the canopy of the aircraft. Again you have proved nothing.
FEs could say that horizon is at eye level but looks lower only because the plane is flying "nose up"...
Please *tell me is this is correct or not* because avionics has never really been my thing: on the video we are flying "level" and the HUD shows the velocity vector -- ϕ -- above horizon (or horizon about 3.5° below eye level). The pitch attitude -- w -- is above the velocity vector (which defines the angle of attack).
+FrenchCrow. Yes you are 100% correct my friend.
Thank you!
Earth radius calculation:
If α=3.5° at altitude h=46,000 ft= 14 km, then
R=h*cosα / (1-cosα) = 7492 km
with standard refraction it would be 7/6*R=7492 km
then R = 6421 km (official value 6371 km)
Wolfie6020
99.99% correct because it assumes the wing’s chord line is aligned with the longitudinal axis, which is probably not the case.
Wolfie - can you move camera up & down to show it’s not just camera angle?
He moves the camera up and down at approx. 0:20!
Clouds behind the Sun!!
Err…. does reflected sunlight from clouds on other planets count? I mean, Venus is still farther away than the Sun is, and therefore - kind of, technically - behind it, right?
😊
BTW, beautiful, upward curvature, even when the horizon was near the bottom of the frame!
BTW2, at that altitude (46,000 ft) the horizon is 423 km away if refraction is ignored.
With a screen width of 195mm and only 3mm curvature max, it actually goes down to 2mm, where is your earth curvature?
There should be 5mm curvature of that horizon on my screen.
You need a fish eye lens wolfie if you want to see earth curvature and not just be looking at the limit of what’s visible. How wide do you estimate that horizon to be?
Aaaaaaaand here is the curve below eye level. Nice shot ! C'mon flatties try to debunk this without ad-hoc excuses...
They have no arguments or excuses, just copy-paste of bullshits... As smart as a photocopier
Brilliant footage.. Subscribed.
Honest question: does your plane have gyroscopic instruments? I'm curious how they work, because a physical gyroscope would maintain orientation as you fly around the curve. Again this is an honest question, not trolling or setting up an argument :)
+Tom Bombadil. Hi Tom. Planes do have gyroscopic instruments. The artificial horizon has correcting mechanisms that will always keep it adjusted to show horizontal. These mechanisms correct for flying around the curve.
Here are some videos I made looking inside at how the mechanism works.
ua-cam.com/video/z1QGRPVBZvw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/-0n-UDrB3Ys/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/TbqcT05YWeo/v-deo.html
4 thumbs down. Must be the anti aircraft crowd.
they like trains
Great video, but you might need to explain the symbology to the general public. If somebody understands exactly what they are seeing here, they would have a whole new appreciation for horizon dip and the earths curvature.
Wolfe can I please share this with Nick (Phuket idiot) on his latest attempt to decry curvature, please please please as it will make his day I just know it 🤣
+SuperSi Thedogs, Sure, and ask him why he refused to accept the free solar filters so he could do his Sun size experiment properly.
I offered it many times and he made excuses each time which is why I gave up on him months ago.
Wolfie6020 thanks and Defoe will do about the lenses 🤣
Wolfie6020 well no answer and he's blocked me 😢 no more idiot batting for me 😭
What is the view when on the ground from this view? Or will it show that stuff aimed lower then what the optics here seems, because if no proof it shows true level to start with, no way to prove insane claim.
the proof is that the plane hasn't crashed, if the instruments did not accurately represent reality then it would be a serious risk to the safety of anyone onboard. It isn't such a good idea to kill the people that give you money with faulty equipment.
@@thetobyntr9540 Because you say something is not proof of what was asked. Do you have a mental defect in reading? Because you did not address anything, Are you that stupid?
@@glenn_gallaher
"Because you say something is not proof of what was asked."
Nothing you say can nullify fact that faulty instruments can lead to crashes. That's what I was getting at, and if you don't understand that then you are more deserving of being subjected to your next question than I am.
"Do you have a mental defect in reading?"
Not at all, in lower grades I won awards at my school for proficiency in English and in high school I maintained better grasp of what the textbooks said than a decent portion of my classmates. It actually seems to be you that has the language issues here, going by how bad your grammar is. Seriously, how do you type out a set of barely connected fragmented statements like that and expect anyone to have a good idea of what you're trying to say?
"Because you did not address anything"
No, I did. I addressed your claim that the instruments on the plane could possibly be faulty in this bit: "no proof it shows true level to start with". However, you didn't show an adequate enough mastery of English to make it clear to tell exactly what you meant, I just assumed that and the word salad that came after it meant that the instruments on the plane were faulty, and that the claim they are being used to support is insane.
"Are you that stupid?"
I mean, you are the one here who seems to have no clue how my mention of proof has anything to do with your statement that included the mention of a lack of proof. The fact that the plane did not crash or have anything wrong with it as far as the pilot could tell is proof enough that the instruments are likely not faulty in any noticeable way, let alone faulty enough to project the horizon a whole ~4.4° higher than where you think it should be.
@@thetobyntr9540 Again, you can not prove what it acts like on ground level to start with.
@@glenn_gallaher
"you can not prove what it acts like on ground level to start with."
Since you didn't bother to mention what you were talking about (from context I can tell it's about the plane at least) i'm going to assume you're talking about the HUD. Your statement is wrong, and I can prove it, since wolfie posted a video showing it operating while on the ground: ua-cam.com/video/kWKFW_V_Fug/v-deo.html
You can clearly see that in the video, the virtual horizon matches with the actual horizon to within a fourth of a degree, and if it's the same system as in the video above this then it's very easy to deduce at least that the horizon does appear to drop with altitude. That discrepancy of about .25° is due to the ground in that direction being a short hill.
what are you flying at 46k? and is that coffin corner for whatever aircraft your piloting ?
That looked like a beautiful flight! And there also is the horizontal curve Flatties always demand to see. You can't just look out your bedroom window and see the curve, guys! Nor buildings tilting away which is even more stupid.
I've heard this one a few times from them. "I know we live on a flat Earth because the buildings across my road aren't leaning back". Ok, I said, so what about the people observing from buildings situated down the closest T-junction then? Should they also see buildings leaning back? Exactly how big do you think this planet is? Honestly, it's like dealing with preschoolers.
Oh, and if I did happen to get a response, of course it completely ignored my point and either called me an ugly witch or told me to "do my own research" Yawn.
Just Kate Yeah they're an idiotic bunch! The 'do your own research' retort is a lame one; Flatties can't tell their arses from their mouths! In fact, they have them so confused that what comes out of their mouths is crap. I wouldn't worry about insults from them. Especially if they call you ugly. They have no taste.
Where is the curve???
Thank you woolfie 😃
+Raphael Arques. You are welcome and thank you for watching.
The horizon seems to be 3° below the velocity vector, but according to my calculation it should be 3.8° at 46,000 ft.
Is that difference caused by refraction, or was the horizon we see here actually the top of a cloud layer a few kilometres above sea level? Or maybe the camera wasn't precisely aligned with the HUD?
Where does it say 3 degrees?
Dejan Haskovic
The horizontal line on the HUD is _level,_ which by definition is perpendicular to the local direction of gravity, also known as _down._ The double circle in the middle is the _velocity vector,_ the direction the plane is flying at the moment. It's positioned on the level line, meaning that the plane is not climbing or descending. If it was, the altimeter to the right (reading 46,000 ft) would be changing.
The "w" symbol above the horizontal line marks the plane's _angle of attack,_ the angle the nose is pointing relative to the velocity vector. It's normal for many planes to have the nose pointing slightly up when flying level.
And finally, as clearly shown in most of the video, the horizon is about 3/5 of the way down from level to the minus 5 degree mark, meaning that the horizon has dropped 3 degrees.
FromNorway
Keep in mind that the altitude shown in the HUD is not the true altitude above sea level. Depending on sea level pressure at the time, and the actual pressure lapse rate between the ground and the airplane, he could be actually higher or lower than the altitude indicated in the HUD.
53C52
Yes, I know that the real altitude will differ somewhat from the indicated altitude depending on the sea level pressure and pressure gradient because the altimeter is basically a barometer.
When flying above a certain altitude (18,000 ft in the US) the altimeter is calibrated to a standard sea level pressure of 1013.25 hectopascals or 29.92 inches of mercury.
It may be interesting to note that if the horizon actually was at true eye level and this plane's velocity vector was pointing 3° up, it would be climbing more than 2500 ft per minute, assuming a speed of 900 km/h.
FromNorway
Flat earthers tend to get all wound up if the math doesn’t match up perfectly out to 6 decimal places. They ignore the fact that when you apply the math to their model it’s off by a factor of 2, but if you’re off by a mere 2% it’s somehow proof that the globe is wrong.
Just wanted to put it out there for them that there are unknown variables at play here, so we shouldn’t expect to be able to calculate the *exact* dip angle from the information in this video. I doubt any of them understand that the true altitude can easily differ from the pressure altitude displayed on the HUD/altimeter by thousands of feet at normal cruising levels.
Do we know what is the distance of the horizon from left to right?
@Richard Petrus -
www.metabunk.org/curve/ Use this metabunk calculator and at 46K feet Wolfie can see 260 miles in all directions...to the horizon. He is flying in the center of a giant projected cone *17.26 miles high above the horizon.* That's 8.7 miles immediately under the plane *_AND_** an additional 8.5 miles of drop **_AROUND_** the globe Earth.* Wolfie's jet is in the middle of a 520 mile diameter circle...that meets at the horizon.
The calculator has a great interactive illustration (below all the data) where you can see how the geometry inter-relates.
Hi Wolfie, what is the W sign is indicating ? is it the angle of attack ?
--w-- is where the nose is pointing, --o-- is where the plane is going, angle of attack is the distance between the two.
thanks
Wow! Earth is actually a GLOBE. Because of this video!
You have reversed cause and effect.
Curve
+Quikee. They still won't beleive it. They think the window causes it. (I already have the follow ready for that ;-)
Wolfie6020 or the typical excuse - why can we see the curve at 43000ft but not at 100000ft (the ballon videos), therefor fake.
Slider. Dammit, he's shaking me off again. I want to bring the heat and announce my presence with authority!
The plane is pointing up... That is why
Ishfaq Bhat
No its not, didnt you see where the cam goes to the artificial horizon?.
+elonesnah planes have to point up in order to keep flying
The plane points slightly up indeed. The pitch attitude -- w -- is above the velocity vector -- ϕ -- which is aligned with eye level. And the horizon is about 3.5° below eye level.
+Muzikgod it is the talk of pilots
If the horizon really was at eye level - as flattards believe - and the velocity vector was 3.5° above it, the plane would be climbing about 3000 ft per minute!
But but but...flerspective!
but, BUT, what happens when you dip the nose? what happens then? yea, exactly, then it's at eye level!
chris davidson, no just NO. You flattards are a very special kind of stupid.
i'm not a flat earther lol
chris davidson, "eye level" is independent from the aircraft attitude.
This might help: ua-cam.com/video/F4SwHsv3bdw/v-deo.html
i know!
you know how flat earthers keep talking about how aircraft need to dip the nose to fly around the...
nevermind
Poe 🤣
Orange isn't a real color. That horizon is obviously fake. :P
what type of plane is it? what model, please
I believe Wolfie flies a Bombardier Global Express. Not sure which model.
It's not just the horizon, according to flatards, all Australians are photoshopped by NASA too, so Wolfie can't have made this video. Move along, nothing to see here.
Earth is flat and
the moon is a balloon . End of quarrel !
Miguel Ferreira Mouta Junior you have been deceived all your life, the moon is just a projection by NASA to keep you thinking the Earth is round when it is actually flat. We know this because "reasons". ;)
Nice Sunset
Playing devil's advocate, this video could be shot from a lower perspective than the HUD (i.e. holding the camera at chest-level). That would also mean the horizon appears to be below eye level.
Christer Toll
No, the HUD doesn’t work like that. You can see for yourself in just 11 seconds... ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html
Note that the horizon line move up when the camera moves up and moves down when the camera moves down. The relationship between the horizon line in the HUD and the world outside is virtually unchanged, but the symbology near the top or bottom of the HUD begins to disappear very quickly as soon as the camera is moved out of the eye-box.
Awesome video. We're you the one flying the plane?
See you still have your fakes up . Hell bound
Well.. Cue excuses, panic, panic, panic, Some wheel on Lielly as a distraction STAT! And the latest scores are
Wolfie6020 1000,000 FE et al minus several billion^28.
Please send this to Lord Eric Dupay, his cult followers, and the crowd of like-minded parrots.
Nice 👍
UA-cam is screwing me again... LOL
+Joe Cooksey. This one has been up for a while and unlisted Joe. I just made it public tonight.
I see that now. I have to get some coffee down... it's not even 7 am yet! LOL
+Joe Cooksey. It is 10am here and I am about to set up the telescope for a Moonrise early morning. Might grab a few hours sleep somewhere in between. My schedule changed at short notice so I have two weeks at home I wasn't expecting. Happy days.
I think you mean 10PM.... lol. I just looked.... moon rise is at 4:32 am.... with about 4% lit. I hope you can get me a moon shot after the sun comes up! Have a good one.
Supercool!
I agree it’s not flat. But it’s not moving either. Earth is definitely a globe, but heliocentrism is wrong. Earth is stationary. The stationary geocentric model is the most likely explanation of where we live.
How would seasons work?
🤡
Alright, interesting perspective, can you explain how a gyrocompass works on a stationary earth? Do you agree with gravitational models? And why are objects lighter at the equator than the poles?
@@timetraveler7 who verified that objects at the poles are heavier than at the equator? Can I have a video of the experiments carried out to prove these facts and not fiction?
@@John_Johnson746 yes, there is a video by a guy named Wolfie6020, he's a pilot he verified this by measuring a weight near the poles and near the equator.
Curvavture
Yes clearly seen in this video.
@@Wolfie6020 before defisheye.
yeah watch closely ... that is a bendy windshield of an aircraft ! plus HORIZON its not CURVIZON .
+max dbb - Read the video title. I think you missed the point.
However if you want to analyse the window. Do it properly with this footage. See the eye alignment balls? That is the line you need to focus on because that is where the camera was - it needs to be exactly the right portion to see the symbology in the HUD. An inch or two either way and you would lose the display.
Here you go. Let me see what you have got and please try to do better than the last guy who used the wrong part of the window entirely.
ua-cam.com/video/i4T9YsSwYcc/v-deo.html
i didnt miss the point , i have worked in an airport and done testing inside the aircraft and outside of the aircraft . The windows fitted in all of the aircrafts are curved . to point out the obvious lie is the camera lense ( fish eye lense ) during the footage showing the curved effect . Horizon stays flat no matter what .
+max dbb. Sorry Max, your second comment also shows me you still miss the point of this video.
Read the title again and repeat it back to me please.
No it is not a fisheye lens at all. That proves you don't know what you are talking about. A fisheye lens would distort the instruments at the bottom of the image but they are straight horizontally and vertically even bottom frame. So that proves you wrong right there.
You worked at an airport. Ok, but how many hours do you have in the pilot seat above 45,000 ft? Be honest.
@wolfie honestly though , should u take a 0.47 seconds of a video footage to prove horizon ? were is explanation how horizon works in different aspects of the observation that claims the proof ?? all experiments shows us the earth is undeniably flat .
*_"the obvious lie is the camera lense ( fish eye lense )"_*
Umm since when has the iPhone had a fisheye lens? And if the camera was fisheye then why are no instruments distorted and why doesn't the curve look different when at the top and bottom of the frame? That's a _very_ strange fisheye. Are NASA providing Wolfie with special custom made lenses now?
Also, Wolfie... one more thing... as your sled is cruising along nicely in level flight, and your AH indicates *level flight* , you should take note that if you were actually flying around the curved surface of a massive globe shaped earth, your *pitch attitude* would be increasingly nose-down and you would be in a descent with the power levers back a good ways. You do realize that on a *3000 mile* flight... if the earth is a sphere... that you would need to lose *6 million vertical feet of curvature* , and your accumulated nose down pitch would be somewhere in the neighborhood of - 38 degrees by the time you arrive at your destination... correct? Not possible when you are flying along nice and level;)
khatun 777
Your joking right??
khatun 777
8” per mile squared is a observation from a fixed point. That does not apply to a moving aircraft...
And even if it did, a plane flying 600 mph would only have to account for .22 inches every second... and all flights gain or lose that amount constantly!
Your argument is lame and invalid!
khatun 777 - Its amazing that somebody like you actually has no idea how the basic things on the earth actually work. Actually shocking that adult humans can be this dumb!!! An everage 6 year old could undesrtand this!! Hope you don't mind im actually going to share this comment on my Instagram,(wont use your name) Its just too good for the masses not to see!!
khatun 777
Picture this.
Take a camera on a string and spin it around.
Now slow the film down so one orbit around you takes about 48 hours.
That is what a plane sees as it is going around the earth... that string is the force of gravity... or if you prefer... that fact we all fall at 9.8m s^s and if you do not change your flight dynamics (thrust/drag lift/gravity) then you will remain at the same altitude.
+khatun 777 C'mon my friend. I have addressed that many times. Are you really still confused by the geometry of a circle?
Try this mate. Hold a model aircraft above a model globe and just spin the globe underneath it. How much does the attitude of the aircraft change?
If I lost 6 Million vertical feet then I would be more than a thousand miles underground.
The point you are missing here is that the direction of "vertical" changes the minute you start moving. 1 degree per 111 km.
Secondly, to follow a circle you must remain the same distance from the centre of the circle. That equates to flying a constant altitude in an aircraft. No descent required. Think about it. If the Earth's surface is curved and you maintain 40,000 ft above that surface as you fly then you are flying a curve too. 3rd grade geometry.
Awesome footage with your fish eye lens. 😂😂😂
A magical fish-eye, showing the same horizontal curvature from the bottom of the image (0:39) to above its center (0:32)?
Yeah, right, fish eye lens, which is why the lines on the HUD are straight...
Worstplayer -are you serious. Did you see the emojis at the end of my comment. That’s called sarcasm.
Sorry, you know, poe's law. Hard to detect sarcasm when actual flat earthers use exact same arguments including emoji spam.
Emojis make it even more like you're a flerf. Some of them use them in every comment.
But horizons don’t curve in objective reality so what did you alter to get this distortion?
What are you comparing the footage to?
Truth Seeker: Do _you_ not see this curve when _you_ are in the cockpit flying at 46,000 ft?
He altered the position of the power button on his camera.
Still flat
What, FE progress?
chad pasalskyj This video clearly proves it’s round in every single way, but you just want to keep in your cute little flat earth cult don’t ya?
Wolfie....Nice try, but painfully obvious is the fact that your eye/lens height is low here and looking UP to "level" on the HUD. Also, if you flew a Boeing with a flat windscreen, your "curved" horizon would no longer be curved. Just a hunch;) Looks beautiful out there.
+khatun777 Hi and yes it was beautiful on this flight. Am I correct in saying you never used a HUD in a Global Express?
The field of view is tiny and if your eyes are one inch too high or too low you can lose the HUD symbology completely.
That is why we must use the eye alignment balls carefully when adjusting the seat before take off.
The same thing happens with the phone camera. If I had the camera even slightly lower than the HUD it would not show any of the data you see here.
I'll cover that fully in a future video - I don't have access to the plane for two weeks now.
Wolfie, I have never stepped foot into a Global sled, nor have I used that HUD. I also know that aside from precisely adjusting my seat for takeoff/landing... I always used to ride nice and low in the saddle during flat level cruise flight....occasionally eating dinner;) I do see what you are saying about viewing the HUD data. Cheers.
*Daryl* ~ How many hours do you have in Boeing aircraft, that you should be telling me about my claim?
khatun 777
I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone tried to make the BS claim that the camera angle is what is causing this. It only proves you know little about a HUD.
Changing the viewing angle does virtually nothing to affect the relationship between the zero pitch line and the actual horizon. It does have a massive effect on how much of the HUD symbology is visible as this short clip shows... ua-cam.com/video/G5WODW1PSVQ/v-deo.html
You can’t force the HUD’s horizon to move more than 3 degrees above the Earth’s horizon by moving the camera up and down. Nice try though.
If your eye level is looking upward to the HUD - you ain't gonna see jackshite on the combiner(glass part). Safe to say Khatun has never looked through a HUD on any type of airplane. It's extremely sensitive to eye height.