Search results

Thanks for the head's up. On the unlikely chance I'm in the UK then I'll head down and throw a line of balloons on 13-foot strings into the canal and let them photo the curve with their P1000s. :)

Ditto. I'm guessing they used to be blue? Did you notice the one that says "= Draggable" is also draggable. That's cool. :) I've got a little j under my green line (line of sight to horizon). You?

Hang five: I'm pretty sure it's the latter. I had a bit of an issue with the obstruction calculator that I did, where it worked differently for points above or below eye level, and the same may be happening here (mountains below, buildings above). Creases being ironed as we speak. :)

The calculator I've used above on the 5th Avenue photo is based purely on flat plane trig without refraction. But I thought I'd see how the sphere earth calculator fared, with refraction. Predicted apparent height order is the same (i.e., correct) and the pixel height predictions were very...

"Sagitta" is good. Like you say, "bulge" isn't really relevant, and makes people think there's a hill of water. If they can't understand the word "sagitta", but want to, they can always take five seconds to google it, and then they'll learn something, and maybe even go on from there to learn...

Sorry, I should have said: "Will there ever come a time, on a flat surface, as long as A is visible, that C is looking down on him?"

Perhaps something like this will help? C is taller than B, and A is taller than C. Will there ever come a time, no matter how far away A goes, as long as he is visible, that C is looking down on him? Ditto for B: will he ever be looked up to?

Is this perspective or parallax??

Here's a still from some drone footage of Great Gun and the surrounding area (you'll probably want to turn the sound off if you play the video): Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CcLQ7SP_2q0&t=0m11s Comparing with his footage showing the little structure at Great Gun, I'm curious as to...

It's such an interesting video to see how the P900 flattens everything out. I'm now thinking that the deer are a little closer than I originally said, about 2.25 miles from the camera (about here: 40.761011, -72.794410) which is actually west of Great Gun. In his pan across it isn't easy to...

I heard recently a good breakdown of where they sourced the information they're using for this line of argument: it showed very clearly that they've cherry picked what fits their narrative, and left out many things, in the same passages of writing, that conflict with what they're promoting.

Here's an interesting video shot with a P900 from just 10 inches above the water: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p6mJHkA_sQ He shows houses in Westhampton up to about six miles away, where the predicted hidden amount (standard refraction) is 13 feet. Nicest of all are deer grazing...

That's quite useful, and does work for giving the predicted apparent height order on a flat plane. For example, doing "elevation above/below observer" over "distance" gives: All in the same order, either way one does it.

I've had a stab at creating a simple explanation to show that calculators do include perspective, and looked at a way people can verify this for themselves, taking building heights on 5th Avenue as an example. Thread started here...

For completion, here is the above method applied to the South Sister photo, flat first: While the above photo shows the complete incompatibility of the flat earth 'model' with reality, the results for the spherical earth are almost perfectly aligned: Calculator attached.

The above post represents the easy version, but we can take it to the next level and look at the angles in more detail. If we place a line at the camera height to represent zero degrees and one at the tip of the Empire State Building to represent 18.7°, we can create a scale, such as might be...

Perspective is difficult, both to understand and to explain. This was recently brought home to me listening to flat earthers Nathan Oakley and Anthony Riley attempt to explain this photo of mountains in Washington and Oregon: All decent analyses show that it aligns perfectly well with a globe...

Here's a view of the sunset and distant mountains from ~1500 feet (map link here): The mountains are the same ones seen in post #30 above, reaching up to about 5100 feet, but the hill the photo was taken from is different. Dip to the horizon from this height is around 0.6°, so the full disk...

Wonderful stuff! :) I've also been thinking a little more about how to demonstrate that calculators take perspective into account, and that the angles the calculators generate match reality. One way to do this would be to take known distances and elevations and use them to generate a set of...

This is the original of the first of those images, unaltered, if anybody wants to check it: