I did a little calculation on how much is hidden using metabunks curvecalculator (using a viewer height of 5 meter). Each block in Turning Torso is around 21 meter heigh x blocks visible = visible. 25.0 km 23 meter hidden 168 meter visible = 192 meter total 28.4 km 33 meter hidden 147 meter visible = 180 meter total 34.7 km 56 meter hidden 126 meter visible = 182 meter total 40.3 km 82 meter hidden 105 meter visible = 187 meter total 45.1 km 108 meter hidden 84 meter visible = 192 meter total 47.9 km 126 meter hidden 63 meter visible = 189 meter total And what do you know. The total height (hidden + visible) is between 180 and 192 meter. Proving that the curvature calculation of the Earth is correct.
The observation height changes from 2-4m, on this image ( flic.kr/p/EseKVJ ) you can see all the heights and calculations with and without refraction. In the graph in the upper left corner I have compared the observed amount of obscured with the calculated values.
@The Pure Gospel on the Flat Earth _"...You could consider buying a camera which has a better focus..."_ You mean something like this flic.kr/p/SFZLay I doubt it can get more clear than that :-)
@@pvtmill3rr You have posted the same link 40 times within an hour in comments on my videos. When you do that youtube will mark your comment as spam and no one other than you can see that comment. In the future only post the same link 1 time.
Sadly, even though it well and truly proves the idiocy of Flat earth belief, it does nothing to open the eyes of the morons who do believe in it. They are simply braindead.
It would be easier to see curvature if the earth wasn't so large, but if it was any smaller then we wouldn't have as much water or an atmosphere that could sustain life, like Mars for example. We know it's not flat, it's just impossible to argue with stupid people who use perspective and refraction to explain away the curvature that is obvious in this video. If earth was really flat what we see in this video could not happen.
If its such a big conspiracy why is it only 4 billion? Anyone at NASA could get upset that they aren't getting paid as much as they want and threaten to reveal 'the truth' if they don't get more money. Heck, why doesn't NASA have the military's budget if it is such a requirement for everyone to 'believe' in the fake globe earth? Grow the fuck up. Also, $4 billion is nowhere near enough to fake the globe across 195 different countries. Including North Korea, Russia and China? Fucking ridiculous...
+acrow5 North Korea? North Korea's space program is one of the best out there... Russia got paid for their silence. China? China allegedly only recently started launching manned spaceflights. They seem to be fake though: ua-cam.com/video/lBL98p0wZ7g/v-deo.html On the other hand we have this: www.jstor.org/stable/616189?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents I suggest you read it before you so adamantly defend the notion of a globe earth. Nobody can threaten to reveal the truth because they're under nondisclosure agreement. The military are in on this too so you can cosider their budget as part of the funding of this mass delusion
as a digital artist who uses perspective on a daily basis, I can tell you that zooming in all you want won't bring back those bottom floors at ground level.
Digital artist here as well and I'm with ya. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest optics will retroactively alter light rays entering a lens in such a way to reveal large amounts of an apparently missing object. Even more interesting that this effect mirrors what you would expect on a GE perfectly. FE had to do some serious gaslighting to sell a completely different model of perspective and act like it has always worked that way. Apparently we are in on the conspiracy as well and are hiding the truth of perspective from the masses. Here's hoping we get our checks in the mail soon.
Hey, while you’re commenting could you give us and all the flat Earthers the juicy details on how many billions of dollars you’ve made from producing REAL TIME rendered super high quality CGI for NASA for decades? Lol. I too would like to make the big bucks, ha.
@justice start This is the second time you've made the claim that this video proves FE rather than debunks it. Since you're so knowledgable, perhaps you'd like to explain why, rather than simply assert?
@@CountNefario thats against the FE-Codex. They only Challenge you, and when they're proven wrong they run away and Search for another Not logic proof for the FE. Its like cats and dogs.
@@jimmynobody8344 They don't use geometry, so they don't know how the perspective works, and can be easily fooled like here: scontent.fpoz2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20294150_1863192603933793_1708800796188770186_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=-SPN9iIOay8AX_gJCC6&_nc_ht=scontent.fpoz2-1.fna&oh=ce74ab1496c4495a9d435bf1aaa6a5be&oe=5F753264 Makes no sense, I know.
Hello, the calculation for the height difference for a spherical earth is in beginning of the video 25 km: Distance L squared / 2 x Earth radius. That means: 25 km x 25 km / 2 x 6371 km = 49 m If I have understood correctly, then when looking over the earth at a distance of 25 km, the object being observed is obscured by 49 m by the sea. At 0:52 min you can see the tuning torso and the surrounding city. So if the earth were round, you wouldn't be able to see the city below at all. You can also see the waves from the coast hitting the beach. In my interpretation, the image should be proof of a flat earth. Now my question. Am I making a mistake in my calculation or reasoning? I would be grateful for a reply.
You don't have observer height in your calculation, so it is wrong. Here flic.kr/p/EseKVJ you can see some calculations I have done for these observations.
Hallo@@MathiasKp, thank you for your answer. I still don't understand. The height from which you filmed this is 3.7 m. So if the height difference is 49 - 3.7 m, then you shouldn't be able to see the other houses.
@@Armleuchter10 In your calculation, you get what is called "drop", while you need to calcultate the amount hidden. Here is a visualisation of these two flic.kr/p/2pSnggT On this page you can see the different values www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=25&h=3.7&r=6371&u=m&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264
@@Armleuchter10 "If I have understood correctly, then when looking over the earth at a distance of 25 km, the object being observed is obscured by 49 m by the sea. " You didn't understood it correctly. Objects on level surface of planet Earth, at the distance of 25 Km are 49 meters not below the see, but below an imaginary flat line, extending from the eyes of observer standing on a shore. "At 0:52 min you can see the tuning torso and the surrounding city. So if the earth were round, you wouldn't be able to see the city below at all. " Since Earth is a sphere, and cities are not drawn on a level surface of a ball, but they extend many meters up, there is no problem for us to see the ground and tall buildings around Turning torso from that distance, especially when we are observing it from certain altitude. "You can also see the waves from the coast hitting the beach. " No, you don't see any beach. All you see is sea line on a horizon. "In my interpretation, the image should be proof of a flat earth. " Your interpretation is wrong, since, on flat surface there would be no reason for bottom of this very tall building to get covered by the ground or sea- On a spherical surface, this has logic.
And also at that distance(29.7 mi)the curvature of the Earth would only drop down 19.8 feet which means you wouldn't be able to see the bottom 19.8 feet of the building right? Well in that photo it seems that more than half of that building which is over 600 feet high is gone right? Well that doesn't make sense? Maybe perspective would make more sense right? Someone let me know Im actually curious on what you have to say.
If any Flat-Earthers are still doubtful over this, and are too poor to buy a camera - they can replicate these effects by themselves by downloading a free 3D modelling software (such as Blender), create a large sphere (primitives such as spheres are pre-made, so it's as simple as hitting ''create sphere'') then, create a tall vertical rectangle slightly away from the pole of the sphere. Be sure that the rectangle is small compared to the sphere and said sphere is large enough relative to the camera that the horizon looks flat. Then, set up a camera at the pole (again, very easy to do, even for a beginner!) so that the virtual camera is looking at the building - and move the 'building' model slightly down the curvature of the sphere. Now look through the camera again and you'll notice the building should have dropped below the horizon on the sphere. You can also zoom in using the camera (by adjusting the focal length values) but no amount of static zoom will bring the rectangle up again, as it's been occluded by the curvature of the sphere! Source: Art student, was involved in lots of graphic arts design including 3D animation and modelling. I also know that perspective causes objects to shrink on all dimensions - no amount of perspective is going to make an object vanish from the bottom up! (This too can be replicated in a 3D program!)
@@7shocker really....a skiba video. He is a charlatan....and has actually debunked the flat earth himself, so has jeranism and Bob knodel. Yet....They continue to get followers and money contributions from the gullible people who believe their crap....you and your flat earth brethren are filling the pockets of a bunch of charlatans....i am all for a good conspiracy, but this one is played out and debunked.
@@Rozza43 played out? You're still here. Say what you will about Skiba; I have my own reservations.. but the experiment he conducted was confirmed and corroborated by actual scientists (he included the clip of them admitting this). So.. unless you have an explanation or counter experiment that says otherwise, character bashing isn't enough to refute this concept/experiment.
This video is proof of two things: 1. The earth is the same shape as the moon an sun (sphere shaped). 2. You can't argue with stupid people and understand logic for them, they will only waste your time.
There is some hope like in Evandro's case. I don't think people waste their time if they are trying to help others...but yes, when nobody listens...but some do. I am personally looking for "the some."
+Kevin Cass I'm like you, Kevin-hoping I make an impact on at least one person, and hoping there might be more I can get thinking about our beautiful, spherical ,planet Earth.
Lesley O'Neil Truth is on our side Lesley. It's more popular than I thought. I have mentioned this "horror" to my nephew and his girlfriend and to total strangers. They know that some people consider the earth flat and arent' shocked by it. They even have a hard time explaining how it's not flat...that's what floored me the most...some education system! The good thing is that with this internet social network, eventually these bozos will be exposed and the generally confused population will realize that just because you can put up a bunch of semi-professional looking videos, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. This will eventually teach some to think for themselves. Seriously Lesley, I work all over the globe and I have the first-hand advantage of seeing proof with my own eyes, but I don't need that proof...it's simple math, science and astronomical observation...yet some clowns talk about stuff they have no idea what they are saying. And because people like them, they follow them. It's so easy to see how cults are formed and before you know it the whole group is committing suicide :-(
+Kevin Cass Yes, you're correct-the really hard-core FE believers won't change their minds. But perhaps someone who is still looking might find something I've said opens their mind to the facts.
+hairylarry, _” show me a video of a gyroscope precessing against curvature”_ No problem, just show me the math on how precise the gyro needs to be and buy/built me one and I will test it. (It is so easy to make rhetorical non valid arguments - is it not? Give it up, it is so clear you don’t believe in FE but are just posting rhetorical arguments)
So, on a flat plane, a hump in the water appears, and grows upward as the viewer gets farther away.....or, the hump is always the same, and the viewer and the building are on a curved surface. Hmm.... growing humps that tailor their height to each viewer, or spherical planets.... damn, that's a tough choice.. maybe I will consult an expert. Should I ask the guy with the telescope, or the guy who talks to fire? another tough choice.....
You're ridiculing yourself? Amazing. Way to go to prove globe eartther's retardedness. You're the ones talking about water humps on your globe model, remember?
They also don't take in account that if the surface was curved, wouldn't you see that tower tilted in the direction of the curve? Also the limitations of the camera is evident at each further stop. You have to be able to zoom in all the way to the tower with each stop because with each stop the convergence point changes. Those floors that are missing are still there, they are just that much small that they can't be seen with that same camera. Get more zoom and BAM..! This video prove nothing as usual. Keep dreaming ballhuggers..
Infinite Plane Society right. fun to pretend though isn't it. little debate practice trying to win a lost argument. it can be entertaining until someone mentions math or proof or the fact that the bulk of the world has been measured by a chain. Tens of thousands of hours of hard work am diligent calculations yet you know the shape because... well... things.
Luc Comeau well if you can't understand this video you ain't gonna understand the explanation. It is pretty self explanatory. Is ever boat captain that sails the southern seas in on this hoax of a round world? Because they would have to be to explain their logs and fuel consumption.
Can you output live video from this camera using the HDMI connection? Although the Nikon P900 has a HDMI output, it can only be used for playback, not live video output to a monitor.
+dazzthecameraman, I don’t believe it has live support over HDMI. But there exists an android app which has live view over wifi. support-hk.canon-asia.com/contents/HK/EN/8202188800.html
Thank you. That is also true of the Nikon P900, but it still leaves you with a tiny preview window within the app display (especially when viewing using a mobile phone instead of a tablet). What about via the composite video output, have you tried that?
dazzathecameraman No I haven’t tried the composite output. But if you buy an Android stick you can use that to output a HDMI stream to a tv, I haven’t tried this but I would guess that you that way would get a large live view.
LMAO. Isn't it amazing that humans STILL have to prove to other humans that the Earth is round, even though observations have been pointing to a round Earth for hundreds if not thousands of years?
@@AMadScientist globeheaded idiot brainwashed by a pseudoscience imposed on all weak minds by the Catholic Clergy! 😄 Copernicus (heliocentric theory) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were both CATHOLIC PRIEST! Eat their garbage, idiot. 👍😉 Great them up once you're in hell...
@@mullygully1510 i know that christian church is a false entity made up in Rome. It doesn't belong to the Bible AT ALL. Not sure how much you know about the manipulation incorporated into translations of NT... Early translations (Luther 1522, Tyndale 1526) DID NOT contain manipulative word "church"(kirche). So I'm not surprised some loonies (churchians) follow some Catholic loonatic ideas. 😏
lol it shows the curvature perfect and you can still count each block even from 29,7 miles which proves it has nothing to do with zoom, and btw zooming in only magnify what you allready see it cant bring anything below the horizon back sorry, now start using your (brain) instead of revealing your stupidity
You're talking bullshit Mike, and you know it. I suggest you put your money where your keyboard is: get the base of the building back in this picture. There's an entire AIRPORT hidden due to Earths curvature: tupidconspiracies.org/misc/toronto.gif Should be very easy if what you say is correct. Yet no flat earther has ever been able to do it! :-)
Mike Singer put your money where your keyboard is Mike! PROOF that picture is photoshopped! It isnt! PROOF that you can get the base of the buildings back into view. PROOF that you can get the missing AIRPORT back into view with your telescope! The location is mentioned right there! If you are right, it should be very easy to do. Why then has NO flat earther ever been able to do it?
How about aerial refraction aka bending lightrays downward ? (in this case into the water) Doesn't this cause the lower parts of the building to be lost out of sight the further one moves away, next to perspective ?
Not only is the opposite true, but this very normal effect is said to not exist at all by the FE community. Complete denial that anything ever becomes obscured due to the horizon. All these videos clearly showing curvature effect are said to be fake or non-existent.
Jon Peerless Also, when they make a video they show distant objects that they think should not be visible. When in fact they are viewing them from a high viewpoint above the water, which allows you to see much further. If the world truly was flat, we should see right down to the shoreline across the water. However what really happens is the bottom disappears from building just as the spherical model of the Earth predicts.
Thanks, doing multiple distances really makes a differences in showing the effect, and not like most flat earthers that will only do one observation and then nit pick about we see a little more/further than we geometrical should on the globe Earth. An even better way to test for flat vs globe Earth is to use an auto level, as I did in this other video, and could calculate a surface drop of little less than 8in per mile squared ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html
@@MathiasKp That bit about 8" per mile-squared dates from Rowbotham, almost 150 years ago, and was never reliable. First, notice that any equation in the form of (one number) = (another number squared) describes a parabola, not a sphere. This mantra of "8 inches etc" is correct only at the distance of 50 miles. It's too much at shorter distances, and rapidly becomes too little at longer ones. It's a handy rule of thumb, for mathematically challenged flattards at distances close to 50 miles, but useless for other people at other distances.
@@Alcohen2006 Yes, you are correct in that the 8in per mile squared is a rule of thumb. But the error for observations in the range of 0-100miles is at the most 1ft, so for practically observations it is valid to use. In my observation over 28.5km/17.7mi (ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html) the error from the geometrical correct value is only 0.05ft. At least if I'm correct in these calculations, flic.kr/p/2hsfpj6
"What can waves do to what is possible to see of the lower part of buildings?" Not much, as this video shows that a lot more than just 3m of tower is disappearing. Also, if waves are blocking the view, the same blockage should be seen from every viewpoint in the video.
Just an example. Lets assume the earth is flat. Lets assume your eyes are at water-level and the distance is 50 km to the tower and you can se all of the tower. How much of the tower will disappear with wave height of 1 m above sea-level? (equals wave peak to peak of 2 m). Can you imagine how the sight line will be pushed up by the wave? If the wave is 1 m high exactly between you and the tower, the lower 2 m of the tower will disappear. But what if the waves is 3 m high and way closer to you? The sight line will be pushed way up.
"But what if the waves is 3 m high and way closer to you? The sight line will be pushed way up." it only will if the wave is higher than the viewer. 3 m is about the maximum on an average day and that measurement is the difference between the highest point of the wave and the lowest. So its not 3 m above sea level.
To illustrate that waves can only obstruct more than the height of them with a camera below the top of the waves I made this video ua-cam.com/video/NY90t_gYVT4/v-deo.html
In the first :54 seconds he proves the Earth curvature calculator is wrong. The Earth curve calculator says from 15.5 mi a total of 108 ft should be obscured. from 17.6 mi a total of 147 ft should be obscured from 21.6 mi a total of 237 ft should be obscured from 25.0 mi a total of 330 ft should be obscured from 28 mi a total of 425 ft from 29.7mi a total of 484.7666 190 m = 623.36 feet. Please, at 2:59 in the video, from 25 mi is more than half of the building obscured? Plus 1. The line of sight (los) angle of the lense and the base of the object decreases 2. If the camera is at max zoom each time, increasing the distance will make the object appear smaller. 3. The amount of water in the los increases, which adds distortion. All of this including his video prove there is no curvature. Good job!!!
+paul is dead and other hot potatoes, I think you need to take a closer look at your calculations. In the link below there is a graph in the upper left corner where you can see how well the amount obscured matches the globe Earth. flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Those are not mine they came from an Earth curvature calculator. Here dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=29.7&h0=6&unit=imperial Also my last three points are more that enough to make up for the change in appearance of the building as the distance increases.
Your calculations are wrong since you for some weird reason chose 6 ft as observer height, in this image (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) you can see the real observe heights complete with calculations with and without refraction and how well the observations matches the globe Earth. And yes refraction is real. Land surveyor on land use a standard refraction index of 0.12-0.13. My observations has a little different average refraction index (0.17), which is expected since the refraction index is different over sea than over land. So yes these observations matches the globe Earth very well, and not at all a flat Earth. And no your three points are just standard FE excuses, not at all valid points of why we can’t see the bottom of the building.
I fixed my mistake. My first numbers were in your favor anyway. We can't see the bottom because what we call the bottom is, the 6 feet closest to the ground. Things shrink as distance increases. So the bottom 6 ft from 29 mi will shrink much more than entire building. Does the building look like it is leaning back also?
+DANG JOS, in general yes, I zoom more the further away I am. But looking at the video there are some various amount of zoom from the different places. Also at the longer distances some of the zoom might have been digital in the camera. It's a long time since I made the video so I can't remember it for sure.
Mathias Kp Thanks. The reason I ask is that the apparent diameter of the building appears to stay mostly constant even though it should be half of what it was before at twice the distance.
@@superfrankpt Yes, which means the building remains about the same size, even though it should be getting smaller with distance. That's what the zoom did
@@DANGJOS of course, when Mathias place each shoot side by side, they have different zoom factors. Why do you say it should get samller with distance when using zoom?
If you show this to a flat earther, they'll pull that magic word they always use when they're stuck and they don't even know what it means : PERSPECTIVE.
+ d w, _"did you notice that with all the height change that there was no angle change?"_ The angle on a globe would only be 0.43 degree. You can measure this yourself in a drawing program like GeoGebra (free) or watch my video where I do it: ua-cam.com/video/HL5ZvLV9MPM/v-deo.html
The degree may be minor but it would be noticeable on the top of the building. If it top of the building doesn't have any difference except for size, then there is no difference except for distance. If there is no change of angle, there is no curvature. If there is a curvature, there must be it change an angle.
+d w, _”The degree may be minor but it would be noticeable on the top of the building”_ I don’t understand why you think the minor angle should be visible at the top of the building. With 3D software I have simulated what the view would look like for a 200m high building seen from 50km of distance on a sphere with the radius of 6371km. In that 3d model you can’t see any lean on the 200m high building. In the same model I also placed a 100km high object 800km away from the observer, and then the lean is visible but certainly not for an object 200m high seen 50km away. Link to 3d model: ua-cam.com/video/MWDER_SOTsc/v-deo.html
+d w, it is good that you think about these things. Please take a look at these two water bottles and tell me which one is tilted back? One is level and the other tilted back by about 1 degree - double what we are talking about for the tower. dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62849459/tilt/tilt.jpeg
I calculated the assumable Lowering with L²/2r (L=Distance, r=Radius of the Earth) Seen from 47,9km Distance shouldn't the Building be lowered by 180m? Based on this Observation i would say the Event Horizon shifts in relation to the used focal lenght. And by increasing these futhermore lower Parts of the Tower would appear? Could this Footage be proof of a major Issue in the Worldview of a Ballearth?
+Manerarr Hi Manerarr, I think you also need to put the height of observer into your equation. From information on the wikipedia article on Horizon: Lowering = ((L-3.57*sqrt(OH))/3.57)^2 (L=Distance in km, OH=height of observe in m). If one use miles/feet, the equation is Lowering = ((L-1.22*sqrt(OH))/1.22)^2 (L=Distance in miles, OH=height of observe in feet). You can see all my calculations here: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
@@litetrackproduction3220 That's an old comment you found there. Yes the math in that formular is a bit "weird" since it is a rule of thumb. If you are interested in a more accurate geometric formular and how to get to it, check out this page flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/derivation-for-height-of-distant.html
+Cleber Sinto, what is the math behind the vanishing point? I'am asking so I can test your theory of how objects are hidden behind the horizon. Because if you don't have any mathematically explanation of your theory you basically are just trowing out random assumptions.
+Cleber Sinto: "It's Refraction and difraction of image, vanishing point, atmospheric gas, Fatamorgana effects." So basically anything else than the physical shape of the Earth - yeah that sounds plausible :-). Also interesting to note that you don't provide any math on how to test your vanishing point theory.
La Torre de Pisa tiene 4° de inclinación y si la ves en el sentido de que la inclinación sea hacia atrás desde tu posición (como ocurre con el Turning Torso) no se puede ver. encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQOZlsl6BuLWVOkChgQPf-5vSYaPg5rKvgVDQ&usqp=CAU Gracias y saludos.
Flat earthers be like, "Blah blah perspective, blah blah refraction..." But they clam up and remain utterly silent about their usual lie about how zooming in on objects makes them magically re-appear at full height right down tot he horizon.
@@RayleighCriterion The weather is obviously clear in these videos of the ships disappearing behind water. The toronto photo example, doesnt keep going back far enough, as in the videos. to see the tower disappear. Why not get in a boat and show that you can make the cn tower reappear with a telescope no matter how far you are from it? These videos are more complete examples than your these pictures of cnn tower.
Great job Mathias ! Of course I already knew that the earth was not flat, the whole sphere model perfectly explains every sunset and sunrise and all other details. But still there are many people who doubt this and think that the earth could be flat. Thank you for this great video !
I know this video is over a year old so this is a long shot, but I would like to know how much more you zoomed in on each shot or if you enlarged the further distance images afterwards. It would be really great to see this test repeated with a consistent zoom amount (max optical zoom, for example) and no after scaling or cropping. Just line up the water lines. Maybe someone has asked this before but I don't feel like reading 2,500 comments, although I did read quite a few.
Yes others have asked about this before. Since the focal length (amount of zoom) isn’t stored in the videoes, there is no way to tell the amount of zoom. I guess photographs (with stored focal length) would cover what you are asking for, but I didn’t thought of taken those while doing these observations.
@@rinse-esnir4010 spot on. Lies and fantasy seem to be more important to flat earthers. They really do ignore the obvious truth and observable facts about our surroundings and swap it out for nonsense.
@@MathiasKp That is terrible. I remember when he called 3-m and Honeywell for masks for his business. He was shutdown because the healthcare workers need came first. Darn shame, I loved his passion.
At this point, continuing the delusion that the earth is flat is just sad because it makes zero logical sense based on clear observation to try to explain away everything in this video to still work with the flat earth. Try as they may, there is just no proof of a flat earth and declaring this video as fake, only shows how far lost in their idiotic delusion they are. I wish it was a small movement of trolls, but look how many subscribers some flat earth youtubers have and tell me this is just a bunch of trolls...
I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel pity for you globetards. You turn a blind eye to all the anomalies and look for cherry picked conditions like these to prove your delusion because of a strong cognitive dissonance. This video is retarded and if you actually analyzed it instead of falling victim to your confirmation bias you'd have noticed it. How can 3 km obscure the same amount of blocks as 6km? And that's the smallest problem here.
Why is it that, every flat earth debunk video is false/fake/misleading/incorrect, but every flat earth proof video is true? If the sun never goes below the horizon, then why do I see the sun go below the horizon? If I can't trust my eyes, then what can I trust? you? a book? LoL
Check out Raczi TV's similar observations of Turning Torso from different distances in these two videos: ua-cam.com/video/DdClBtYiKcc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/0djEW5IpWM8/v-deo.html
@justice start The tilt on a globe Earth for the longest observer distance of 47.9km would only be about 0.43 degrees, and I doubt you can notice that small of an backwards tilt on a building.
Mathias Kp, I really appreciate this video. There's no reason no watch any other video showing objects being partially obscured by the curved Earth since no other video, flat Earth or otherwise, does the analysis as carefully as you did (see the links in the description). You carefully take into consideration the height of the building, the height of the observer, the distance to the building, the tides (which don't matter much) and you even estimate the amount of atmospheric refraction, which turned out to be the expected amount. You avoid having the camera too close to the water (a known refraction anomaly). You show how your measurements compare to the model. And you did it all your measurements in one day. And your subject does not have significant mirroring, stretching, or other distortion as seen in other videos.
Thanks, haven't seen this comment before. But yes I tried my best, also to keep the video as simple as possible. As clear as one would think this is, it doesn't seem to have much effect on FE'ers.
Hi Mathias Kp. If it doesn't have any effect it's because it's impossible to teach someone who is only pretending to be stupid. Practically all professed flat-earthers are psychological operatives trying to ridicule the Bible and true conspiracies. I appreciate what you are doing to help those very few gullible people who are genuinely duped by the psy-op, but please don't expect to reach the vast majority of those who claim to believe the Earth is flat, because they really don't. Greetings from Jasper.
@@jaspermay5813 Yes you might be right, no matter how much evidence there is provided for the spherical Earth, it doesn't seem to change fe'ers opinion.
@Ron Dale Perspective on a flat plane is easy to diagram. Show us and then trot out the math that proves you right. Working out what perspective looks like on a flat plane and then contrasting that with what the globe really looks like is EXACTLY how we show you're wrong. For instance, every star has a geometric point, where it is exactly 90 degrees from the horizon. If you take an angular measurement from level to that star from where you are, and then subtract that measurement from 90 degrees you know how many degrees of curvature of the globe you are from that geometric position. It so happens that 1 degree of arc on Earth and in the altitude of the star is equal to 60 nautical miles. Suppose you measured 80 degrees. 90 - 80 equals 10 so you know you are 10 degrees away from the geographic position of the star. Multiply 10 x 60 nm per degree and you know you are somewhere on a circle 600 nm in radius from that geographical position. Show us how that rudimentary celestial navigation works on Flerftopia, please. It will be funny. I'm laughing already.
Wow. Nice. And you CAN'T "bring back" the WHOLE TOWER by zooming in. Imagine that! Interesting proof of the curve of the earth as you go farther away from the observer.
***** What you said.., Yeah. "yeah it's called perspective. Boats only appear to rise to the horizon as they sail away, and they only appear to go below it. Logical, simple, observable. Lines of apparent convergence cross at the horizon" That qualifies as incoherent. Have another scotch you fucking dimwit.
***** You have no comprehension of logic larry.., The boat is NOT sailing "up a hump." As soon as an object moves away from you, it is technically descending a curve. (If you consider you position to be the vertical apex of the TANGENT you are on the circumference of the earth at the endpoint of the radius of the earth. Technically, you are standing at the top of the saggita of an arc inscribed on a sphere. You are at the top of the hump.., It only APPEARS that it is sailing UP to the horizon. (We have all by now been lectured to death on "perspective" haven't we????) If another boat sailed away from you in the opposite direction, it would be the mirror image situation, and I AM THE KING OF THE HILL!!! Dumb twat.., Next attempt in queue..,
***** Nope dude.., I'm not confused at all. You are the one here Trying to confuse people. You would add to your small circle of friends that way.., PERSPECTIVE Larry.., Yes science agrees with the fact that perspective lets us see that boats appear to sail up over a hump.., Yup.., Don't bother to refute my geometry though do you, smart guy????? Sagitta, "h", secant, chord.., Look them up and how they fit into perception of distance and perspective. I'll site you some web sites if you ask nicely.
***** No, Look at a friggin' CIRCLE larry, draw a SECANT with you at the top of the radius of the central angle, ASSHAT.., Boat at point "a", you at point "b" boat at point "c" You are at the peak, while boats a and c are downhill from you, dipshit..,
Fantastic video. Thanks for taking the time to produce this. Flat earthers are never convinced by technical explanations because they simply don't understand physics and refuse to study it. Something that they can see is the only way .... and even then I can see that some still refuse to deal with that ... thats a shout out to you Real Deal Supporter.
I hate to tell you this, but objects disappearing bottom first was debunked by a Nobel Prize winning physicist some 128 years ago. I guess you never got the memo.
ok...but at the distance of 50 km the curvature is 196 meters...that means to me that the building should not be visible at a distance of 50 km 1,96 m at 5 km.....7,85 m at 10 km.....196 m at 50 km.....785 m at100 km.........
+ONE GAME ONE WAY, you are using an observer altitude of 0m. On this link (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) you can see the correct calculations where the height of the observer have been taken into account.
I am still confused! How is it the earth curving but the building is not tilting back in view with the curve? like I see what appears to be curvature, however, the building seems to be upright instead of angled with the curve. could you explain, please?
is it because the zoom is too weak to see it all ? just like when ships appear to disappear over the horizon? yet can be brought back into view with a telescope? maybe if you get a stronger zoom the building will be brought back into view clearly. very confused here :(
unkown ? Have you calculated how much the building should tilt away from the observer at 29,7 miles ?, its 0.43 degrees, do you think you would notice that?.
@@petervenables513 Nonsense, you can clearly see the building disappears botom first below the clearly horizon, from all distances, and you still see the building, but almost 400ft is missing from 29,7 miles, why should anything at all be missing if the water is flat?.
Good effort. There are a few things you need to consider before saying this is proof of curvature. 1. As usual, you are looking straight ahead and the horizon rises to eye level. That is what happens in our eyes at any height. If we are on a ball, we are always on top so there is no reason whatsoever to think that there should be a bulge in front of us. 2. The tower disappears by several blocks but you do not see any tilt. I know, you will say that the tilt would be minuscule. No matter. That is why these images always look funny... Because the horizon is created by the water. 3. If you went up in the air, would you have to look down to see the base of the tower, or would the base just pop up to the horizon line? 4. See how faded the tower is? The same thing happens to the sun.... There is simply a limit to how far we can see. 5. You can get exactly the same cutting off effect just a few meters in front of you if you put the camera o the ground on a flat surface. That isn't curvature. That's what happens to the light reaching our eyes. 8. If you say that the horizon in front of you is due to curvature, then you should also see the same evidence at the same distance to the left and right. We don't, so you have to think about what the horizon really is... It is not a physical or geographical phenomenon. It is an optical phenomenon
1 The bulge is what is the reason you can't see the bottom of the tower. The top is the center point between the viewer and the tower. So this video proves the curvature. 2 you don't see any tilt because: a - it is tilting away from you b - the tilt is too small to see with the naked eye. 3 Indeed, if you would get to a higher view point, you would start to see more of the tower. This can only be explained on a globe earth, as you are looking over the bulge from point 1. On a flat surface, the altitude should not make a difference. 4 it is indeed faded. we are indeed limited to how far we can see. But that doesn't matter, we still can see the tower, but not its base, because of point 1. 5 nonsense. There is nothing blocking the light on a flat surface. 6 indeed, we see the same phenomenon if we look to the left or right. The tower does not suddenly reappear if the viewer looks over his shoulder at it in stead of straight ahead. The horizon is a circle around you. So all your points considering, this video still proves the curvature and cannot be explained on a true flat surface.
+Phuket Word, just watched your video. But what about those observation (ua-cam.com/video/i0ObTd7DLMw/v-deo.html) where we don't see a large mirroring effect that could hide the bottom of a ship?
Mathias Kp Like I said. We are on the surface so there is a limit to how far you see across a flat surface... It condenses with distance and your eyes create a horizon out of whatever surface feature is highest in front of you. Do you see how close that surface is? Compare that to how much sky you can see, The fact is, horizons are what happens in our round eyes. Not because of any geographical curvature. Look hard at that video and you will see that it looks strange, because the objects that are supposedly going down a curve are not going down a curve. All you have to do is find a flat surface and get down on the ground.. You will get exactly the same effect but a closer horizon, even though you know there is no curve. And then, if you elevate your position, you will not have to look down to see more distant objects. It's very very simple to see and compare, The only struggle in really seeing and believing it is the idea that people making trillions out of "space" have no reason to lie..... Think again. Politicians lie, salesmen lie etc. etc. You just have to get used to the idea that the rabbit hole they told you about in The Matrix is deeper than most can imagine. And in that clip, which I have studied before, you do see mirroring.
Phuket Word I read your answer three times but I still can’t make out what you think that is obstructing the view to the bottom of the ship in the video. _“there is a limit to how far you see across a flat surface... It condenses with distance and your eyes create a horizon”_: In my video of turning torso (ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html) the building can clearly be seen so it is not a problem of not being able to see that far. So why would something happen to the sea but not the building? _“All you have to do is find a flat surface and get down on the ground.. You will get exactly the same effect but a closer horizon”_: In my video (ua-cam.com/video/y_7ev7h3bEI/v-deo.html) I demonstrated that there clearly is no horizon on a flat surface.
Mathias Kp I watched it. Do it in daylight, and also take note of the fact that without a wall in front of you, the horizon always always comes up to eye level. You can surely see that even over a flat surface, everything comes together in the middle of your vision.
what is that "lean angle" people are talking about? if i am on a sphere, and look at this building (or any hypothetical buildings like this) in any direction, the only "lean angle" i can expect would be the leaning of the building "backwards", right? because i saw someone uploading a picture of an example of "lean angle" and he presented a sideway leaning. got me confused
Yes I think it is the backwards leaning that some people are asking questions about. Though it would only be about 0.43 degrees at the longest distance of 47.9km.
Just a little more zoom right flat Earthers? Just a little more zoom and we could of exposed the "globe lie". Darn it, well got to keep the FE narrative going.
No matter how much you zoom, you wouldn't be able to bring the bottom back into view due to atmospheric lensing and angular resolution. Do you not understand how optics work or are you just being disingenuous? I love how 471 ft of the tower should be obscured and yet we see much more of the building than we should be seeing. Have you checked out the infrared videos which are viewing things 100 miles away? Infrared really cuts through a lot more of the atmosphere and you are able to avoid a lot of the atmospheric lensing which is obscuring your view. Check out some of the observations from JTolan Media1. Peace
@Mathias Kp May I ask how did you get from the 8 blocks of the 1st picture to the 7 blocks of the 2nd picture and what's the height difference between those two?
I made side by side comparison and measurements of the visible/obscured part: flic.kr/p/R2q2fd And I also calculated the difference between my observations and the GE model, flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Mathias Kp I can see the comparison, what I cannot see is the obstacles taking the vertical position of a curved ground, not only that, at metabunk where you have with and without refraction the hidden part of the 1st photo says somewhere between 23-28 meters. and there are 8 blocks covered right? but what you actually see on the photo is the base of the object. at the second photo I didn't do the measurements cause I really dunno what was the height of the observer. if the height didn't change from 5'6" or 170cm then you realize that there is a missing curved surface, which is what you are looking for. how about doing a 3d with a ball and some vertical lines over it, due to perspective and observer you should notice that the straight lives which are vertical to the curved surface they aren't vertical for the observer who looks from a distance. at another 3d you made the boats are close to observer as to the real scale, I would say the observer from the first object is not 5km but 1km and to the last 5km. But if you do the same in a curved surface you would see many differences as to how you observe everything around you and how they should be if there was a 8"/m^2 curvature allowance.
In this image flic.kr/p/EseKVJ I have listed all the observer heights and distances, and calculated with and without refraction. In the upper left corner is there a graph where I have compared my measurements with the GE expected values. _”…you would see many differences as to how you observe everything around you and how they should be if there was a 8"/m^2 curvature….”_ I know many videos are claiming this but the atmospheric conditions changes, so it can be very difficult to calculate what we _should_ see. Any way look at the graph in this picture flic.kr/p/EseKVJ (upper left corner) from that I think it looks like the GE model prediction get close to the actual observations.
Mathias Kp that again doesn't explain that on a curved surface the distant objects still have vertical position. but I will look at it once I get home, I am working atm.
If the radius if the Earth is 6371km then over a distance of 47.9km, buildings would lean 0.43 degrees, I don’t think that angle is enough for us to notice. Link to video where I show how one using GeoGebra can measure this angle ua-cam.com/video/HL5ZvLV9MPM/v-deo.html
@@godsbeautifulflatearth No it actually does not prove anything relative to a flat earth. It does prove you are an ignorant religitard fool who argues from ignorance to justify more arguments from incredulity.
What I'd like to know tho~ Are the names of the places because elevation above sea level varies greatly all along the shore of Denmark: Hellerup 10m, Charlottenlund 11m, Klampenborg 6m, Raadvad 9m, Skodsborg 13m, Vedbaek 7m, Kopenhagen 14m, Helsingor 49m, Humblebaek 15m, Horsholm 29m, Birkerod 53m...et cetera with Malmo, Sweden where Turning Torso is: @ 12m, My Apologies: cannot research GPS coordinates for commensurate elevation in relation to sea-level.
You're right...I realised the mistake later after critically examining things a bit more & realising that ""Sea-Level" was a moot point. Thank you for not calling me a dolt.
+Mathias Kp | Did you not wonder why, as you gradually film the building from a greater distance, that it remains vertical, relative to your observation point? It should be clearly leaning away from you, more and more, as you increase the distance. The vertical building is the proof, that we do NOT see the effect of a curvature, but rather the effect of perspective! :)
+elonesnah | Chicago, seen from 60 miles away, which is twice the distance, still show vertical buildings. Mirage or not, the buildings should clearly be leaning away from us, from that distance. According to your claim, they should only be leaning 1 degree away from us, which dosen't make sense on a ball / sphere.
We detect that something is leaning away by comparing widths. We don't have a built in distance gauge to detect that the building 3 blocks down is 22 cm closer than the top when it really should be a 71 cm difference. So the question is: Do you notice that there is a 0.0005% difference in the width instead of a 0.0015% difference? Or in a more direct reference to the video: Are you seeing an extra 0.05% of a pixel that shouldn't be there?
no curve because its impossible . Take any alleged photo from alleged ISS and compare to the curve from your photo. The sizes don't match. NASA lies and you repeat all the jesuits and nazi lies.
+1000fantomas, I'm pretty sure NASA doesn't have a large dslr mounted outside the ISS with the same lens I have used, but likely more a small action camera like the gopro, which with the standard fish eye lense will produce a large amount of distortion. I would suggest you buy a wide angle non fish eye lens (like I have used) and try to take some photos on your own. Then you can see that the horizon in fact looks curved.
If the earth was curving away, then why are all those pictures exposing the building lack of lean to match the curve you desperately are trying to prove. It is clear from the horizontal lines in the sections of the building that it never leans to match your imaginary curve! You need to understand perception and vanishing point, we never said the bottom of buildings never disappear over distance, that is expected, though the true argument is about the tilt we don't see over those distances, thanks for more proof though! God Bless
+Flat Earth Hub The blind will lead the blind. You need to (or ask somebody else) to do the math on how little the building should lead. Until you do, you are basically repeating the claim of somebody else.
Mathias Kp I have done the research, have you? If so, tell me what the distance is of an arc second in feet? Also tell me the height of curve measured over an arc second? If you can answer these correctly with what is taught to surveyors then we will continue to how the lean of the building would be measurable between your pictures as much as the distance dropping from the proposed curve! Or you can stop now and accept that the vanishing point and horizon line will merge both base and ceiling frames of reference as the distance is increased!
+Flat Earth Hub Well, it is really good that you have done the research, can you then please provide an equation that show how little a building seen from 25km/15.5mi should lean on a sphere with the radius of 6371km/3959mi?
A common mistake. Objects are squeezed towards the horizon due to perspective. Notice your building appears to get wider as you get further. Also there is something called a diverging line of sight. Watch my video "Flat Earth Sunset Theory".
Either way, even at 48km if earth was a ball you should still see much less of the building. And like I said, on a sphere the drop should double every mile, this video demonstrated it drop at an even rate.
Regarding how much/little would be visible on the globe earth. I have made a graph campairing my observations with theorethical values: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ. The increase in the lenght of the sightline various from 2.2% to 11.7%
Patrick Shank SQUEEZED implies the entire image remaining but being distorted. This view is losing information from the bottom, not squeezing the building. WRONG, and next please.
+caveatemp In the video I round down to a whole number of blocks. In the graph (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) I also use half blocks so if you want a more accurate count look in the graph.
caveatemp My video is an observation not in any form an evidence for anything. But the graph on the other hand will some people say fits one model (flat earth/globe earth) better than the other and therefore is evidence for one of the model. But no the video itself is not evidence for anything just some observations that anybody can do.
+Mathias Kp I came to this video because you were positing it as an evidence for a ball earth on another video's comment section. Now here you tell me it is not in any form an evidence for anything. Get your story straight.
Roy Privatte Jr. How can it be perspective when the bootom of the building is below the horizon and you still can count each block, if it was perspective we would still see the hole building when zooming in, maybe you should watch it one more time
"great video proving perspective" nice isn't it? But the video also proves curvature. Because no matter how much you zoom in, the lower part of the tower remains hidden.
You should probably take a look at the graph in the link: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ there you can see how the observations match (or not) the globe earth model.
@justice start _"...Go figure out what it should be doing on a globe..."_ In this other video I used the top of a very large sphere to test what would happen around the horizon on a sphere (or globe) and as you can see the observation on the sphere mathces real life observations ua-cam.com/video/PkjYSHOuovo/v-deo.html
Mathias Kp, since I may try to do something like this myself I'm curious how you measured the observer height. I don't doubt it's accurate given the results, but I'm just curious how you came up with it.
Hi Steven, I used laser data. All of Denmark has been laser scanned with about 5 points per square meter and the LiDAR pointcloud is free for everyone to use, see an example in this other video ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html If you are looking for similar data, you can download data from viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic Both the Lidar pointcloud and also a 1/3 arc-second (10m) DEM raster data. You then might need to learn about GIS software, a free program called QGIS can read the raster height data files, and other free programs like Displaz or FugroViewer can read LAZ point cloud data. Here is an example of data I downloaded from New York flic.kr/p/MmF5MW You can also maybe use topographic maps from store.usgs.gov/map-locator they have contour curves in 5ft steps, and will properly be more easy to use than the DEM or LiDAR data. If you are standing close to water you can also measure the height using an auto level and a level measuring rod, you can get a good analog auto level for 200-300$, using that you can also do all kind of other interesting observations, like measuring the horizon below “eyelevel”, from even as low altitude as 5m. I have bought a Leica NA332 auto level, which I found very useful www.zenithsurvey.co.uk/product/leica-na332-automatic-level/
+joci mocilo, good luck with explaining I can measure a drop of close to 8in per mile squared (which all land surveyors can too). ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html . Or are auto levels in on the globe lie?
I fly with plane horizon NEVER drop ...i just proved it...try to prove curve to me which has NEVER been observed and you guys dont understand that air become not transparent as you move further and even on car race track or when airplane is moving on tarmac you CANT see through exaust even if is mostly hot air...try it... and you both run away like little girls from FACT that we CAN see more than globe allow us... and for your education i will show you something : ua-cam.com/video/I3TE0CAXq_k/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/otQt8AEZ1PI/v-deo.html and for finish -just to trash your illusion about world we live: ua-cam.com/video/2frpU6nkb_I/v-deo.html
+joci mocilo, so I guess you have no explanation for why we on Earth can measure a drop close to 8in per mile squared? Don’t you wonder why 99% of all flat earthers ignore the most accurate observations we can make using auto levels? ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html _”… try to prove curve to me which has NEVER been observed…”_ What *curve* are you talking about, the whole circumference or the curved horizon? Those two things are very different. The *curved horizon* will both happen on a flat Earth and a spherical Earth, but much more on the spherical Earth, and can be seen from hot air balloons (which you already know). In order to see the whole circumference then you would have to be many thousands miles from the sphere, so that’s obviously a false claim. _”… you both run away like little girls from FACT that we CAN see more than globe allow us…”_ Of course you can see further geometrical speaking, that’s basic physics 101 - refraction. The fact flat earthers deny basic physics principles don’t make the principles wrong. But you already know these things, from everyday experiences (air over hot roads) you just denies them or else you would have to accept reality matches a globe Earth ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html
when is raining you can barely see the mountain near city...for long distances observations humidity and dust(like dubay) make it impossible....just saying...not to smart are you? check this : REAL experiment ; ua-cam.com/video/LLS0NFyvWbE/v-deo.html
+jocu mocilo _”…check this : REAL experiment…”_ What makes that “experiment” more real than this Turning Torso video you are commenting on? About your link. When dealing with the atmosphere there is varying refraction which can change within short time period largely caused by heating from sunlight, so changes can for instance be seen going from day to night. And then there is the more steady refraction caused by change of density, this density gradient can be measured using a barometric meter all the time like I’m doing here ua-cam.com/video/PrXw9914uHs/v-deo.html It seems that “Dr” John D completely ignores the steady density gradient we at all times can measure, and then claims that the air at 100m of altitude should be more dense than at sea level ( ua-cam.com/video/Zyf0vChotMU/v-deo.htmlm50s ). *No person in the history of mankind has ever observed that.* On the contrary reports states that at over 30m of height (the intermediate atmosphere) there is very little change of refraction index ( agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014067 ). So *“Dr” John D obviously makes false claims about the atmosphere and refraction,* and also I wonder why there is no daytime footage when his claims of the atmosphere is more dense at 100m than at 0m doesn’t apply?
Trying to justify the math. The tower is 190M tall (623.4 ft.), divided into 9 sections (to be used as measurement "blocks") means each section in 21 M, or roughly 69 ft. The calculation for curve is 8 inches per mile squared, (8*Mile^2) so at the first point of reference, roughly 15 miles, the amount of curve should be roughly 150 ft, (15 miles x 15 miles = 225 x8 in. =1800 in. \12 in. = 150 ft.) yet the observer shows he is able to see 8 "blocks" meaning only 69 ft. are hidden by curve. Granted, we do not get to know his relative altitude from the first position - however by the scientific calculations, at least 2 blocks should have been "hidden" from that distance? Or am I doing the math wrong?
I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with your numbers except point out that your own observations do not support what is supposed to be mathematically calculable using science's own formula for the curve? From 29.7 miles out, 588 ft of the tower should be "hidden" however with more than 3 blocks showing, that is more than 207 feet still showing. Unless the tower is at least 795 feet tall (more than the stated 623 ft) something doesn't add up.
bumblfux You are not using the observer height in your calculation. You can find the height on the image (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) with all the numbers. The GPS app is called GPS Test: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chartcross.gpstest&hl=en
Thanks for the app info. Observer height only comes into play to determine how far one is supposed to be able to peer into the distance. Unless you are purposefully obfuscating the results by changing viewing heights randomly, one would assume you are roughly the same elevation when shooting at each location with the exception of the last shot where you note that you have changed elevation. The numbers I used: pure curve calculation.
? that's strange i see it fine, its even good weather for a observation like this, In every clip, you can still see the lines which split up the segments, i would actually call this video one of the best, to show the earth curvature.
If you don't research diffraction and what it cause and effects are on the horizon don't post this bullshit on my channel.Research test and test it more and the results can change even if your height of the camera doesn't change.You guys test it once or twice then you say there's the proof but you don't take anything else into consideration.Use your brain and your eyes before making your statement.My observation change depending on the light ,which direction the light is coming from,tides,atmospheric conditions,and even the wind can play a roll including a combination of things. I've been observing and filming the horizon for over a year and a half so you posting this video on my channel means nothing to me.Have a nice day and your comment won't get posted on my channel.
_"...see things that should be hidden by curvature..."_ The atmosphere of the Earth changes a little everyday, so somedays there are less hidden than what geometrical calculated. But on average there is the right amount of obstruction. Here is a test I did over 21 days ua-cam.com/video/AN22ScCILZI/v-deo.html
@@MathiasKp What a joke. I'm talking about thing's that should be over 600 feet below the curvature but can be seen in it's entirety. Your talking about a atmosphere thing which is nothing compared to what I'm talking about. Smh
@@MathiasKp Science claim's that the Earth's curvature is 8 inches every squared mile. Not every mile , but every squared mile. I'm definitely not talking about a atmosphere thing.
@@doozy284 _"Science claim's that the Earth's curvature is 8 inches every squared mile..."_ A spherical shaped Earth has three types of "curvature": *1) Drop,* which is 8in per mile squared, here is how to measure it flic.kr/p/2iW7LPE *2) Hidden,* my clearest observation of this flic.kr/p/2g7dsKX *3) Left/right bulge,* more difficult to observe and measure, but using a rectilinear lens this is possible, flic.kr/p/WcGDHb
I think the video is well done. It is nice to have a building with nine uniform blocks we can use to gauge things with. The does seem like a demonstration of some curve on the surface. However, I calculate that 28 miles should take 522 feet of 159 meters out of view...that should only leave 31 meters in view int he last picture or 1.5 blocks(at the most). Yet it seems there are about 3 blocks in view.
I didn't actually "forget" I just decided to use zero height cause I was lazy and didn't know how to do it without additional work. Using 8 feet would definitely make a diff.
That would be the case if he was observing it from 0 cm altitude (aligned with se surface) with no refraction at all. According to flat Earthers, on a allegedly flat motionless plane, we should be able to see entire building, from its bottom to its top and all distances, but we don''t...
@@max5250Only globers like Walter Bislin spew that nonsense. Flat Earth people actually understand physics and know it's not possible to see everything near the surface and especially not when looking across a reflective surface.
@@RayleighCriterion Only brainless flat heads like you don’t understand that every single surface is reflective, or else, we wouldn’t be able to see it. Every single carpenter can tell you if a pixel of wood is dead straight, or curved, by looking across its surface.
+Nano Hoops, _”...I can’t open that file…”_ It wasn’t a link to file but to their main website. If you really are interested in what perspective does learn how to use Blender. You can download it from this website www.blender.org/download/
Things get smaller as they get further away, but they don't start overlapping and sinking behind each other and shit for no reason. Why flat earthers think this is so is a mystery.
+Itspietertime In the graph (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) I use: obstructed view = ((DS-1.22*sqrt(HO))/1.22)^2, (DS=distance to building in miles, HO=height of observer in feet). Instead of 1.22 I also use 1.22*1.08 which is the average amount of refraction. The source for the value 1.22 and 1.22*1.08 can be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
+Mathias Kp Okay. So if say, observer eye level is 6 feet, and distance is 20 km = around 12.4 miles, then obstructed height is 6.4 feet? Perhaps I filled the formula in incorrectly. I use this formula: r/(cos(tan-1((c-sqr((r+d)^2-r^2))/r))))-r. I dont know if this one is correct, assembled it myself. c= distance d=obs height eye level r= radius (not always 6371 km, latitude for example is very important and a big reason for the many mis calculations here on youtube)
+Itspietertime Yes the radius of the Earth is very important and a likely error when people try to calculate how much the curvature obstruct the view. Your math looks fine to me except for a small decimal error 6.4/64 feet, below are an example with three different methods Earth Curve Calculator: 58.93 feet wikipedia article Horizon(aprox geometrical): 59.5 feet Yours: -64.3 feet- (Edit: 58.926) Earth Curve Calculator h0 = 6 ft d0 = 12.4 miles h1 = 58.93 feet Approximate geometrical formula from wikipedia article Horizon ((DS-1.22*sqrt(OH))/1.22)^2 DS = 12.4 miles OH = 6 feet ((12.4-1.22*sqrt(6))/1.22)^2 = 59.5 feet r/(cos(tan((c-sqr((r+d)^2-r^2))/r)^-1)))-r r = 3959 miles c = 12.4 miles d = 6 feet = 6/5280 = 0.001136364 miles -(3959/(COS(TAN((12.4-sqrt((3959+0.001136364)^2-3959^2))/3959)^-1)))-3959 = 64.3 feet- (EDIT: ((3959/(COS(ARCTAN((12,4-sqrt((3959+0,001136364)^2-3959^2))/3959))))-3959) * 5280 = 58,9 feet)
+Mathias Kp Sorry but you filled in the equation incorrectly. It is tan-1, the a-tan. If you fill in then the equation I also come as answer around 18.15 m, which is around 59.4 feet.
+Itspietertime Yes you are right, the complete equation with imperical values will then be: ((3959/(COS(ARCTAN((12,4-sqrt((3959+6/5280)^2-3959^2))/3959))))-3959) * 5280 = 58,9 feet
I have done a lot of observation over the last two years, but don't always have the time to put it into a video. But here is quick presentation www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/43301168801 of the amount of compression from different observer heights and the different refraction coeffitiont needed to match a globe Earth. When I get the time I will put it into a longer video. But for now see how the lowest observation from 0.5m is way off the expected GE values, while the observation from 17.3m matches perfectly. This will of course change depending on the atmospheric conditions on the day. On a cold winter day I captured close to no compression from just 0.8m ua-cam.com/video/hEAyKb8wSZY/v-deo.html
It should be considered to make different observations from different points on the earth, not just from one place, and in different conditions as discussed. Eratosthenes and so many others did this before, but a complete map should be made from different observed locations. The conclusion is closer to the surface of the earth being more like a geode than a sphere.
Born Free You are right and it does, but how much?, the earth circumference is about 24901 miles, and there are 360 degrees in a circle, with that info you can calculate how much the backward lean from an observer should be, try it.
At 3:17 - 2:18 the ship appears abruptly Pauses in the video for new takes under the pretext of checking the hours only exist to be able to introduce some effect. The supposed effect would be to cut the image below or on the horizon line and later sink it behind the bottom.
+LZU LA, _”At __3:17__ - __2:18__ the ship appears abruptly”_ I don’t understand, what ship are you talking about? This video is about a building called Turning Torso!
Okay. Let's not dwell on too many videos so we do not lose focus. You are literally ignoring videos that show no curvature. And mostly they are ignoring my signature that I watched the video in slow motion, and yes, I've seen objects appear abruptly as described in the comments in this video. And more than that they completely ignored what I said about being easy to do a fake of curvature and be extremely difficult not to say impossible to create out of nothing a whole stretch of water and the underside of such points to be observed. Literally out of nowhere, because they would be behind the supposed curvature. While to make a fake of curvature would just cut the video and sink the top part behind the bottom, which is what I believe they did, with all respect.
+LZU LA, If you think I have faked this video, why don’t you go and make your own observation of what happens to a tall building observed from 25-50km of distance?
Let's face it, for every one globe curvature video there is a dozen flat earth videos proving no curvature. I don't think this can be used to claim victory although very interesting. What we actually need is for a flat earther to do the exact experiment and see what the result is. There are many variables known and unknown to be considered on both sides when measuring curvature.
+Mile Vlaski, _“…What we actually need is for a flat earther to do the exact experiment…”_ Rob Skiba (a flat earther) did a similar test with the Chicago skyline, see the two links below: Rob Skibas video: ua-cam.com/video/o37t6iBS_q4/v-deo.html Analyze of Robs video: ua-cam.com/video/S-_U5Yhlcck/v-deo.html
Flat Earthers, answer these: 1: Where exactly are we located? A big warehouse? A Petri Dish? A cardboard box? In a laboratory? Where exactly is this flat earth located? 2: Explain how a compass could possibly work on a flat earth? 3: How come nobody has ever witnessed the "ice wall" believed by flat Earthers that closes us in? 4: Who created it? Explain thoroughly please, not just "god". 5: How can the sun possibly set and rise on a flat earth? 6: Explain the workings of a lunar eclipse as related to a flat earth? 7: How does the field of view work on a flat earth? (If the earth is flat I would see the same constellations in the sky regardless of time or location, but I don't) 8: Why can I see other spherical planets/moons such as Phobos through a powerful telescope, why aren't they flat?
Mathias, sorry to ask, but the curvature of the earth is approximately 8 cm per km, is not it? So, according to your video the building should lose about 4 meters and not disappear by half because of the distance of 47km. Please Correct me if I'm wrong.
+Allan Goldman, There exist many different approximations for calculating the obstructed height behind the curvature. But if you wan’t to do it correct you need to use a formulae that includes the observer height. If you go to the webpage aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html you can see an explanation for a geometrical correct formula. The formula will look something like: obstructed height = sqrt(R^2+(d-sqrt(2*R*h+h*2))^2)-R R: Earth radius in meters d: distance between observer and object in meters h: height of observer in meters So with a distance of 47900m and an observer height of 16m you will get 88m that should be obstructed. obstructed height = sqrt(6371000^2+(47900-sqrt(2*6371000*16+16*2))^2)-6371000
All those poor people at the bottom of that building are drowning and you just sit there with your camera filming it instead of helping. You monster.
I know :-), so sad...
He saved some of them at the end by recording from a higher location which restored some of the building, so a semi-happy ending.
?
😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
I did a little calculation on how much is hidden using metabunks curvecalculator (using a viewer height of 5 meter). Each block in Turning Torso is around 21 meter heigh x blocks visible = visible.
25.0 km 23 meter hidden 168 meter visible = 192 meter total
28.4 km 33 meter hidden 147 meter visible = 180 meter total
34.7 km 56 meter hidden 126 meter visible = 182 meter total
40.3 km 82 meter hidden 105 meter visible = 187 meter total
45.1 km 108 meter hidden 84 meter visible = 192 meter total
47.9 km 126 meter hidden 63 meter visible = 189 meter total
And what do you know. The total height (hidden + visible) is between 180 and 192 meter. Proving that the curvature calculation of the Earth is correct.
The observation height changes from 2-4m, on this image ( flic.kr/p/EseKVJ ) you can see all the heights and calculations with and without refraction. In the graph in the upper left corner I have compared the observed amount of obscured with the calculated values.
Well, how about that! The Earth actually IS a globe, and of the same dimensions as science has told us!
@The Pure Gospel on the Flat Earth _"...You could consider buying a camera which has a better focus..."_ You mean something like this flic.kr/p/SFZLay I doubt it can get more clear than that :-)
ua-cam.com/video/YYxauqXsvZk/v-deo.html
@@pvtmill3rr You have posted the same link 40 times within an hour in comments on my videos. When you do that youtube will mark your comment as spam and no one other than you can see that comment. In the future only post the same link 1 time.
It is sad that it takes such effort to debunk an ideological view of the Earth that cannot produce a map.
Sadly, even though it well and truly proves the idiocy of Flat earth belief, it does nothing to open the eyes of the morons who do believe in it. They are simply braindead.
It would be easier to see curvature if the earth wasn't so large, but if it was any smaller then we wouldn't have as much water or an atmosphere that could sustain life, like Mars for example.
We know it's not flat, it's just impossible to argue with stupid people who use perspective and refraction to explain away the curvature that is obvious in this video.
If earth was really flat what we see in this video could not happen.
it's easy to produce a fake globe with a 4 billion dollar budget dumbass
If its such a big conspiracy why is it only 4 billion? Anyone at NASA could get upset that they aren't getting paid as much as they want and threaten to reveal 'the truth' if they don't get more money. Heck, why doesn't NASA have the military's budget if it is such a requirement for everyone to 'believe' in the fake globe earth? Grow the fuck up. Also, $4 billion is nowhere near enough to fake the globe across 195 different countries. Including North Korea, Russia and China? Fucking ridiculous...
+acrow5 North Korea? North Korea's space program is one of the best out there... Russia got paid for their silence. China? China allegedly only recently started launching manned spaceflights. They seem to be fake though: ua-cam.com/video/lBL98p0wZ7g/v-deo.html
On the other hand we have this: www.jstor.org/stable/616189?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I suggest you read it before you so adamantly defend the notion of a globe earth.
Nobody can threaten to reveal the truth because they're under nondisclosure agreement. The military are in on this too so you can cosider their budget as part of the funding of this mass delusion
as a digital artist who uses perspective on a daily basis, I can tell you that zooming in all you want won't bring back those bottom floors at ground level.
Digital artist here as well and I'm with ya. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest optics will retroactively alter light rays entering a lens in such a way to reveal large amounts of an apparently missing object. Even more interesting that this effect mirrors what you would expect on a GE perfectly.
FE had to do some serious gaslighting to sell a completely different model of perspective and act like it has always worked that way.
Apparently we are in on the conspiracy as well and are hiding the truth of perspective from the masses. Here's hoping we get our checks in the mail soon.
Hey, while you’re commenting could you give us and all the flat Earthers the juicy details on how many billions of dollars you’ve made from producing REAL TIME rendered super high quality CGI for NASA for decades? Lol. I too would like to make the big bucks, ha.
@justice start such a waste of genetic material dude.. you could be a dog or... i don't know, something useful for the world.. so fucking sad...
@justice start This is the second time you've made the claim that this video proves FE rather than debunks it. Since you're so knowledgable, perhaps you'd like to explain why, rather than simply assert?
@@CountNefario thats against the FE-Codex. They only Challenge you, and when they're proven wrong they run away and Search for another Not logic proof for the FE. Its like cats and dogs.
this is probably the best demonstration of this phenomena i have seen so far. excellent stuff :D
+Nathan Grant, Thanks
And why if I was a Ham station I would love to have an antenna mounted to the top of that building.
Nathan Grant Yes convergence & human perspective. No curve at all.
Amazing really!
Mr Fox Do you drink paint thinner.
@@jimmynobody8344 They don't use geometry, so they don't know how the perspective works, and can be easily fooled like here:
scontent.fpoz2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20294150_1863192603933793_1708800796188770186_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=-SPN9iIOay8AX_gJCC6&_nc_ht=scontent.fpoz2-1.fna&oh=ce74ab1496c4495a9d435bf1aaa6a5be&oe=5F753264
Makes no sense, I know.
Hello,
the calculation for the height difference for a spherical earth is in beginning of the video 25 km:
Distance L squared / 2 x Earth radius. That means:
25 km x 25 km / 2 x 6371 km = 49 m
If I have understood correctly, then when looking over the earth at a distance of 25 km, the object being observed is obscured by 49 m by the sea.
At 0:52 min you can see the tuning torso and the surrounding city. So if the earth were round, you wouldn't be able to see the city below at all.
You can also see the waves from the coast hitting the beach.
In my interpretation, the image should be proof of a flat earth.
Now my question. Am I making a mistake in my calculation or reasoning?
I would be grateful for a reply.
You don't have observer height in your calculation, so it is wrong.
Here flic.kr/p/EseKVJ you can see some calculations I have done for these observations.
Hallo@@MathiasKp,
thank you for your answer.
I still don't understand.
The height from which you filmed this is 3.7 m. So if the height difference is 49 - 3.7 m, then you shouldn't be able to see the other houses.
@@Armleuchter10 In your calculation, you get what is called "drop", while you need to calcultate the amount hidden.
Here is a visualisation of these two flic.kr/p/2pSnggT
On this page you can see the different values www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=25&h=3.7&r=6371&u=m&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264
@@Armleuchter10
"If I have understood correctly, then when looking over the earth at a distance of 25 km, the object being observed is obscured by 49 m by the sea. "
You didn't understood it correctly.
Objects on level surface of planet Earth, at the distance of 25 Km are 49 meters not below the see, but below an imaginary flat line, extending from the eyes of observer standing on a shore.
"At 0:52 min you can see the tuning torso and the surrounding city. So if the earth were round, you wouldn't be able to see the city below at all. "
Since Earth is a sphere, and cities are not drawn on a level surface of a ball, but they extend many meters up, there is no problem for us to see the ground and tall buildings around Turning torso from that distance, especially when we are observing it from certain altitude.
"You can also see the waves from the coast hitting the beach. "
No, you don't see any beach. All you see is sea line on a horizon.
"In my interpretation, the image should be proof of a flat earth. "
Your interpretation is wrong, since, on flat surface there would be no reason for bottom of this very tall building to get covered by the ground or sea-
On a spherical surface, this has logic.
And also at that distance(29.7 mi)the curvature of the Earth would only drop down 19.8 feet which means you wouldn't be able to see the bottom 19.8 feet of the building right? Well in that photo it seems that more than half of that building which is over 600 feet high is gone right? Well that doesn't make sense? Maybe perspective would make more sense right? Someone let me know Im actually curious on what you have to say.
If you are interested in numbers they are all here: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Mathias Kp I don't know what that link is but can you explain to me what I asked?
Mathias Kp can you reply to me lol? Why don't we just not see the bottom 19 feet instead of seeing more than half the building gone?
Mathias Kp forget about perspective because that's obviously not working by sending me links to things I have no idea how to use or ever used before.
Nano Hoops
Your calculations are wrong :).
Flat Earther: Wow, it must be high tide, look at the bulge in that water!
If any Flat-Earthers are still doubtful over this, and are too poor to buy a camera - they can replicate these effects by themselves by downloading a free 3D modelling software (such as Blender), create a large sphere (primitives such as spheres are pre-made, so it's as simple as hitting ''create sphere'') then, create a tall vertical rectangle slightly away from the pole of the sphere. Be sure that the rectangle is small compared to the sphere and said sphere is large enough relative to the camera that the horizon looks flat. Then, set up a camera at the pole (again, very easy to do, even for a beginner!) so that the virtual camera is looking at the building - and move the 'building' model slightly down the curvature of the sphere. Now look through the camera again and you'll notice the building should have dropped below the horizon on the sphere. You can also zoom in using the camera (by adjusting the focal length values) but no amount of static zoom will bring the rectangle up again, as it's been occluded by the curvature of the sphere!
Source: Art student, was involved in lots of graphic arts design including 3D animation and modelling. I also know that perspective causes objects to shrink on all dimensions - no amount of perspective is going to make an object vanish from the bottom up! (This too can be replicated in a 3D program!)
Conclusion: The Earth is round.
Sun Razor ua-cam.com/video/tflhWwoqWAw/v-deo.html
@@7shocker really....a skiba video. He is a charlatan....and has actually debunked the flat earth himself, so has jeranism and Bob knodel. Yet....They continue to get followers and money contributions from the gullible people who believe their crap....you and your flat earth brethren are filling the pockets of a bunch of charlatans....i am all for a good conspiracy, but this one is played out and debunked.
@@Rozza43 played out? You're still here.
Say what you will about Skiba; I have my own reservations.. but the experiment he conducted was confirmed and corroborated by actual scientists (he included the clip of them admitting this). So.. unless you have an explanation or counter experiment that says otherwise, character bashing isn't enough to refute this concept/experiment.
@@7shocker ua-cam.com/video/RMjDAzUFxX0/v-deo.html
This is one of many examples, when flat earthers accidentally show curve.
This video is proof of two things: 1. The earth is the same shape as the moon an sun (sphere shaped). 2. You can't argue with stupid people and understand logic for them, they will only waste your time.
There is some hope like in Evandro's case. I don't think people waste their time if they are trying to help others...but yes, when nobody listens...but some do. I am personally looking for "the some."
+Kevin Cass I'm like you, Kevin-hoping I make an impact on at least one person, and hoping there might be more I can get thinking about our beautiful, spherical ,planet Earth.
Lesley O'Neil Truth is on our side Lesley. It's more popular than I thought. I have mentioned this "horror" to my nephew and his girlfriend and to total strangers. They know that some people consider the earth flat and arent' shocked by it. They even have a hard time explaining how it's not flat...that's what floored me the most...some education system! The good thing is that with this internet social network, eventually these bozos will be exposed and the generally confused population will realize that just because you can put up a bunch of semi-professional looking videos, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. This will eventually teach some to think for themselves. Seriously Lesley, I work all over the globe and I have the first-hand advantage of seeing proof with my own eyes, but I don't need that proof...it's simple math, science and astronomical observation...yet some clowns talk about stuff they have no idea what they are saying. And because people like them, they follow them. It's so easy to see how cults are formed and before you know it the whole group is committing suicide :-(
+Kevin Cass Yes, you're correct-the really hard-core FE believers won't change their minds. But perhaps someone who is still looking might find something I've said opens their mind to the facts.
+hairylarry, _” show me a video of a gyroscope precessing against curvature”_ No problem, just show me the math on how precise the gyro needs to be and buy/built me one and I will test it.
(It is so easy to make rhetorical non valid arguments - is it not? Give it up, it is so clear you don’t believe in FE but are just posting rhetorical arguments)
So, on a flat plane, a hump in the water appears, and grows upward as the viewer gets farther away.....or, the hump is always the same, and the viewer and the building are on a curved surface. Hmm.... growing humps that tailor their height to each viewer, or spherical planets.... damn, that's a tough choice.. maybe I will consult an expert. Should I ask the guy with the telescope, or the guy who talks to fire? another tough choice.....
You're ridiculing yourself? Amazing. Way to go to prove globe eartther's retardedness. You're the ones talking about water humps on your globe model, remember?
wtf just happened lol
its flat.........ua-cam.com/video/RY8q1tD-G8E/v-deo.html
They also don't take in account that if the surface was curved, wouldn't you see that tower tilted in the direction of the curve? Also the limitations of the camera is evident at each further stop. You have to be able to zoom in all the way to the tower with each stop because with each stop the convergence point changes. Those floors that are missing are still there, they are just that much small that they can't be seen with that same camera. Get more zoom and BAM..! This video prove nothing as usual. Keep dreaming ballhuggers..
@@kbcorp recreate it then.
Well done. At last, a real world observation, backed up by the correct distances and showing what we know to be true: The Earth is NOT flat.
Infinite Plane Society right. fun to pretend though isn't it. little debate practice trying to win a lost argument. it can be entertaining until someone mentions math or proof or the fact that the bulk of the world has been measured by a chain. Tens of thousands of hours of hard work am diligent calculations yet you know the shape because... well... things.
ur forehead is though
you can keep your ball you must be happy if this video proove something then explain what???
Luc Comeau well if you can't understand this video you ain't gonna understand the explanation.
It is pretty self explanatory.
Is ever boat captain that sails the southern seas in on this hoax of a round world? Because they would have to be to explain their logs and fuel consumption.
All this video proves is ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION. #FE2017
I have a good explanation on why flat-earthers exist - they never come out of mom's basement to observe the real world.
Can you output live video from this camera using the HDMI connection? Although the Nikon P900 has a HDMI output, it can only be used for playback, not live video output to a monitor.
+dazzthecameraman, I don’t believe it has live support over HDMI. But there exists an android app which has live view over wifi. support-hk.canon-asia.com/contents/HK/EN/8202188800.html
Thank you. That is also true of the Nikon P900, but it still leaves you with a tiny preview window within the app display (especially when viewing using a mobile phone instead of a tablet). What about via the composite video output, have you tried that?
dazzathecameraman No I haven’t tried the composite output. But if you buy an Android stick you can use that to output a HDMI stream to a tv, I haven’t tried this but I would guess that you that way would get a large live view.
LMAO. Isn't it amazing that humans STILL have to prove to other humans that the Earth is round, even though observations have been pointing to a round Earth for hundreds if not thousands of years?
It is amazing you believe the Catholic cult of globe... Yet you're convinced to be in the truth...
Poor creature.
gr8deals2do Flat headed moron.
@@AMadScientist globeheaded idiot brainwashed by a pseudoscience imposed on all weak minds by the Catholic Clergy!
😄
Copernicus (heliocentric theory) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were both CATHOLIC PRIEST!
Eat their garbage, idiot.
👍😉
Great them up once you're in hell...
@@gr8deals2do you do realise that the christian church agree the earth is round dont you?
@@mullygully1510 i know that christian church is a false entity made up in Rome.
It doesn't belong to the Bible AT ALL.
Not sure how much you know about the manipulation incorporated into translations of NT...
Early translations (Luther 1522, Tyndale 1526) DID NOT contain manipulative word "church"(kirche).
So I'm not surprised some loonies (churchians) follow some Catholic loonatic ideas.
😏
that zoom is insane though
Wish I had seen this video half a year ago. Would have saved me buying a Nikon P1000🙂
Excellent video, thank you. Added to my playlist of videos debunking Flat Earth.
lol it shows the curvature perfect and you can still count each block even from 29,7 miles which proves it has nothing to do with zoom, and btw zooming in only magnify what you allready see it cant bring anything below the horizon back sorry, now start using your (brain) instead of revealing your stupidity
zoom cant bring anything below the horizon back, it only magnifies what you allready see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_Turquino
You're talking bullshit Mike, and you know it. I suggest you put your money where your keyboard is: get the base of the building back in this picture. There's an entire AIRPORT hidden due to Earths curvature: tupidconspiracies.org/misc/toronto.gif
Should be very easy if what you say is correct. Yet no flat earther has ever been able to do it! :-)
Mike Singer put your money where your keyboard is Mike! PROOF that picture is photoshopped! It isnt! PROOF that you can get the base of the buildings back into view. PROOF that you can get the missing AIRPORT back into view with your telescope! The location is mentioned right there! If you are right, it should be very easy to do. Why then has NO flat earther ever been able to do it?
You should keep the tips of the building level in all photos with the sea level showing a rise but a very good video nonetheless
How about aerial refraction aka bending lightrays downward ? (in this case into the water) Doesn't this cause the lower parts of the building to be lost out of sight the further one moves away, next to perspective ?
Actually refraction does the opposite and allows us to see more of the building then we otherwise would with no refraction.
Not only is the opposite true, but this very normal effect is said to not exist at all by the FE community. Complete denial that anything ever becomes obscured due to the horizon. All these videos clearly showing curvature effect are said to be fake or non-existent.
Jon Peerless Also, when they make a video they show distant objects that they think should not be visible. When in fact they are viewing them from a high viewpoint above the water, which allows you to see much further. If the world truly was flat, we should see right down to the shoreline across the water. However what really happens is the bottom disappears from building just as the spherical model of the Earth predicts.
Brilliant, Mathias. Thanks for the organized methodology, and thorough record-keeping.
Well done !
Thanks, doing multiple distances really makes a differences in showing the effect, and not like most flat earthers that will only do one observation and then nit pick about we see a little more/further than we geometrical should on the globe Earth.
An even better way to test for flat vs globe Earth is to use an auto level, as I did in this other video, and could calculate a surface drop of little less than 8in per mile squared ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html
@@MathiasKp That bit about 8" per mile-squared dates from Rowbotham, almost 150 years ago, and was never reliable.
First, notice that any equation in the form of (one number) = (another number squared) describes a parabola, not a sphere.
This mantra of "8 inches etc" is correct only at the distance of 50 miles. It's too much at shorter distances, and rapidly becomes too little at longer ones.
It's a handy rule of thumb, for mathematically challenged flattards at distances close to 50 miles, but useless for other people at other distances.
@@Alcohen2006 Yes, you are correct in that the 8in per mile squared is a rule of thumb. But the error for observations in the range of 0-100miles is at the most 1ft, so for practically observations it is valid to use. In my observation over 28.5km/17.7mi (ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html) the error from the geometrical correct value is only 0.05ft.
At least if I'm correct in these calculations, flic.kr/p/2hsfpj6
Great Video, yet unfortunately Flat Earthers will still dismiss it.
Hopefully some minds will be changed and accept reality over fantasy.
How high can the waves be out on the sea?
1m 2m 3m ???
What can waves do to what is possible to see of the lower part of buildings?
"What can waves do to what is possible to see of the lower part of buildings?"
Not much, as this video shows that a lot more than just 3m of tower is disappearing.
Also, if waves are blocking the view, the same blockage should be seen from every viewpoint in the video.
Just an example.
Lets assume the earth is flat.
Lets assume your eyes are at water-level and the distance is 50 km to the tower and you can se all of the tower.
How much of the tower will disappear with wave height of 1 m above sea-level? (equals wave peak to peak of 2 m).
Can you imagine how the sight line will be pushed up by the wave?
If the wave is 1 m high exactly between you and the tower, the lower 2 m of the tower will disappear.
But what if the waves is 3 m high and way closer to you?
The sight line will be pushed way up.
"But what if the waves is 3 m high and way closer to you?
The sight line will be pushed way up."
it only will if the wave is higher than the viewer.
3 m is about the maximum on an average day and that measurement is the difference between the highest point of the wave and the lowest.
So its not 3 m above sea level.
To illustrate that waves can only obstruct more than the height of them with a camera below the top of the waves I made this video ua-cam.com/video/NY90t_gYVT4/v-deo.html
In the first :54 seconds he proves the Earth curvature calculator is wrong. The Earth curve calculator says from 15.5 mi a total of 108 ft should be obscured.
from 17.6 mi a total of 147 ft should be obscured
from 21.6 mi a total of 237 ft should be obscured
from 25.0 mi a total of 330 ft should be obscured
from 28 mi a total of 425 ft
from 29.7mi a total of 484.7666
190 m = 623.36 feet.
Please, at 2:59 in the video, from 25 mi is more than half of the building obscured?
Plus
1. The line of sight (los) angle of the lense and the base of the object decreases
2. If the camera is at max zoom each time, increasing the distance will make the object appear smaller.
3. The amount of water in the los increases, which adds distortion.
All of this including his video prove there is no curvature. Good job!!!
+paul is dead and other hot potatoes, I think you need to take a closer look at your calculations. In the link below there is a graph in the upper left corner where you can see how well the amount obscured matches the globe Earth. flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Those are not mine they came from an Earth curvature calculator. Here
dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=29.7&h0=6&unit=imperial
Also my last three points are more that enough to make up for the change in appearance of the building as the distance increases.
Your calculations are wrong since you for some weird reason chose 6 ft as observer height, in this image (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) you can see the real observe heights complete with calculations with and without refraction and how well the observations matches the globe Earth.
And yes refraction is real. Land surveyor on land use a standard refraction index of 0.12-0.13. My observations has a little different average refraction index (0.17), which is expected since the refraction index is different over sea than over land. So yes these observations matches the globe Earth very well, and not at all a flat Earth. And no your three points are just standard FE excuses, not at all valid points of why we can’t see the bottom of the building.
Shoot, sorry. My bad for using the 6 ft. I screwed up. I was wrong.
What was his camera height, please?
I fixed my mistake. My first numbers were in your favor anyway.
We can't see the bottom because what we call the bottom is, the 6 feet closest to the ground. Things shrink as distance increases. So the bottom 6 ft from 29 mi will shrink much more than entire building.
Does the building look like it is leaning back also?
I just have one question. Do you zoom in more as the distance gets longer than you were zooming in at the beginning?
+DANG JOS, in general yes, I zoom more the further away I am. But looking at the video there are some various amount of zoom from the different places. Also at the longer distances some of the zoom might have been digital in the camera. It's a long time since I made the video so I can't remember it for sure.
Mathias Kp Thanks. The reason I ask is that the apparent diameter of the building appears to stay mostly constant even though it should be half of what it was before at twice the distance.
@@DANGJOS not with zoom. Zoom "amplifies/enlarges" all dimensions!
@@superfrankpt Yes, which means the building remains about the same size, even though it should be getting smaller with distance. That's what the zoom did
@@DANGJOS of course, when Mathias place each shoot side by side, they have different zoom factors. Why do you say it should get samller with distance when using zoom?
is it different location using same zoom focus point? i think for the different radius lenght should use diferent zoom lense..
i mean more far the object from camera, should use more zoom focus need to applied
_”…is it different location using same zoom focus point?…”_ It is both. I move further and further away, and I use different amount of zoom.
If you show this to a flat earther, they'll pull that magic word they always use when they're stuck and they don't even know what it means : PERSPECTIVE.
Nicely done! And for those who aren't aware... *The ONLY SHAPE LIQUID WATER WILL TAKE IN SPACE IS A SPHERE.*
so that's mean it's spherical not flat?
Yes very likely not flat 😊
Great JOB!!! Look at part proportions or building segments.
did you notice that with all the height change that there was no angle change?
I think angle change is less than 0.5 degree in just 29.7 miles, very hard to notice.
+ d w, _"did you notice that with all the height change that there was no angle change?"_ The angle on a globe would only be 0.43 degree. You can measure this yourself in a drawing program like GeoGebra (free) or watch my video where I do it: ua-cam.com/video/HL5ZvLV9MPM/v-deo.html
The degree may be minor but it would be noticeable on the top of the building. If it top of the building doesn't have any difference except for size, then there is no difference except for distance. If there is no change of angle, there is no curvature. If there is a curvature, there must be it change an angle.
+d w, _”The degree may be minor but it would be noticeable on the top of the building”_ I don’t understand why you think the minor angle should be visible at the top of the building. With 3D software I have simulated what the view would look like for a 200m high building seen from 50km of distance on a sphere with the radius of 6371km.
In that 3d model you can’t see any lean on the 200m high building. In the same model I also placed a 100km high object 800km away from the observer, and then the lean is visible but certainly not for an object 200m high seen 50km away.
Link to 3d model: ua-cam.com/video/MWDER_SOTsc/v-deo.html
+d w, it is good that you think about these things. Please take a look at these two water bottles and tell me which one is tilted back? One is level and the other tilted back by about 1 degree - double what we are talking about for the tower.
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62849459/tilt/tilt.jpeg
I calculated the assumable Lowering with L²/2r (L=Distance, r=Radius of the Earth)
Seen from 47,9km Distance shouldn't the Building be lowered by 180m?
Based on this Observation i would say the Event Horizon shifts in relation to the used focal lenght. And by increasing these futhermore lower Parts of the Tower would appear? Could this Footage be proof of a major Issue in the Worldview of a Ballearth?
+Manerarr Hi Manerarr, I think you also need to put the height of observer into your equation. From information on the wikipedia article on Horizon: Lowering = ((L-3.57*sqrt(OH))/3.57)^2 (L=Distance in km, OH=height of observe in m). If one use miles/feet, the equation is Lowering = ((L-1.22*sqrt(OH))/1.22)^2 (L=Distance in miles, OH=height of observe in feet).
You can see all my calculations here: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
@@MathiasKp cool that I understand nothing
@@litetrackproduction3220 That's an old comment you found there. Yes the math in that formular is a bit "weird" since it is a rule of thumb. If you are interested in a more accurate geometric formular and how to get to it, check out this page flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/derivation-for-height-of-distant.html
ОФИГЕННОЕ ВИДЕО, земля не плоская
It's Vanishing point.
+Cleber Sinto, what is the math behind the vanishing point? I'am asking so I can test your theory of how objects are hidden behind the horizon.
Because if you don't have any mathematically explanation of your theory you basically are just trowing out random assumptions.
Don't have inclination your image? It's Refraction and difraction of image, vanishing point, atmospheric gas, Fatamorgana effects.
+Sem Hipocrisia defina este vídeo para nós, para que não usem como argumento.
+Cleber Sinto: "It's Refraction and difraction of image, vanishing point, atmospheric gas, Fatamorgana effects." So basically anything else than the physical shape of the Earth - yeah that sounds plausible :-).
Also interesting to note that you don't provide any math on how to test your vanishing point theory.
Today, I see clouds rear in the sun and moon. Global Earth is fake, fact.
se existe uma "curvatura" por que o prédio não está inclinado??????????
+lee boy, The amount the building would lean would be under 1% which is to little to see.
La Torre de Pisa tiene 4° de inclinación y si la ves en el sentido de que la inclinación sea hacia atrás desde tu posición (como ocurre con el Turning Torso) no se puede ver.
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQOZlsl6BuLWVOkChgQPf-5vSYaPg5rKvgVDQ&usqp=CAU
Gracias y saludos.
Flat earthers be like, "Blah blah perspective, blah blah refraction..." But they clam up and remain utterly silent about their usual lie about how zooming in on objects makes them magically re-appear at full height right down tot he horizon.
Well it can under ideal conditions, like so for example: imgur.com/a/PIOWl
Where a building is seen that should be entirely hidden from view.
I had a guy tell me that this video is photoshopped! 😂😂😂😂
@Scooter Tuner explain chicago skyline you moron
@@RayleighCriterion The weather is obviously clear in these videos of the ships disappearing behind water. The toronto photo example, doesnt keep going back far enough, as in the videos. to see the tower disappear. Why not get in a boat and show that you can make the cn tower reappear with a telescope no matter how far you are from it? These videos are more complete examples than your these pictures of cnn tower.
Great job Mathias ! Of course I already knew that the earth was not flat, the whole sphere model perfectly explains every sunset and sunrise and all other details. But still there are many people who doubt this and think that the earth could be flat. Thank you for this great video !
613' ft missing earth curvature , the globe is DEAD
ua-cam.com/video/WXNjki9ohWA/v-deo.html
Thanks 😊
Yes there will always be flat Earth believers and it can be really tough changing their minds
@@smw381st that is so true. but nevertheless they invited me to give a presentation about the spherical earth. and I will use this video of Mathias !
I know this video is over a year old so this is a long shot, but I would like to know how much more you zoomed in on each shot or if you enlarged the further distance images afterwards. It would be really great to see this test repeated with a consistent zoom amount (max optical zoom, for example) and no after scaling or cropping. Just line up the water lines. Maybe someone has asked this before but I don't feel like reading 2,500 comments, although I did read quite a few.
Yes others have asked about this before. Since the focal length (amount of zoom) isn’t stored in the videoes, there is no way to tell the amount of zoom. I guess photographs (with stored focal length) would cover what you are asking for, but I didn’t thought of taken those while doing these observations.
But Flatearthers still deny this is even a thing. They keep saying theyve disproved the curvature, but they ignore this important example.
Flat earth requires to ignore everything we observe.
@@rinse-esnir4010 spot on. Lies and fantasy seem to be more important to flat earthers. They really do ignore the obvious truth and observable facts about our surroundings and swap it out for nonsense.
Excellent demonstration of the effects of the curvature of the Earth from different distances. Got my thumbs up. 👍
@justice start lol
Arno nümuss lol ua-cam.com/video/GcEpmm1vLiU/v-deo.html. Earth is flat.
What happened to the NASA channel guy?
@@Realtor_Rion I think he died back in the covid time.
@@MathiasKp That is terrible. I remember when he called 3-m and Honeywell for masks for his business. He was shutdown because the healthcare workers need came first. Darn shame, I loved his passion.
At this point, continuing the delusion that the earth is flat is just sad because it makes zero logical sense based on clear observation to try to explain away everything in this video to still work with the flat earth. Try as they may, there is just no proof of a flat earth and declaring this video as fake, only shows how far lost in their idiotic delusion they are. I wish it was a small movement of trolls, but look how many subscribers some flat earth youtubers have and tell me this is just a bunch of trolls...
I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel pity for you globetards. You turn a blind eye to all the anomalies and look for cherry picked conditions like these to prove your delusion because of a strong cognitive dissonance. This video is retarded and if you actually analyzed it instead of falling victim to your confirmation bias you'd have noticed it. How can 3 km obscure the same amount of blocks as 6km? And that's the smallest problem here.
Why is it that, every flat earth debunk video is false/fake/misleading/incorrect, but every flat earth proof video is true?
If the sun never goes below the horizon, then why do I see the sun go below the horizon?
If I can't trust my eyes, then what can I trust? you? a book? LoL
Great video Mathias Kp. Did inspire me to make my video. Best regards.
Check out Raczi TV's similar observations of Turning Torso from different distances in these two videos:
ua-cam.com/video/DdClBtYiKcc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/0djEW5IpWM8/v-deo.html
Artur, a co się stało z twoim filmem?
Usunąłeś?
@@tomaszmiddle5280 No własnie , też szukam i nie udaje mi się :)
@@graaaljar Podczepiam się.
Shouldn't it be tilting over if it were on a curve ?
+Jon Killings, you are right. The building would lean about 0.43 degrees away from the observer, ua-cam.com/video/HL5ZvLV9MPM/v-deo.html
@justice start The tilt on a globe Earth for the longest observer distance of 47.9km would only be about 0.43 degrees, and I doubt you can notice that small of an backwards tilt on a building.
Mathias Kp, I really appreciate this video. There's no reason no watch any other video showing objects being partially obscured by the curved Earth since no other video, flat Earth or otherwise, does the analysis as carefully as you did (see the links in the description). You carefully take into consideration the height of the building, the height of the observer, the distance to the building, the tides (which don't matter much) and you even estimate the amount of atmospheric refraction, which turned out to be the expected amount. You avoid having the camera too close to the water (a known refraction anomaly). You show how your measurements compare to the model. And you did it all your measurements in one day. And your subject does not have significant mirroring, stretching, or other distortion as seen in other videos.
Thanks, haven't seen this comment before. But yes I tried my best, also to keep the video as simple as possible. As clear as one would think this is, it doesn't seem to have much effect on FE'ers.
Hi Mathias Kp. If it doesn't have any effect it's because it's impossible to teach someone who is only pretending to be stupid. Practically all professed flat-earthers are psychological operatives trying to ridicule the Bible and true conspiracies. I appreciate what you are doing to help those very few gullible people who are genuinely duped by the psy-op, but please don't expect to reach the vast majority of those who claim to believe the Earth is flat, because they really don't. Greetings from Jasper.
@@jaspermay5813 Yes you might be right, no matter how much evidence there is provided for the spherical Earth, it doesn't seem to change fe'ers opinion.
even though im a little late.
this was a amazing demonstration, this demonstration can’t be debunked
amazing job.
Thanks :-)
@Ron Dale Curvature.
@Ron Dale You are free to make and post your own video that shows, precisely and carefully, what you are claiming. Until you do so, STFU.
@Ron Dale Perspective on a flat plane is easy to diagram. Show us and then trot out the math that proves you right. Working out what perspective looks like on a flat plane and then contrasting that with what the globe really looks like is EXACTLY how we show you're wrong.
For instance, every star has a geometric point, where it is exactly 90 degrees from the horizon. If you take an angular measurement from level to that star from where you are, and then subtract that measurement from 90 degrees you know how many degrees of curvature of the globe you are from that geometric position.
It so happens that 1 degree of arc on Earth and in the altitude of the star is equal to 60 nautical miles. Suppose you measured 80 degrees. 90 - 80 equals 10 so you know you are 10 degrees away from the geographic position of the star. Multiply 10 x 60 nm per degree and you know you are somewhere on a circle 600 nm in radius from that geographical position.
Show us how that rudimentary celestial navigation works on Flerftopia, please. It will be funny. I'm laughing already.
i want to use this video in part of my youtube video, can i ?
Sorry for the late reply. You're welcome to use the video, and also you are welcome to post a link to your video here aswell
Wow. Nice. And you CAN'T "bring back" the WHOLE TOWER by zooming in.
Imagine that!
Interesting proof of the curve of the earth as you go farther away from the observer.
***** What you said..,
Yeah.
"yeah it's called perspective. Boats only appear to rise to the horizon as they sail away, and they only appear to go below it. Logical, simple, observable. Lines of apparent convergence cross at the horizon"
That qualifies as incoherent. Have another scotch you fucking dimwit.
***** You have no comprehension of logic larry..,
The boat is NOT sailing "up a hump."
As soon as an object moves away from you, it is technically descending a curve. (If you consider you position to be the vertical apex of the TANGENT you are on the circumference of the earth at the endpoint of the radius of the earth.
Technically, you are standing at the top of the saggita of an arc inscribed on a sphere. You are at the top of the hump..,
It only APPEARS that it is sailing UP to the horizon. (We have all by now been lectured to death on "perspective" haven't we????)
If another boat sailed away from you in the opposite direction, it would be the mirror image situation, and I AM THE KING OF THE HILL!!!
Dumb twat..,
Next attempt in queue..,
***** Nope dude.., I'm not confused at all. You are the one here Trying to confuse people. You would add to your small circle of friends that way..,
PERSPECTIVE Larry..,
Yes science agrees with the fact that perspective lets us see that boats appear to sail up over a hump..,
Yup..,
Don't bother to refute my geometry though do you, smart guy?????
Sagitta, "h", secant, chord.., Look them up and how they fit into perception of distance and perspective.
I'll site you some web sites if you ask nicely.
***** No, Look at a friggin' CIRCLE larry, draw a SECANT with you at the top of the radius of the central angle, ASSHAT..,
Boat at point "a", you at point "b" boat at point "c" You are at the peak, while boats a and c are downhill from you, dipshit..,
***** You sound like you could use a visit from a Saint.
Fantastic video. Thanks for taking the time to produce this. Flat earthers are never convinced by technical explanations because they simply don't understand physics and refuse to study it. Something that they can see is the only way .... and even then I can see that some still refuse to deal with that ... thats a shout out to you Real Deal Supporter.
Thanks, I also measured the drop of 8in per mile squared in this other video that you might like, ua-cam.com/video/PrXw9914uHs/v-deo.html
I hate to tell you this, but objects disappearing bottom first was debunked by a Nobel Prize winning physicist some 128 years ago. I guess you never got the memo.
ok...but at the distance of 50 km the curvature is 196 meters...that means to me that the building should not be visible at a distance of 50 km
1,96 m at 5 km.....7,85 m at 10 km.....196 m at 50 km.....785 m at100 km.........
+ONE GAME ONE WAY, you are using an observer altitude of 0m. On this link (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) you can see the correct calculations where the height of the observer have been taken into account.
Great video.. Subbed.
Thanks
I love this video. Thank you for making this!
Tsiehta atheïsT ua-cam.com/video/tflhWwoqWAw/v-deo.html
I am still confused! How is it the earth curving but the building is not tilting back in view with the curve? like I see what appears to be curvature, however, the building seems to be upright instead of angled with the curve. could you explain, please?
is it because the zoom is too weak to see it all ? just like when ships appear to disappear over the horizon? yet can be brought back into view with a telescope? maybe if you get a stronger zoom the building will be brought back into view clearly. very confused here :(
This distance and dip is mainly light issues through the dense atmosphere from a horizontal view.
unkown ?
Have you calculated how much the building should tilt away from the observer at 29,7 miles ?, its 0.43 degrees, do you think you would notice that?.
@@petervenables513
No one ever has brought any object below the horizon back with zoom, just like you cant look around corners with zoom.
@@petervenables513
Nonsense, you can clearly see the building disappears botom first below the clearly horizon, from all distances, and you still see the building, but almost 400ft is missing from 29,7 miles, why should anything at all be missing if the water is flat?.
Excelent! Added to my Globe is a sphere playlist
DELEK ua-cam.com/video/tflhWwoqWAw/v-deo.html
Good effort. There are a few things you need to consider before saying this is proof of curvature.
1. As usual, you are looking straight ahead and the horizon rises to eye level.
That is what happens in our eyes at any height. If we are on a ball, we are always on top so there is no reason whatsoever to think that there should be a bulge in front of us.
2. The tower disappears by several blocks but you do not see any tilt.
I know, you will say that the tilt would be minuscule. No matter. That is why these images always look funny... Because the horizon is created by the water.
3. If you went up in the air, would you have to look down to see the base of the tower, or would the base just pop up to the horizon line?
4. See how faded the tower is?
The same thing happens to the sun.... There is simply a limit to how far we can see.
5. You can get exactly the same cutting off effect just a few meters in front of you if you put the camera o the ground on a flat surface. That isn't curvature. That's what happens to the light reaching our eyes.
8. If you say that the horizon in front of you is due to curvature, then you should also see the same evidence at the same distance to the left and right.
We don't, so you have to think about what the horizon really is... It is not a physical or geographical phenomenon. It is an optical phenomenon
1 The bulge is what is the reason you can't see the bottom of the tower. The top is the center point between the viewer and the tower. So this video proves the curvature.
2 you don't see any tilt because:
a - it is tilting away from you
b - the tilt is too small to see with the naked eye.
3 Indeed, if you would get to a higher view point, you would start to see more of the tower. This can only be explained on a globe earth, as you are looking over the bulge from point 1. On a flat surface, the altitude should not make a difference.
4 it is indeed faded. we are indeed limited to how far we can see. But that doesn't matter, we still can see the tower, but not its base, because of point 1.
5 nonsense. There is nothing blocking the light on a flat surface.
6 indeed, we see the same phenomenon if we look to the left or right. The tower does not suddenly reappear if the viewer looks over his shoulder at it in stead of straight ahead. The horizon is a circle around you.
So all your points considering, this video still proves the curvature and cannot be explained on a true flat surface.
+Phuket Word, just watched your video. But what about those observation (ua-cam.com/video/i0ObTd7DLMw/v-deo.html) where we don't see a large mirroring effect that could hide the bottom of a ship?
Mathias Kp
Like I said. We are on the surface so there is a limit to how far you see across a flat surface... It condenses with distance and your eyes create a horizon out of whatever surface feature is highest in front of you.
Do you see how close that surface is?
Compare that to how much sky you can see,
The fact is, horizons are what happens in our round eyes. Not because of any geographical curvature.
Look hard at that video and you will see that it looks strange, because the objects that are supposedly going down a curve are not going down a curve.
All you have to do is find a flat surface and get down on the ground.. You will get exactly the same effect but a closer horizon, even though you know there is no curve.
And then, if you elevate your position, you will not have to look down to see more distant objects.
It's very very simple to see and compare,
The only struggle in really seeing and believing it is the idea that people making trillions out of "space" have no reason to lie.....
Think again.
Politicians lie, salesmen lie etc. etc.
You just have to get used to the idea that the rabbit hole they told you about in The Matrix is deeper than most can imagine.
And in that clip, which I have studied before, you do see mirroring.
Phuket Word I read your answer three times but I still can’t make out what you think that is obstructing the view to the bottom of the ship in the video.
_“there is a limit to how far you see across a flat surface... It condenses with distance and your eyes create a horizon”_: In my video of turning torso (ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html) the building can clearly be seen so it is not a problem of not being able to see that far. So why would something happen to the sea but not the building?
_“All you have to do is find a flat surface and get down on the ground.. You will get exactly the same effect but a closer horizon”_: In my video (ua-cam.com/video/y_7ev7h3bEI/v-deo.html) I demonstrated that there clearly is no horizon on a flat surface.
Mathias Kp
I watched it. Do it in daylight, and also take note of the fact that without a wall in front of you, the horizon always always comes up to eye level.
You can surely see that even over a flat surface, everything comes together in the middle of your vision.
what is that "lean angle" people are talking about? if i am on a sphere, and look at this building (or any hypothetical buildings like this) in any direction, the only "lean angle" i can expect would be the leaning of the building "backwards", right? because i saw someone uploading a picture of an example of "lean angle" and he presented a sideway leaning. got me confused
Yes I think it is the backwards leaning that some people are asking questions about. Though it would only be about 0.43 degrees at the longest distance of 47.9km.
yeah they are god damn crazy lol. how would you even see the building leaning backwards? what do they expect? a horizontal building?
Very cool absolute proof of a globe and the curve
Thanks
Rocky Rockwell ua-cam.com/video/tflhWwoqWAw/v-deo.html
Gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Just a little more zoom right flat Earthers? Just a little more zoom and we could of exposed the "globe lie". Darn it, well got to keep the FE narrative going.
If you read the comments on this video, some people are actually claiming that if I zoomed further in the bottom would reappear…
Tell them to prove it. Oh, wait, they can't. Because that's nonsense!
No matter how much you zoom, you wouldn't be able to bring the bottom back into view due to atmospheric lensing and angular resolution. Do you not understand how optics work or are you just being disingenuous? I love how 471 ft of the tower should be obscured and yet we see much more of the building than we should be seeing. Have you checked out the infrared videos which are viewing things 100 miles away? Infrared really cuts through a lot more of the atmosphere and you are able to avoid a lot of the atmospheric lensing which is obscuring your view. Check out some of the observations from JTolan Media1. Peace
@Mathias Kp May I ask how did you get from the 8 blocks of the 1st picture to the 7 blocks of the 2nd picture and what's the height difference between those two?
I made side by side comparison and measurements of the visible/obscured part: flic.kr/p/R2q2fd
And I also calculated the difference between my observations and the GE model, flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Mathias Kp I can see the comparison, what I cannot see is the obstacles taking the vertical position of a curved ground, not only that, at metabunk where you have with and without refraction the hidden part of the 1st photo says somewhere between 23-28 meters. and there are 8 blocks covered right? but what you actually see on the photo is the base of the object. at the second photo I didn't do the measurements cause I really dunno what was the height of the observer. if the height didn't change from 5'6" or 170cm then you realize that there is a missing curved surface, which is what you are looking for. how about doing a 3d with a ball and some vertical lines over it, due to perspective and observer you should notice that the straight lives which are vertical to the curved surface they aren't vertical for the observer who looks from a distance. at another 3d you made the boats are close to observer as to the real scale, I would say the observer from the first object is not 5km but 1km and to the last 5km. But if you do the same in a curved surface you would see many differences as to how you observe everything around you and how they should be if there was a 8"/m^2 curvature allowance.
In this image flic.kr/p/EseKVJ I have listed all the observer heights and distances, and calculated with and without refraction. In the upper left corner is there a graph where I have compared my measurements with the GE expected values.
_”…you would see many differences as to how you observe everything around you and how they should be if there was a 8"/m^2 curvature….”_ I know many videos are claiming this but the atmospheric conditions changes, so it can be very difficult to calculate what we _should_ see. Any way look at the graph in this picture flic.kr/p/EseKVJ (upper left corner) from that I think it looks like the GE model prediction get close to the actual observations.
Mathias Kp that again doesn't explain that on a curved surface the distant objects still have vertical position. but I will look at it once I get home, I am working atm.
If the radius if the Earth is 6371km then over a distance of 47.9km, buildings would lean 0.43 degrees, I don’t think that angle is enough for us to notice.
Link to video where I show how one using GeoGebra can measure this angle ua-cam.com/video/HL5ZvLV9MPM/v-deo.html
Yet another nail in the coffin of FE. Good job!
No, actually it proves flat earth.
@@godsbeautifulflatearth No it actually does not prove anything relative to a flat earth. It does prove you are an ignorant religitard fool who argues from ignorance to justify more arguments from incredulity.
Show this to a flat earther and they're gonna waffle on about "refraction" which proves they have no idea what refraction is, or other random crap.
@Dutch Sailorflerfers using terminology they don't understand for the 50000th time.
613' ft missing earth curvature , the globe is DEAD
ua-cam.com/video/WXNjki9ohWA/v-deo.html
May I please know the names of the 1-6 (A - F) Observation points, please?.
In each shot the location is shown with lat/lon GPS coordinates on my phone (the first at 0:25)
What I'd like to know tho~ Are the names of the places because elevation above sea level varies greatly all along the shore of Denmark:
Hellerup 10m, Charlottenlund 11m, Klampenborg 6m, Raadvad 9m, Skodsborg 13m, Vedbaek 7m, Kopenhagen 14m, Helsingor 49m, Humblebaek 15m, Horsholm 29m, Birkerod 53m...et cetera with Malmo, Sweden where Turning Torso is: @ 12m, My Apologies: cannot research GPS coordinates for commensurate elevation in relation to sea-level.
Charles Cas Michel Gerarrd No altitude at sea level does not change but the altitude at land does (where I record from) :-)
You're right...I realised the mistake later after critically examining things a bit more & realising that ""Sea-Level" was a moot point. Thank you for not calling me a dolt.
No worries :-)
+Mathias Kp | Did you not wonder why, as you gradually film the building from a greater distance, that it remains vertical, relative to your observation point? It should be clearly leaning away from you, more and more, as you increase the distance. The vertical building is the proof, that we do NOT see the effect of a curvature, but rather the effect of perspective! :)
No it shouldnt, only about 0,5 degree, which you wont notice
+elonesnah | Chicago, seen from 60 miles away, which is twice the distance, still show vertical buildings. Mirage or not, the buildings should clearly be leaning away from us, from that distance.
According to your claim, they should only be leaning 1 degree away from us, which dosen't make sense on a ball / sphere.
@Stationary Flat.....360° over 25,000 miles is less than 1 arc-minute per mile or only 1° every 70 miles. Duh
We detect that something is leaning away by comparing widths. We don't have a built in distance gauge to detect that the building 3 blocks down is 22 cm closer than the top when it really should be a 71 cm difference. So the question is: Do you notice that there is a 0.0005% difference in the width instead of a 0.0015% difference? Or in a more direct reference to the video: Are you seeing an extra 0.05% of a pixel that shouldn't be there?
...And then there was silence
show me that curve on left and right ... Earth doesn't curve.
It's right here, shot with a lens which in the center at 11.75mm is rectilinear flic.kr/p/WcGDHb
Mathias Kp, looks interesting. Is there a video to go with that flickr pic?
+Steven Elliott, no not yet, I'm working on a method to measure the optical distortion, so I also would be able to use a non rectilinear lens.
no curve because its impossible . Take any alleged photo from alleged ISS and compare to the curve from your photo. The sizes don't match. NASA lies and you repeat all the jesuits and nazi lies.
+1000fantomas, I'm pretty sure NASA doesn't have a large dslr mounted outside the ISS with the same lens I have used, but likely more a small action camera like the gopro, which with the standard fish eye lense will produce a large amount of distortion.
I would suggest you buy a wide angle non fish eye lens (like I have used) and try to take some photos on your own. Then you can see that the horizon in fact looks curved.
What good is the size of the tower be small , if there is no inclination of a ball
+Iuan katsume Silva, what do you mean by _"if there is no inclination of a ball"_?
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe!!
And they have to breath air from atmoSPHERE to survive....
Conclusion: The Earth is definitely not flat
It's almost as if there is some kind of "bulge" between you and the tower. Can't imagine what that would be...
Its almost like its curved water.
If the earth was curving away, then why are all those pictures exposing the building lack of lean to match the curve you desperately are trying to prove. It is clear from the horizontal lines in the sections of the building that it never leans to match your imaginary curve!
You need to understand perception and vanishing point, we never said the bottom of buildings never disappear over distance, that is expected, though the true argument is about the tilt we don't see over those distances, thanks for more proof though!
God Bless
+Flat Earth Hub Instead of blindly follow others false arguments I think you will need to do the math on how little the buildings should lean.
Mathias Kp
If you can see curve as you explain, then there should be some evidence of the lean, can't have it both ways!
+Flat Earth Hub The blind will lead the blind. You need to (or ask somebody else) to do the math on how little the building should lead. Until you do, you are basically repeating the claim of somebody else.
Mathias Kp
I have done the research, have you? If so, tell me what the distance is of an arc second in feet? Also tell me the height of curve measured over an arc second? If you can answer these correctly with what is taught to surveyors then we will continue to how the lean of the building would be measurable between your pictures as much as the distance dropping from the proposed curve! Or you can stop now and accept that the vanishing point and horizon line will merge both base and ceiling frames of reference as the distance is increased!
+Flat Earth Hub Well, it is really good that you have done the research, can you then please provide an equation that show how little a building seen from 25km/15.5mi should lean on a sphere with the radius of 6371km/3959mi?
A common mistake. Objects are squeezed towards the horizon due to perspective. Notice your building appears to get wider as you get further. Also there is something called a diverging line of sight. Watch my video "Flat Earth Sunset Theory".
Here I tried to illustrate it best I can:
i.imgsafe.org/371ba2b7f4.png
its not 48 miles but 48 km = 27,9 miles, and no you wont notice only 0.5 degree of tilt
Either way, even at 48km if earth was a ball you should still see much less of the building. And like I said, on a sphere the drop should double every mile, this video demonstrated it drop at an even rate.
Regarding how much/little would be visible on the globe earth. I have made a graph campairing my observations with theorethical values: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ. The increase in the lenght of the sightline various from 2.2% to 11.7%
Patrick Shank SQUEEZED implies the entire image remaining but being distorted. This view is losing information from the bottom, not squeezing the building. WRONG, and next please.
In the second and third photo the lower 'block' is clearly visible yet you shorten your measuring line. Why?
+caveatemp In the video I round down to a whole number of blocks. In the graph (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) I also use half blocks so if you want a more accurate count look in the graph.
+Mathias Kp So you round down and this is supposed to be evidence that the tower is disappearing behind the curve of the earth?
caveatemp My video is an observation not in any form an evidence for anything. But the graph on the other hand will some people say fits one model (flat earth/globe earth) better than the other and therefore is evidence for one of the model.
But no the video itself is not evidence for anything just some observations that anybody can do.
+Mathias Kp I came to this video because you were positing it as an evidence for a ball earth on another video's comment section. Now here you tell me it is not in any form an evidence for anything. Get your story straight.
Reread my last comment :-)
great video proving perspective..Thank you.
Roy Privatte Jr. How can it be perspective when the bootom of the building is below the horizon and you still can count each block, if it was perspective we would still see the hole building when zooming in, maybe you should watch it one more time
"great video proving perspective"
nice isn't it?
But the video also proves curvature. Because no matter how much you zoom in, the lower part of the tower remains hidden.
Your video made be believe, that the Earth is flat, because you can see the whole building.
You should probably take a look at the graph in the link: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ there you can see how the observations match (or not) the globe earth model.
How do you think you are seeing the whole building?
@justice start _"...Go figure out what it should be doing on a globe..."_ In this other video I used the top of a very large sphere to test what would happen around the horizon on a sphere (or globe) and as you can see the observation on the sphere mathces real life observations ua-cam.com/video/PkjYSHOuovo/v-deo.html
Mathias Kp, since I may try to do something like this myself I'm curious how you measured the observer height. I don't doubt it's accurate given the results, but I'm just curious how you came up with it.
Hi Steven, I used laser data. All of Denmark has been laser scanned with about 5 points per square meter and the LiDAR pointcloud is free for everyone to use, see an example in this other video ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html
If you are looking for similar data, you can download data from viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic Both the Lidar pointcloud and also a 1/3 arc-second (10m) DEM raster data. You then might need to learn about GIS software, a free program called QGIS can read the raster height data files, and other free programs like Displaz or FugroViewer can read LAZ point cloud data. Here is an example of data I downloaded from New York flic.kr/p/MmF5MW You can also maybe use topographic maps from store.usgs.gov/map-locator they have contour curves in 5ft steps, and will properly be more easy to use than the DEM or LiDAR data.
If you are standing close to water you can also measure the height using an auto level and a level measuring rod, you can get a good analog auto level for 200-300$, using that you can also do all kind of other interesting observations, like measuring the horizon below “eyelevel”, from even as low altitude as 5m.
I have bought a Leica NA332 auto level, which I found very useful www.zenithsurvey.co.uk/product/leica-na332-automatic-level/
Mathias Kp wow, interesting. I'm glad I asked. I wish I lived closer to a large body of water in order to try things.
So, the "Science Arm" of the League of Flat Earthers threw in the towel..,
Balls out Physics has disappeared.
good luck to create a sphere with 75% of FLAT level water....lol
+joci mocilo, good luck with explaining I can measure a drop of close to 8in per mile squared (which all land surveyors can too). ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html . Or are auto levels in on the globe lie?
I fly with plane horizon NEVER drop ...i just proved it...try to prove curve to me which has NEVER been observed and you guys dont understand that air become not transparent as you move further and even on car race track or when airplane is moving on tarmac you CANT see through exaust even if is mostly hot air...try it... and you both run away like little girls from FACT that we CAN see more than globe allow us... and for your education i will show you something : ua-cam.com/video/I3TE0CAXq_k/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/otQt8AEZ1PI/v-deo.html and for finish -just to trash your illusion about world we live: ua-cam.com/video/2frpU6nkb_I/v-deo.html
+joci mocilo, so I guess you have no explanation for why we on Earth can measure a drop close to 8in per mile squared? Don’t you wonder why 99% of all flat earthers ignore the most accurate observations we can make using auto levels? ua-cam.com/video/FPo77ukuHF8/v-deo.html
_”… try to prove curve to me which has NEVER been observed…”_ What *curve* are you talking about, the whole circumference or the curved horizon? Those two things are very different. The *curved horizon* will both happen on a flat Earth and a spherical Earth, but much more on the spherical Earth, and can be seen from hot air balloons (which you already know). In order to see the whole circumference then you would have to be many thousands miles from the sphere, so that’s obviously a false claim.
_”… you both run away like little girls from FACT that we CAN see more than globe allow us…”_ Of course you can see further geometrical speaking, that’s basic physics 101 - refraction. The fact flat earthers deny basic physics principles don’t make the principles wrong. But you already know these things, from everyday experiences (air over hot roads) you just denies them or else you would have to accept reality matches a globe Earth ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html
when is raining you can barely see the mountain near city...for long distances observations humidity and dust(like dubay) make it impossible....just saying...not to smart are you?
check this : REAL experiment ; ua-cam.com/video/LLS0NFyvWbE/v-deo.html
+jocu mocilo _”…check this : REAL experiment…”_ What makes that “experiment” more real than this Turning Torso video you are commenting on?
About your link. When dealing with the atmosphere there is varying refraction which can change within short time period largely caused by heating from sunlight, so changes can for instance be seen going from day to night. And then there is the more steady refraction caused by change of density, this density gradient can be measured using a barometric meter all the time like I’m doing here ua-cam.com/video/PrXw9914uHs/v-deo.html
It seems that “Dr” John D completely ignores the steady density gradient we at all times can measure, and then claims that the air at 100m of altitude should be more dense than at sea level ( ua-cam.com/video/Zyf0vChotMU/v-deo.htmlm50s
). *No person in the history of mankind has ever observed that.* On the contrary reports states that at over 30m of height (the intermediate atmosphere) there is very little change of refraction index ( agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014067 ).
So *“Dr” John D obviously makes false claims about the atmosphere and refraction,* and also I wonder why there is no daytime footage when his claims of the atmosphere is more dense at 100m than at 0m doesn’t apply?
Trying to justify the math. The tower is 190M tall (623.4 ft.), divided into 9 sections (to be used as measurement "blocks") means each section in 21 M, or roughly 69 ft. The calculation for curve is 8 inches per mile squared, (8*Mile^2) so at the first point of reference, roughly 15 miles, the amount of curve should be roughly 150 ft, (15 miles x 15 miles = 225 x8 in. =1800 in. \12 in. = 150 ft.) yet the observer shows he is able to see 8 "blocks" meaning only 69 ft. are hidden by curve. Granted, we do not get to know his relative altitude from the first position - however by the scientific calculations, at least 2 blocks should have been "hidden" from that distance? Or am I doing the math wrong?
+bumblfux: All the numbers can be seen here: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with your numbers except point out that your own observations do not support what is supposed to be mathematically calculable using science's own formula for the curve?
From 29.7 miles out, 588 ft of the tower should be "hidden" however with more than 3 blocks showing, that is more than 207 feet still showing. Unless the tower is at least 795 feet tall (more than the stated 623 ft) something doesn't add up.
@Mathias Kp Side note - what is the app you are using for GPS coordinates?
bumblfux You are not using the observer height in your calculation. You can find the height on the image (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) with all the numbers.
The GPS app is called GPS Test: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chartcross.gpstest&hl=en
Thanks for the app info. Observer height only comes into play to determine how far one is supposed to be able to peer into the distance. Unless you are purposefully obfuscating the results by changing viewing heights randomly, one would assume you are roughly the same elevation when shooting at each location with the exception of the last shot where you note that you have changed elevation. The numbers I used: pure curve calculation.
Nice prof for flat earth ;)
i can't see a inclined of the tower, only bad view
? that's strange i see it fine, its even good weather for a observation like this, In every clip, you can still see the lines which split up the segments, i would actually call this video one of the best, to show the earth curvature.
If you don't research diffraction and what it cause and effects are on the horizon don't post this bullshit on my channel.Research test and test it more and the results can change even if your height of the camera doesn't change.You guys test it once or twice then you say there's the proof but you don't take anything else into consideration.Use your brain and your eyes before making your statement.My observation change depending on the light ,which direction the light is coming from,tides,atmospheric conditions,and even the wind can play a roll including a combination of things. I've been observing and filming the horizon for over a year and a half so you posting this video on my channel means nothing to me.Have a nice day and your comment won't get posted on my channel.
wide awake Are you testing on small boats or 190m tall buildings?
You’re not Superman, you can’t detect a 0.5 degree tilt AWAY from you no less. You ARE however very bad at math or at least researching facts.
How are we able to see things that should be hidden by curvature ? There's plenty of that going on.
_"...see things that should be hidden by curvature..."_ The atmosphere of the Earth changes a little everyday, so somedays there are less hidden than what geometrical calculated. But on average there is the right amount of obstruction. Here is a test I did over 21 days ua-cam.com/video/AN22ScCILZI/v-deo.html
@@MathiasKp What a joke.
I'm talking about thing's that should be over 600 feet below the curvature but can be seen in it's entirety.
Your talking about a atmosphere thing which is nothing compared to what I'm talking about. Smh
@@MathiasKp Science claim's that the Earth's curvature is 8 inches every squared mile.
Not every mile , but every squared mile.
I'm definitely not talking about a atmosphere thing.
@@doozy284 _"Science claim's that the Earth's curvature is 8 inches every squared mile..."_ A spherical shaped Earth has three types of "curvature":
*1) Drop,* which is 8in per mile squared, here is how to measure it flic.kr/p/2iW7LPE
*2) Hidden,* my clearest observation of this flic.kr/p/2g7dsKX
*3) Left/right bulge,* more difficult to observe and measure, but using a rectilinear lens this is possible, flic.kr/p/WcGDHb
@@MathiasKp You are so full of shit. Quit making things up
I think the video is well done. It is nice to have a building with nine uniform blocks we can use to gauge things with. The does seem like a demonstration of some curve on the surface. However, I calculate that 28 miles should take 522 feet of 159 meters out of view...that should only leave 31 meters in view int he last picture or 1.5 blocks(at the most). Yet it seems there are about 3 blocks in view.
+gabe harris, you can see all the calculations with and without refraction and camparison with the globe Earth here: flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
gabe harris
You forgot viewers height above sea surface which is 8,9 feet at 28 miles, so the result would be 395 feet and not 522 feet
fair point...
good deal
I didn't actually "forget" I just decided to use zero height cause I was lazy and didn't know how to do it without additional work. Using 8 feet would definitely make a diff.
According to earth curvature calculator that building should be 600ft below the horizon....weird how you can still zoom in on it!
That would be the case if he was observing it from 0 cm altitude (aligned with se surface) with no refraction at all.
According to flat Earthers, on a allegedly flat motionless plane, we should be able to see entire building, from its bottom to its top and all distances, but we don''t...
@@max5250Only globers like Walter Bislin spew that nonsense. Flat Earth people actually understand physics and know it's not possible to see everything near the surface and especially not when looking across a reflective surface.
@@RayleighCriterion Only brainless flat heads like you don’t understand that every single surface is reflective, or else, we wouldn’t be able to see it.
Every single carpenter can tell you if a pixel of wood is dead straight, or curved, by looking across its surface.
Subscribed Mathias! You have good stuff.
Thanks
I reference this video all the time. Love it!
Thanks
613' ft missing earth curvature , the globe is DEAD
ua-cam.com/video/WXNjki9ohWA/v-deo.html
It's perspective. Explain to me why it isn't just perspective.
Download www.blender.org/ create a scene that matches what we see here using _perspective_ I guarantee you, you won’t be able to.
Mathias Kp I can't open that file I tried downloading it won't work.
+Nano Hoops, _”...I can’t open that file…”_ It wasn’t a link to file but to their main website. If you really are interested in what perspective does learn how to use Blender. You can download it from this website www.blender.org/download/
Things get smaller as they get further away, but they don't start overlapping and sinking behind each other and shit for no reason. Why flat earthers think this is so is a mystery.
the curverture on about 50km is about 168m. so we should see only 22m of the tower(190m)........is this clear enough now?
reopen 911
observer height 2.1m above sealevel, distance to target 47.9km, target hidden height = 143 meters
Mathias me again, did you use a formula to calculate the target hidden height? And if so, what formula?
+Itspietertime In the graph (flic.kr/p/EseKVJ) I use: obstructed view = ((DS-1.22*sqrt(HO))/1.22)^2, (DS=distance to building in miles, HO=height of observer in feet). Instead of 1.22 I also use 1.22*1.08 which is the average amount of refraction. The source for the value 1.22 and 1.22*1.08 can be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
+Mathias Kp
Okay. So if say, observer eye level is 6 feet, and distance is 20 km = around 12.4 miles, then obstructed height is 6.4 feet? Perhaps I filled the formula in incorrectly.
I use this formula:
r/(cos(tan-1((c-sqr((r+d)^2-r^2))/r))))-r. I dont know if this one is correct, assembled it myself.
c= distance
d=obs height eye level
r= radius (not always 6371 km, latitude for example is very important and a big reason for the many mis calculations here on youtube)
+Itspietertime Yes the radius of the Earth is very important and a likely error when people try to calculate how much the curvature obstruct the view. Your math looks fine to me except for a small decimal error 6.4/64 feet, below are an example with three different methods
Earth Curve Calculator: 58.93 feet
wikipedia article Horizon(aprox geometrical): 59.5 feet
Yours: -64.3 feet- (Edit: 58.926)
Earth Curve Calculator
h0 = 6 ft
d0 = 12.4 miles
h1 = 58.93 feet
Approximate geometrical formula from wikipedia article Horizon
((DS-1.22*sqrt(OH))/1.22)^2
DS = 12.4 miles
OH = 6 feet
((12.4-1.22*sqrt(6))/1.22)^2 = 59.5 feet
r/(cos(tan((c-sqr((r+d)^2-r^2))/r)^-1)))-r
r = 3959 miles
c = 12.4 miles
d = 6 feet = 6/5280 = 0.001136364 miles
-(3959/(COS(TAN((12.4-sqrt((3959+0.001136364)^2-3959^2))/3959)^-1)))-3959 = 64.3 feet- (EDIT: ((3959/(COS(ARCTAN((12,4-sqrt((3959+0,001136364)^2-3959^2))/3959))))-3959) * 5280 = 58,9 feet)
+Mathias Kp
Sorry but you filled in the equation incorrectly. It is tan-1, the a-tan. If you fill in then the equation I also come as answer around 18.15 m, which is around 59.4 feet.
+Itspietertime Yes you are right, the complete equation with imperical values will then be:
((3959/(COS(ARCTAN((12,4-sqrt((3959+6/5280)^2-3959^2))/3959))))-3959) * 5280 = 58,9 feet
excellent !!
have you considered making the same observations under different refraction conditions eg: humidity, water surface temp, air temp.
I have done a lot of observation over the last two years, but don't always have the time to put it into a video. But here is quick presentation www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/43301168801 of the amount of compression from different observer heights and the different refraction coeffitiont needed to match a globe Earth. When I get the time I will put it into a longer video. But for now see how the lowest observation from 0.5m is way off the expected GE values, while the observation from 17.3m matches perfectly. This will of course change depending on the atmospheric conditions on the day. On a cold winter day I captured close to no compression from just 0.8m ua-cam.com/video/hEAyKb8wSZY/v-deo.html
It should be considered to make different observations from different points on the earth, not just from one place, and in different conditions as discussed. Eratosthenes and so many others did this before, but a complete map should be made from different observed locations. The conclusion is closer to the surface of the earth being more like a geode than a sphere.
why the building does not curve or bend over with the curvature
Please show your calculations on why we should see that?
Born Free
How much do you think it should bend or lean?
As long as the surface curve the building should follow and lean at least slightly
+Born Free _"...at least slightly..."_ and have you calculated by how much?
Born Free
You are right and it does, but how much?, the earth circumference is about 24901 miles, and there are 360 degrees in a circle, with that info you can calculate how much the backward lean from an observer should be, try it.
At 3:17 - 2:18 the ship appears abruptly
Pauses in the video for new takes under the pretext of checking the hours only exist to be able to introduce some effect. The supposed effect would be to cut the image below or on the horizon line and later sink it behind the bottom.
+LZU LA, _”At __3:17__ - __2:18__ the ship appears abruptly”_ I don’t understand, what ship are you talking about? This video is about a building called Turning Torso!
Okay. Let's not dwell on too many videos so we do not lose focus. You are literally ignoring videos that show no curvature. And mostly they are ignoring my signature that I watched the video in slow
motion, and yes, I've seen objects appear abruptly as described in the
comments in this video. And more than that they completely
ignored what I said about being easy to do a fake of curvature and be
extremely difficult not to say impossible to create out of nothing a
whole stretch of water and the underside of such points to be observed. Literally out of nowhere, because they would be behind the supposed curvature. While
to make a fake of curvature would just cut the video and sink the top
part behind the bottom, which is what I believe they did, with all
respect.
+LZU LA, If you think I have faked this video, why don’t you go and make your own observation of what happens to a tall building observed from 25-50km of distance?
I do this. d you have a new cementay in this vídeo.
LZU LA _"I do this. d you have a new cementay in this vídeo"_ I don't understand, what does cementay means?
Let's face it, for every one globe curvature video there is a dozen flat earth videos proving no curvature. I don't think this can be used to claim victory although very interesting. What we actually need is for a flat earther to do the exact experiment and see what the result is. There are many variables known and unknown to be considered on both sides when measuring curvature.
There is always a good explanation to flat earth video's showing no curvature.
+Mile Vlaski, _“…What we actually need is for a flat earther to do the exact experiment…”_ Rob Skiba (a flat earther) did a similar test with the Chicago skyline, see the two links below:
Rob Skibas video: ua-cam.com/video/o37t6iBS_q4/v-deo.html
Analyze of Robs video: ua-cam.com/video/S-_U5Yhlcck/v-deo.html
Mile Vlaski smh
turning torso? you mean lean back?
Acep Herman
No. Its the name of the building, the lean is only 0.42 degrees at 29.7 miles btw.
Flat Earthers, answer these:
1: Where exactly are we located? A big warehouse? A Petri Dish? A cardboard box? In a laboratory? Where exactly is this flat earth located?
2: Explain how a compass could possibly work on a flat earth?
3: How come nobody has ever witnessed the "ice wall" believed by flat Earthers that closes us in?
4: Who created it? Explain thoroughly please, not just "god".
5: How can the sun possibly set and rise on a flat earth?
6: Explain the workings of a lunar eclipse as related to a flat earth?
7: How does the field of view work on a flat earth?
(If the earth is flat I would see the same constellations in the sky regardless of time or location, but I don't)
8: Why can I see other spherical planets/moons such as Phobos through a powerful telescope, why aren't they flat?
Hi, can I copy this video on my channel with french subtitles ?
Yes, just provide a link to the original video.
Of course. Great thanx a lot.
Are the links to flikr broken ?
No they should work fine. Which one isn't working?
Both... Firefox detects something wrong like wrong settings in this page.
And for "tourism spot" I get "This account has been suspended".
Isn't it funny how zooming in doesn't bring it all back into view ?
Do you use a camera stand ?
Yes.
Mysle ze to juz wystarczajaco wyjasnia ze ziemia nie jest plaska.
Yes, one should think so :-)
Mathias, sorry to ask, but the curvature of the earth is approximately 8 cm per km, is not it? So, according to your video the building should lose about 4 meters and not disappear by half because of the distance of 47km. Please Correct me if I'm wrong.
+Allan Goldman, There exist many different approximations for calculating the obstructed height behind the curvature. But if you wan’t to do it correct you need to use a formulae that includes the observer height.
If you go to the webpage aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html you can see an explanation for a geometrical correct formula.
The formula will look something like: obstructed height = sqrt(R^2+(d-sqrt(2*R*h+h*2))^2)-R
R: Earth radius in meters
d: distance between observer and object in meters
h: height of observer in meters
So with a distance of 47900m and an observer height of 16m you will get 88m that should be obstructed.
obstructed height = sqrt(6371000^2+(47900-sqrt(2*6371000*16+16*2))^2)-6371000
Thanks for your answer, Mathias.
+Allan Goldman, you're welcome. There are many youtube videos with false information floating around so be careful what to believe in.
so what is the official circumference, and corresponding curve calculation?
Here are some information on what can be observed in this video and comparison of the GE model flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
Thank u for your Effort and Nice Video.
What Camera did u use?
It would be nice if u cold put this Information in the Video Description.
+Manerarr You're welcome. I used a Canon Powershot sx60 HS.