"Equator" problem

Quote from: sokarul on November 12, 2014, 02:42:23 PM

Quote from: Saros on November 12, 2014, 02:16:48 PM

By the way for your information the peak just in front of Elbrus is 3103 m - Gora Digdali-Dudi. Actually, I have no idea why you're still looking at these pictures?! I thought you believe the Earth is 100% round? Why bother? Why are you wasting your time here?

The peak in the picture that should be way under 2989m?

Enhanced image:





 

So how is the distance between the two peaks 2,400m when 1,000m is halfway down from the peak?

Here's the view using 20 meters on that neat PeakFinder site. 

Gora Tsulashi over to the left is only half a mile closer than Kvira.  Kvira is the ridge with the clearing I mentioned a few posts ago.

Tsulashi is 3596 ft.  Kvira is 6686 ft.  The difference is 3090 ft.  Taking that same distance below the top of Tsulashi (for a total of 6180 ft) we see that it reaches well below the waterline/horizon.  An additional 506 ft is required to give us the total height of Kvira.  This is a distance of about 80.2-80.7 miles (129.8 km )away.

Looks like there's a hill of water there.

Here's the view using 20 meters on that neat PeakFinder site. 

Gora Tsulashi over to the left is only half a mile closer than Kvira.  Kvira is the ridge with the clearing I mentioned a few posts ago.

Tsulashi is 3596 ft.  Kvira is 6686 ft.  The difference is 3090 ft.  Taking that same distance below the top of Tsulashi (for a total of 6180 ft) we see that it reaches well below the waterline/horizon.  An additional 506 ft is required to give us the total height of Kvira.  This is a distance of about 80.2-80.7 miles (129.8 km )away.

Looks like there's a hill of water there.

 



Do you see the blue line? There is nothing higher than 400 meters all the way to Mt Kvira.

Even more enhanced picture:

Here is something more to think about:



The hills along the coastline are only between 70 and 120 m high.



Source:http://www.udeuschle.selfhost.pro/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon%3A41.64471%24%24%24lat%3A41.64906%24%24%24alt%3Aauto%24%24%24altcam%3A10%24%24%24hialt%3Afalse%24%24%24resolution%3A200%24%24%24azimut%3A360%24%24%24sweep%3A60%24%24%24leftbound%3A16.55000000000001%24%24%24rightbound%3A22.55000000000001%24%24%24split%3A60%24%24%24splitnr%3A1%24%24%24tilt%3A0.47916666666666696%24%24%24tiltsplit%3Afalse%24%24%24elexagg%3A1.2%24%24%24range%3A300%24%24%24colorcoding%3Afalse%24%24%24colorcodinglimit%3A231%24%24%24title%3AZugspitze%20%5BTelescope%5D%24%24%24description%3A%24%24%24email%3A%24%24%24language%3Aen%24%24%24screenwidth%3A1366%24%24%24screenheight%3A728

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

For starters, how about perspective?

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

Strange, isn't it?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 04:47:26 AM

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

For starters, how about perspective?

So you spend all this time trying to disprove the earth being round by showing us measurements and numbers and when you realize that what we see is exactly what's expected on a round earth, actual observed heights are no longer applicable and you essentially move the goal posts to perspective?

Quote from: Saros on November 13, 2014, 04:50:52 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 04:47:26 AM

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

For starters, how about perspective?

So you spend all this time trying to disprove the earth being round by showing us measurements and numbers and when you realize that what we see is exactly what's expected on a round earth, actual observed heights are no longer applicable and you essentially move the goal posts to perspective?

Should I tell you or you're going to figure it out eventually by yourself that you guys are classic trolls and refuse to accept or even consider anything against your predetermined beliefs(or should I say agenda) while simultaneously trying to disrupt the discussion and disregard any valid arguments? I am obviously not posting the photos for ganders like you, so if it bothers you please don't look at them.

The photos actually prove just the opposite of what you have assumed, but since you're apparently blinkered you might continue shouting forever that they match the calculations. And are you going to deny that perspective exists when objects get far away? What else do you expect to happen to something which gets far away? You want it to get bigger?

And by the way, why are you here in this thread to begin with if you're not contributing? You don't need to answer. That was a rhetorical question.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 06:06:40 AM

Quote from: Saros on November 13, 2014, 04:50:52 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 04:47:26 AM

It almost seems like the further away something is, the less dramatic its height. Wonder why that is.

For starters, how about perspective?

So you spend all this time trying to disprove the earth being round by showing us measurements and numbers and when you realize that what we see is exactly what's expected on a round earth, actual observed heights are no longer applicable and you essentially move the goal posts to perspective?

Should I tell you or you're going to figure it out eventually by yourself that you guys are classic trolls and refuse to accept or even consider anything against your predetermined beliefs(or should I say agenda) while simultaneously trying to disrupt the discussion and disregard any valid arguments? I am obviously not posting the photos for ganders like you, so if it bothers you please don't look at them.

The photos actually prove just the opposite of what you have assumed, but since you're apparently blinkered you might continue shouting forever that they match the calculations. And are you going to deny that perspective exists when objects get far away? What else do you expect to happen to something which gets far away? You want it to get bigger?

And by the way, why are you here in this thread to begin with if you're not contributing? You don't need to answer. That was a rhetorical question.

Was your intent in showing these pictures and diagrams to show a discrepancy in RET? I'm simply pointing out that you've utterly failed. And so it goes with FE'rs.

Should I tell you or you're going to figure it out eventually by yourself that you guys are classic trolls and refuse to accept or even consider anything against your predetermined beliefs(or should I say agenda) while simultaneously trying to disrupt the discussion and disregard any valid arguments? I am obviously not posting the photos for ganders like you, so if it bothers you please don't look at them.

The photos actually prove just the opposite of what you have assumed, but since you're apparently blinkered you might continue shouting forever that they match the calculations. And are you going to deny that perspective exists when objects get far away? What else do you expect to happen to something which gets far away? You want it to get bigger?

If it is needed to become bigger in order to make the Earth round then yes, we expect it to become bigger, why not? hahahaha...



If someone can figure out the exact distances in this photo we would be very pleased if you let us know correct numbers:



Use this link: http://www.amazingnz.com/HoneymoonHeaven-English.html

the numbers you've plugged into that calculator make no sense. A height of a staggering 130 km?

I've found the calculator you are using here: http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

According to it, for a height of 5642 m (Mt Elburus) the distance to it's horizon is 268 km, and for a height of 3103 m (Gora-Didgali Dudy), the distance to the horizon is 199 km. I'm really not sure how those measurements help anyone here. We need the apparent height for the observer at the distances you provided and the horizon calculator exceeds those numbers.

The failure here for you, is any attempt at showing anyone else's error. Perspective can and will cause things to be smaller the further away they get and if the earth is round, then that effect will be even more dramatic. You've provided data but none that shows one way or the other.

I have already corrected it, but the horizon line can still remain where i put it the first time.

However, the horizon line on that picture shows correct altitude if we take Kvira as a reference point, but of course we won't get in this manner correct result for Mt Elbrus, or for other (more distant than Kvira is) mountains...

If we were to calculate visual horizon for more distant mountains (than Kvira is) then we should have to raise the horizon line for certain amount of mm or cm, in this way the difference between FET and RET version would become even more striking, but i am content even with this soft version since the striking difference between the reality and RET dreams is huge even if we don't raise the horizon line to higher altitudes...

Do you see the blue line? There is nothing higher than 400 meters all the way to Mt Kvira.

Your point being?  The other mountain I referenced isn't exactly along the line of sight, but it's distance is nearly identical to Kvira. 

Anyway, if you draw a line to Kvira itself, there are some hills 119km away that reach up to 405 meters high.

Here is something more to think about:


The hills along the coastline are only between 70 and 120 m high.

And they're only 30-40km away.  So where are the markers for 10-60 meter elevations?  Looks like they'd be below the waterline/horizon because of the curvature. 

I have already corrected it, but the horizon line can still remain where i put it the first time.

However, the horizon line on that picture shows correct altitude if we take Kvira as a reference point, but of course we won't get in this manner correct result for Mt Elbrus, or for other (more distant than Kvira is) mountains...

If we were to calculate visual horizon for more distant mountains (than Kvira is) then we should have to raise the horizon line for certain amount of mm or cm, in this way the difference between FET and RET version would become even more striking, but i am content even with this soft version since the striking difference between the reality and RET dreams is huge even if we don't raise the horizon line to higher altitudes...

You used the wrong numbers again. You said Kvira is 2038 m high. This puts the horizon line at 166 km.

What, if anything does that tell us in reference to this picture? Kvira is closer than the horizon.

I have already corrected it, but the horizon line can still remain where i put it the first time.

You keep wanting to move the horizon.  Why?  If the observer is 6 feet, the horizon/waterline would be 3 miles away.  The calculator I linked to shows it, the calculator Saros linked shows it, and ENaG shows it.  How does the distance and elevation of something beyond that actually change what happens between the observer and the horizon? 

*Yes, the 'horizon' distance (how far away it can be seen) for the highest point of the object in the distance will change depending on it's height and that of the observer, but the physical 'horizon' (the waterline in this case) will only be affected by the observer's elevation.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 13, 2014, 08:16:39 AM

I have already corrected it, but the horizon line can still remain where i put it the first time.

You keep wanting to move the horizon.  Why?  If the observer is 6 feet, the horizon/waterline would be 3 miles away.  The calculator I linked to shows it, the calculator Saros linked shows it, and ENaG shows it.  How does the distance and elevation of something beyond that actually change what happens between the observer and the horizon?

The horizon he keeps moving is not the observer's horizon. He keeps moving the horizon for the object we are looking at, Kvira. I have no idea why. Kvira's horizon is larger than the distance between the horizon observer and Kvira. On top of that, he's using the wrong numbers to get Kvira's horizon.

Edit: clarification

The horizon he keeps moving is not the observer's horizon. He keeps moving the horizon for the object we are looking at, Kvira. I have no idea why. Kvira's horizon is larger than the distance between the horizon observer and Kvira. On top of that, he's using the wrong numbers to get Kvira's horizon.

Edit: clarification

Edited my post for clarification too.  Anyway, using that calculator, I plug in 7 feet for the observer, 6686 ft for Kvira, and get a visual horizon of 103 miles.  Since Kvira is only 80 miles away, and it appears well above the waterline/horizon, I don't see a problem. 

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 09:17:53 AM

The horizon he keeps moving is not the observer's horizon. He keeps moving the horizon for the object we are looking at, Kvira. I have no idea why. Kvira's horizon is larger than the distance between the horizon observer and Kvira. On top of that, he's using the wrong numbers to get Kvira's horizon.

Edit: clarification

Edited my post for clarification too.  Anyway, using that calculator, I plug in 7 feet for the observer, 6686 ft for Kvira, and get a visual horizon of 103 miles.  Since Kvira is only 80 miles away, and it appears well above the waterline/horizon, I don't see a problem.

So what you just said is just absurd. You see no problem if a mountain which is around 6686 ft high and like you said 'well above the horizon' 80 miles away to disappear completely if it were 23-30 miles further away? Are you pretending or yes? What you just said suggests that it takes ~30 miles for a whole mountain of which currently 6686 ft is seen to get from 'well above the horizon' to below it. You see no problem with that?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 13, 2014, 09:38:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 09:17:53 AM

The horizon he keeps moving is not the observer's horizon. He keeps moving the horizon for the object we are looking at, Kvira. I have no idea why. Kvira's horizon is larger than the distance between the horizon observer and Kvira. On top of that, he's using the wrong numbers to get Kvira's horizon.

Edit: clarification

Edited my post for clarification too.  Anyway, using that calculator, I plug in 7 feet for the observer, 6686 ft for Kvira, and get a visual horizon of 103 miles.  Since Kvira is only 80 miles away, and it appears well above the waterline/horizon, I don't see a problem.

So what you just said is just absurd. You see no problem if a mountain which is around 6686 ft high and like you said 'well above the horizon' 80 miles away to disappear completely if it were 23-30 miles further away? Are you pretending or yes? What you just said suggests that it takes ~30 miles for a whole mountain of which currently 6686 ft is seen to get from 'well above the horizon' to below it. You see no problem with that?

Not the whole moutain. Part of the mountain, at 80 miles away, is already gone. 30 more miles would take care of the rest. To add further insult to injury.... you can test this yourself. Take a guess about the math that is used in these calculators. You can bet that pi is involved (which implies that a circle is involved) and you can bet that if the calculator says that an object in the distance would disappear from view at a particular distance away from it, that it will actually do just that.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 13, 2014, 09:38:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 13, 2014, 09:17:53 AM

The horizon he keeps moving is not the observer's horizon. He keeps moving the horizon for the object we are looking at, Kvira. I have no idea why. Kvira's horizon is larger than the distance between the horizon observer and Kvira. On top of that, he's using the wrong numbers to get Kvira's horizon.

Edit: clarification

Edited my post for clarification too.  Anyway, using that calculator, I plug in 7 feet for the observer, 6686 ft for Kvira, and get a visual horizon of 103 miles.  Since Kvira is only 80 miles away, and it appears well above the waterline/horizon, I don't see a problem.

So what you just said is just absurd. You see no problem if a mountain which is around 6686 ft high and like you said 'well above the horizon' 80 miles away to disappear completely if it were 23-30 miles further away? Are you pretending or yes? What you just said suggests that it takes ~30 miles for a whole mountain of which currently 6686 ft is seen to get from 'well above the horizon' to below it. You see no problem with that?

Much of that 6686 feet is already below the waterline.  Are you saying the calculator you linked us to, and claimed is better, is wrong?

29silhouette, you don't see the problem? Maybe you should close your eyes in order to see better...Eyes wide closed, is that it?

Well, from the beginning blue horizon line has been drawn perfectly correct (it must be due to my perfect intuition  ), but since you were right about the distance of Mt Kvira, here is improved version which cannot be in better accordance with a position of the horizon line, i would say:



So, if the Earth were round then you would be able to see just last 610 meters of Mt Kvira, that is, first 1428 meters would be below the horizon!!!

If i tried to explain this simple equation to you in to chinese would you understand it easier?

Why do you play the fool?

So to look smarter?

Clickajamas, your hypothetic 1428 m high mountain would also be mostly covered by the horizon. As the distance becomes larger, more of an object is covered by the horizon. You're not getting this.

29silhouette, you don't see the problem? Maybe you should close your eyes in order to see better...Eyes wide closed, is that it?

Well, from the beginning blue horizon line has been drawn perfectly correct (it must be due to my perfect intuition  ), but since you were right about the distance of Mt Kvira, here is improved version which cannot be in better accordance with a position of the horizon line, i would say:



So, if the Earth were round then you would be able to see just last 610 meters of Mt Kvira, that is, first 1428 meters would be below the horizon!!!

If i tried to explain this simple equation to you in to chinese would you understand it easier?

Why do you play the fool?

So to look smarter?

'Eyes wide shut' if you're refering to the movie. 

Your picture shows the blue line at an area around 125km away at an elevation in the area of 1400 meters.  the peak of Kvira is about 130km.  Why did you decide on 1428m, which is visible out to 140km according to your calculator results, to subtract from 2038m for a peak 130km away, which has a visible horizon of 166km, and then claim those 610 meter should be the only portion visible above the waterline/horizon, yet show that portion (area above blue line) well above the water/horizon?

I don't understand why they can't understand.

I don't understand why they can't understand.

Mainly because you're wrong or pretend you don't understand what you see.
 
Check this out:

H1 = 2 m
H2=  1100 m

Maximum horizon distance = 123 km (H2 seen well above the horizon from 125 km away, but according to the formula it should already be below it, if the distance is bigger than 123 km)

In fact, you can still see the 900 m mark of Mt Kvira from 125 km away above the horizon, and it should be well below it when observed from 2 m height.

H1=2 m
H2=900 m

Maximum horizon distance = 112 km

Now if you still don't understand that what you see in the photo simply doesn't match the calculated horizon distance, I can't help you out ...If you could explain why there are constant discrepancies in what the formula produces and the reality, I would appreciate it. These are discrepancies over small distances, but they add up and over a distance of 1000 km the discrepancy may be significant. Do we not know the correct Earth's radius? Why exactly is there a discrepancy all the time?



Horizon distance calculator used: http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

Also, you might have noticed that the formula for calculating horizon distance doesn't use a sphere, but a circle. I guess it doesn't matter that a circle is flat.

Saros, where are you getting the idea that we can see the 900m mark?

Also, the circle that is used is a side profile/slice of the sphere. Not the planar circle that you are implying.

Also, you might have noticed that the formula for calculating horizon distance doesn't use a sphere, but a circle. I guess it doesn't matter that a circle is flat.

Do you really think this is an issue, or are you just generating more chaff?

Your sightline and the center of the Earth define a plane, since a line and point not on the line define a plane. The intersection of any plane with a sphere is a circle. Since the plane contains the center of the sphere in this case, it's a great circle - that is, a circle with the same radius as the sphere. That's why a circle is all you need to calculate distance to the horizon.

Don't they teach geometry in school any more? Or do they teach it but the ones who never paid attention are the ones arguing the Earth is flat?