Does anyone know how much the horizon should curve in a picture according to globe Earth?

Does anyone have an answer to my question?

I mean with no fisheye

Globe Earth predicts a flat horizon?

How does this help

How much should the horizon curve

For a height h

This is how far the horizon is

That's easy to find

I'm talking about how much the horizon curves

Does anyone here know?

How is this flat Earth discord but there is no formula for horizon curve. Looks like everyone just wants to believe what they're told.

@Flatty from Cincinnati No actually, I derived the formula myself, but the people in discord are just taking nasa's word for how much the horizon should curve without even using a formula

I did not use values, I used variables, R is the radius of the Earth, h is the height, u is the horizontal angle of view, I made a model showing which part of the Earth would be visible from a height h, the angular size from "eye level" to a certain point on the horizon is used to find how much the horizon should curve

This is for distance

I'm talking about how curved the horizon will look

Also, for the image you showed, it's probably better to use the curved distance for d1 and d2 for more accurate results

The formula doesn't become too complicated either

Almost 0°? Are you looking through a tiny slit?

Also you'd need to give me a value for the height

Are you talking about horizontal angle or vertical angle?

The vertical angle will be found out by the formula

The horizontal angle should be given

So you should tell me how wide your vision is, in degrees

Ok I'll give you an example

At a height of 50km, if you take a picture with a 40° horizontal angle of view, the maximum angle that the horizon drops due to the way it's curved is 0.434°, which is about the angular size of the moon, meaning at the very edge of your picture there could be the moon sitting between the space where a flat horizon would be and where a curved horizon is

I'll send you a model

Or rather just a screenshot of one

Unless you have 3D calculator

Eh well it's literally showing the POV of a point above a sphere

The horizon is a blue circle

You'll see, rn I'm adjusting it a little so it doesn't look too messy

What are ET's?

There hasn't been sufficient evidence to suggest their existence, not even allegedly

That's a fallacy

The size of the universe is irrelevant until there is an experiment to prove how life developed

Do you know how life can begin?

That's how it develeops, how does the first micro-organism form?

Then you can't judge whether life should be out there in the universe

Because you don't know how life began

Yup, I don't

But I'm not the one saying it's highly likely that some life was created in exoplanets

I didn't make any claim

I'm saying you can't make the claim

I saw some compressed images of the horizon being represented as proof for globe Earth

Sad thing is, neither the flat Earthers nor the globe Earthers knew how much the horizon *should* curve in the picture

This is why the formula is important

Both sides were arguing blatantly without evidence, just opinions

No

The picture was taken by a person in the argument

The formula can be derived by anyone

No authority involved

Well that depends on the credibility of the physician, and whether the statement is backed up by evidence

Also, what I meant by evidence in my first statement was that both sides of the arguement were making claims about whether or not the horizon should curve without using a formula

Btw a physician is a doctor, you probably mean physicist. And them agreeing alone is not sufficient, what have they done to gain credibility? And what is the evidence to their claim?

@pablochanches I already have derived it, and at 10 meters height above sea level and 80° horizontal AOV, the angular drop in the appearance of the horizon due to it's curvature should be 0.0237°, or 1/20th the angular size of the moon, basically 1-5 pixels if generous, so no, the curvature of the horizon should not be visible in compressed images of the horizon at low altitude

> He is correcting him in a small mistake, that he made too @rAven
@pablochanches oh did I make that mistake? Could you point me to it?

In a medical topic that statement is still valid, I assumed you were talking about evolution

Why would I mention physicists if he's talking about physicians?

What's the civil debate channel for? Miscellaneous topics?

Lots of people look for the curve without knowing how much it should show, atleast in terms of horizon curvature

Oh this isn't a debate server, didn't know

It depends, how good are your eyes?

I don't know how good eyes are at seeing the horizon curve, but I can find the horizon curve

@Logrian see that pic, why would he say it's flat? Does he know how much curvature there should be?

For a 60° AOV it's 0.88° drop, for 80° AOV it's 1.49° drop, I'd say that should be a pretty noticeable curve, though not a strong one

As for the 100,000 feet images, Nasa's is clearly fish-eye, the one in the background should be curving by an angular size of 0.75° assuming it's 60° but I can't be sure of it's angle of view and I can't be sure that it's not fisheye, would need a video or a straight line reference

Anyone have the FECore link?

> Anyone have the FECore link?
@curious guy ^

"over 20 miles high, horizon still flat"

Should it be curving significantly at 20 miles high?

"3959-(3959*(COS(ASIN(L/3959))))" who wrote this equation lmao

What's the ASIN for?

@Flat Earth PhD but should you be measuring curvature?

Maybe the curvature is too little to measure at low altitudes?

Do you know how much curvature you should be measuring?

That does not tell you how much the HORIZON should curve, I'm talking about whether it looks flat or not

Then what's the point of an image saying the horizon looks flat?

You can't measure 8 inches per mile² looking at the horizon

?

Sure, go with that, anyway do you know why this chart uses ASIN(L/R)?

Ok so the answer is because it's measuring straight line distance, not curved line distance, (it's also measuring normal to LOS drop, not drop normal to surface drop) which is not what it should be using for exact results

You could remove the ASIN and the equation would be perfectly valid

Assuming you're using radians

And it would be more accurate

You could then divide the entire equation by cos(theta) to get normal to surface drop

Who talked about measuring?

I'm just talking about the equation

I'm not talking about how it compares to results

I'm not here to fight for the globe Earth

I'm just here to see the equations being used, which, for the horizon, there is no equation that I can see being used to judge if it should be flat, and for the drop, the equation used is pretty close but still not exact

So 🤷‍♂️

Wow, at first it sounded like the amount of refraction would be too great, but the light rays would only need to refract by about 0.938° in total between the sun and moon's light rays,which seems reasonable given the angle of incidence

I've no idea, I'm just discussing the selenelion

I still don't quite understand what's meant by top-down eclipse on the moon, or if it means what I think it means, then how is it relevant?

Well if an eclipse is observed which is impossible in the globe model wouldn't that debunk it?

Very conflicting results

Imagine if the FECore laser was mounted on the lower levels of that vessel, according to this video, it would not be visible. So either atmospheric conditions are heavily influencing the results, or one of them is invalid

Again, really

"neil degrasse tyson say you don't see the curvature at that altitude"