Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Phil Indeblanc]

I can't wrap my head around it....
I know the horizon bends due to the lens curvature on wide lenses, and being a landscape photographer much of the times I photograph, I thought I would post this here,
since many folks are much more knowledgeable in optics, physics and relativity.

https://youtu.be/Rz6u2_hltSQ

[Rob C]

Phil, it's onvious: that's why NZ is having it's earthquakes: catching up with the rest of Earth. Once that's achieved, these little anomalies will vanish for ever.

Rob C

[Farmer]

Start by looking at this:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=150&h0=3&unit=metric

Now draw a straight line from the base of h0 and h1.  That represents a flat Earth.  In that scenario, you can see h1 from "sea level" to the peak.  Except, in the video, you can't.  You can't see the base of the mountain.  That's because there's something in the way.  The curvature of the Earth is in the way.

He shows that his angle lines match such that the peaks are the correct distance above sea level.  Well, of course they are.  Whether you have a curve or a straight line between base h0 and base h1 doesn't change the top of h1.  His hypothesis is that with curvature, sea level is different compared to a right angle (flat) plane from the base of either h0 or h1, and if you "rotate" the view to get that line level, then the top of h1 would be higher and so his lines shouldn't match up.  Except, of course, that if you rotate the frame of reference, you rotate everything in it, including his angle lines, so they will always match the peaks even if you "level" the two points.

In fact, when you look at the diagram in the link I provided, the angles of the lines from h0 base to h1 peak relative to a tangential plane at either base, can only work, and maintain respective heights about sea level for the observer and mountain peaks, if the Earth is curved and has a circumference of about 40,075km...

So, basically, he just proved the Earth is curved.

[Farmer]

Or, use Rob's answer, which snuck in whilst I was typing.  Although be careful, Rob, someone will take offence at your joke given 2 people died in the latest quake...

[Rob C]

Or, use Rob's answer, which snuck in whilst I was typing.  Although be careful, Rob, someone will take offence at your joke given 2 people died in the latest quake...

Man, there's always somebody ready, willing and able to take offence; it's the penalty of having a voice. You just have to soldier on regardless, and put your faith in sanity.

;-)

Rob

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?

The guy from that video should do another video explaining time zones.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I can't wrap my head around it....

Hi Phil,

As said, we cannot see the sea-level at the mountain's base (in part because it's hidden by the curvature of the earth, in part because there is no sea in that location), but we may be able to see the tops if they are high enough for the distance they are at. He states that the images were taken from Wellington's south coast, but at what elevation (Wellington itself is at 127 metres)? Looking at the footage, he was apparently well above sea-level, that's because a lot of rock formations in the foreground are well below the horizon line/curve.

Also, many of the mountain formations are on ridges that roughly run in the direction of the line of sight, so we may rather be looking at less distant ridge tops than more distant peaks. Too many unknowns to be more precise.

Cheers,
Bart

[N80]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?

The guy from that video should do another video explaining time zones.

I think the existence of flat-earthers is a bigger myth than a flat earth.

[Alan Klein]

I'm concerned with what's happening to all that water that's running off the edge.  It could be the reason the western USA is having  drought problem. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think the existence of flat-earthers is a bigger myth than a flat earth.

To their defense, those who reached/crossed the edge probably fell over the edge and were no longer able to report their findings... Just trying (very hard) to keep an open mind.

In fact, there is a Dutch scientist who developed a new theory that explains that Dark Matter (assumed to be the explanation for inconsistencies in gravity theories that even Einstein could not explain, but is still unproven) does not exist and gravity works in a different way than is so far assumed by the scientific community.

Flat earth (or hollow earth) on the other hand, or the denial of the human influence on climate change (hockey stick curves following the start of the industrial revolution) ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Phil Indeblanc]

Start by looking at this:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=150&h0=3&unit=metric

Now draw a straight line from the base of h0 and h1.  That represents a flat Earth.  In that scenario, you can see h1 from "sea level" to the peak.  Except, in the video, you can't.  You can't see the base of the mountain.  That's because there's something in the way.  The curvature of the Earth is in the way.

He shows that his angle lines match such that the peaks are the correct distance above sea level.  Well, of course they are.  Whether you have a curve or a straight line between base h0 and base h1 doesn't change the top of h1.  His hypothesis is that with curvature, sea level is different compared to a right angle (flat) plane from the base of either h0 or h1, and if you "rotate" the view to get that line level, then the top of h1 would be higher and so his lines shouldn't match up.  Except, of course, that if you rotate the frame of reference, you rotate everything in it, including his angle lines, so they will always match the peaks even if you "level" the two points.
In fact, when you look at the diagram in the link I provided, the angles of the lines from h0 base to h1 peak relative to a tangential plane at either base, can only work, and maintain respective heights about sea level for the observer and mountain peaks, if the Earth is curved and has a circumference of about 40,075km...
So, basically, he just proved the Earth is curved.

The link you posted is irelevent to the video I posted, as that is formulating the info its input.
We can leave that alone for now.

Hi Phil,
As said, we cannot see the sea-level at the mountain's base (in part because it's hidden by the curvature of the earth, in part because there is no sea in that location), but we may be able to see the tops if they are high enough for the distance they are at. He states that the images were taken from Wellington's south coast, but at what elevation (Wellington itself is at 127 metres)? Looking at the footage, he was apparently well above sea-level, that's because a lot of rock formations in the foreground are well below the horizon line/curve.

Also, many of the mountain formations are on ridges that roughly run in the direction of the line of sight, so we may rather be looking at less distant ridge tops than more distant peaks. Too many unknowns to be more precise.
Cheers,
Bart

The video this guy made is AT sea level. he is on the coast. His elevation is roughly or abolute zero.
How do you see him above?
Looking at the footage he is AT sea level. He has used the peaks in the distance as ref points, not where he is measuring from.
Even if he was a few feet up, it would still be way within Pythagorus theorum application to barely see the mountain tops.

Maybe watch the video again?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The video this guy made is AT sea level. he is on the coast. His elevation is roughly or abolute zero.
How do you see him above?

Large rock formations near his position are below the vanishing points at the horizon. His "from Wellington's South coast" is a bit vague as to his actual vantage point and elevation (just 'a couple' of metres above sealevel?), but we can get a rough idea.

Even if he was a few feet up, it would still be way within Pythagorus theorum application to barely see the mountain tops.

Not really. Take mount "Tapuae-O-Ueneku" at approx. 74.45 miles or 120 km distance, give or take. Take the Earth Curve calculator's modest default 3 metres elevation as viewpoint, and 120 km distance. That will mean that the 2885 m elevation will be well above the lower 1016.6 m that is occluded by the earth's curvature. Or mount Manakau with an elevation of 2608 m, also well above the horizon of the earth's curvature (if you look at 2m00s into the video where the 'sea level' or rather earth curvature is above his 'actual sea-level'). And since we're on a roughly spherical (or ellipsoid) surface looking more to the left or right, it will still be at the same heights, but the horizon is a circle when looked at from directly above.

Maybe watch the video again?

Doesn't change the facts.

Cheers,
Bart

[Telecaster]

In fact, there is a Dutch scientist who developed a new theory that explains that Dark Matter (assumed to be the explanation for inconsistencies in gravity theories that even Einstein could not explain, but is still unproven) does not exist and gravity works in a different way than is so far assumed by the scientific community.

My friend K, with whom I visited beaches & drank delicious coffee during my recent travels, has spent a chunk of her career so far on versions of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). The idea is that gravity, beyond a certain threshold of low matter density and great physical distance, behaves differently than described by Newton's equation (or by the more complex math of General Relativity) and that this accounts for the observed gravitational anomalies that have given rise to the idea of dark matter. She doesn't think MOND is ultimately right, and is dubious of "believers" in it like Verlinde, but does consider it worth investigating. It'll certainly be interesting to see if and how Verlinde deals with known MOND issues. So far, though, he seems more focused on PR. Bit of a red flag, that.

I've never met a flat earther "in the flesh." 

-Dave-

[Phil Indeblanc]

Large rock formations near his position are below the vanishing points at the horizon. His "from Wellington's South coast" is a bit vague as to his actual vantage point and elevation (just 'a couple' of metres above sealevel?), but we can get a rough idea.

Not really. Take mount "Tapuae-O-Ueneku" at approx. 74.45 miles or 120 km distance, give or take. Take the Earth Curve calculator's modest default 3 metres elevation as viewpoint, and 120 km distance. That will mean that the 2885 m elevation will be well above the lower 1016.6 m that is occluded by the earth's curvature. Or mount Manakau with an elevation of 2608 m, also well above the horizon of the earth's curvature (if you look at 2m00s into the video where the 'sea level' or rather earth curvature is above his 'actual sea-level'). And since we're on a roughly spherical (or ellipsoid) surface looking more to the left or right, it will still be at the same heights, but the horizon is a circle when looked at from directly above.

Doesn't change the facts.

Cheers,
Bart

As long as you see close to or thee contact point of the body of water from the two shores you are good to go, that is seeing across a flat plane. This doesn't need a lot of anything besides a straight line. You can start saying its much more complicated than that, but all you are doing is confirming if you have clear line of sight across a plane that is long enough to have a curvature to obstruct vision across. You don't need much else...Unless it was some hypothetical model. But its not. So its a WYSISYG. 

You say you saw the horizon as a circle from above?

[Farmer]

The link I posted is critical in understanding why his hypothesis is incorrect.  Look at the visual representation of what's happening, then follow my comments to create a "flat" earth model.  That model, to work, requires rotation.  Rotation causes the lines he drew to change their angle relative to the tangent at h0.  As such, they don't work.  They only work if the Earth is curved with a circumference of 40,075km.  For reference, I put his distance above sea level as 3 metres.

So, if you ignore what I posted and linked, then you're missing the explanation.

Also, in a more practical manner, the distance from h0 to h1 is just about 150km, which on a circumference of 40,075km is very small.  When you then reduce that down to the scale of the video, any variations become imperceptible and make his lines "line up".  It's like taking a fuzzy image and downscaling it massively to make it sharp.

[kers]

+1 for farmer;
I think he explained it very well and gave the right answer.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?

It's a disc, of course, carried on the backs of four elephants, themselves standing on a giant turtle. Don't you know anything? 

Jeremy

[N80]

or the denial of the human influence on climate change (hockey stick curves following the start of the industrial revolution) ...

Bart, someone of your obvious mental capacity should be ashamed of such a statement. Unless it was all in fun. If you are an adherent to real science you know that there are three problems with your hockey stick. First, the concept of "true-true and unrelated".  True: the industrial revolution happened during a period of time. True: the earth got warmer during this period of time. Unrelated: the industrial revolution made it get warmer. Non-scientists will scoff at this. But for the science to be meaningful the relationship between cause and effect has to be established firmly. In this case you have potential and theoretical causes but the effect relationship is yet unproven. And probably cannot be. The second problem is fascination with the hockey stick of the moment . There have been other hockey sticks. The little ice age for instance. So the fact that a hockey stick exists is hardly testimony to any man made cause. The third problem is that handle of your hockey stick is too short to give the blade significant meaning. We've been recording temps accurately for what, maybe 150 years. All other data is extrapolated, agreed on by consensus and otherwise unverifiable.

Even with those weaknesses manmade global warming is a reasonable hypothesis. It may even represent the best science we have available. But here is the problem, and it is three-fold. First, the conclusion of the hypothesis demands drastic global changes that effect lives, nations, cultures and economies all of which are being demanded without _any_ clear evidence that they will have a meaningful positive effect. That's a tall order for such weak science. Second, there is zero hard evidence that the effects of warming will be all negative of even negative in the balance! Finally, there is your statement lumping those who are skeptical with manmade global warming with flat-earthers. It is a little offensive. It glosses over the numerous problems with manmade global warming theory. And it is counter to scientific inquiry. Virtually all major scientific breakthroughs come because someone questions the prevailing science.

Apologies to this off topic rant. But he started it.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, someone of your obvious mental capacity should be ashamed of such a statement. Unless it was all in fun. If you are an adherent to real science you know that there are three problems with your hockey stick. First, the concept of "true-true and unrelated".  True: the industrial revolution happened during a period of time. True: the earth got warmer during this period of time.

Not only did it get warmer (which might until then be explained by other natural phenomenae), but it suddenly accelerated dramatically (on a scale of what natural phenomenae can do) when fossil fuel and other combustibles (releasing the stored Carbon to form Carbon (Di-)Oxides in an accelerated rate) got used at the scale it did.

Of course, accelerated deforestation also doesn't help to at least catch some of it, and the resulting climate changes worsen the results by erosion and rainfall that washes away fertile soil.

Unrelated: the industrial revolution made it get warmer. Non-scientists will scoff at this. But for the science to be meaningful the relationship between cause and effect has to be established firmly. In this case you have potential and theoretical causes but the effect relationship is yet unproven.

While it is true that correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, in this case there is no better explanation for such a massive breach in trends which continues to this day ever since. If you have a more plausible cause to offer, the world would be happy to hear what it is, so one can address it. Nature will be grateful, although it will do fine/better without humans.

And probably cannot be. The second problem is fascination with the hockey stick of the moment . There have been other hockey sticks. The little ice age for instance. So the fact that a hockey stick exists is hardly testimony to any man made cause. The third problem is that handle of your hockey stick is too short to give the blade significant meaning. We've been recording temps accurately for what, maybe 150 years. All other data is extrapolated, agreed on by consensus and otherwise unverifiable.

You're contradicting yourself. If the observations were only from the last century and a half, then how could we know what the temperature and CO2 concentration was during any Ice Age?

I'll leave the other remarks for another thread, e.g. when Trump revives the US coal industry and withdraws from the global efforts to mitigate the issues (which also urges developing countries to not repeat the bad example and make even larger contributions to the issues).

Cheers,
Bart

[Phil Indeblanc]

Bart N80 is making some sense to me, though, not sure how we went to the ice age... :-)
He is explaining about the exact thing that you are trapping your idea with. At least from what I am reading.

You are mixing an apples and oranges comparison....
When doing an experiment, you can NOT use correlation as a founding premise to ANY quantifiable scientific data. That is  something you can do in abstract, and create theories and models. You CANNOT apply such things when they are disproved by observational science, the core and the foundation of empirical evidence.

I think you have so much knowledge Bart that you are beyond the normal levels of science perhaps, but this may have detached your connection of what science is, something we can observe and repeat in a lab, where ever you may choose that lab to be. Science that gives us facts are based on *repeatable observation.


You know. As photography, and landscape photography in particular, the knowledge and open minded discussion could not occur in any better place, and thats why I posted this here.  I think, as long as we can freely think and share our observations, and experiences personally, we can have an amazing discussion with some many people. I am hoping to have a constructive discussion, so while I enjoy humor very much, I enjoy critical thinking much more.
Preset agendas, or "what I learned is absolute" can really slow it down. We cannot take theories in science as observable absolutes in all things. While they may come from great thinking minds, this doesn't mean some ideas are off, or wrong, or not disproved.

Don't watch this entire video, as I DONT assume of anything being such as flat earth and such, I am question something that relates to us as photographers and observers.
...but we have to be open to challenge our understanding, and this video is interesting in that respect.

https://youtu.be/p2QmEcDydzQ?t=7m5s