its funny how most globers asks for math regarding everything. Except when they think they have "proofs for curvature in pictures". They never want their mathematical predictions beside that 😄

It doesn't

2 sek

lol. pull those data into http://metabunk.org/curve

@Albert Einstein 's 3rd img: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/609044036971659265/609046969075105804/J4.PNG

Now, I need to know the FOV of the camera to get a good comparison

? http://metabunk.org/curve its even maintained by a glober

@Albert Einsteinno you dont

Ofcourse you do

@Heider exactly

You tell the earth is mostly flat

With a lower FOV camera there will be less visible curve

So the horizon is curved at altitude

of course you need the FOV

Quite clearly with a good basic analysis

Albert a camera will always display curvature

And if you do the math it also checks out

It doesnt.

then you would have it accompanying it

I do

The walt bislin simulation

You can look at the equations if you want

I also have another example of those calcs if you want

so whats the height and whats the distance?

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-high-altitude.html

i can see height in the img.

The Bislin shot was at about 10km height or 33000 feet

I did that in 2 seconds btw, we can do it more accurately

no. i mean what Jtolan observed

so we can find how much it should have been obstructed by the curvature you believe in

That's another topic

Isnt that what we are discussing? what you can see in the images you linked?

What I want us to agree to is that the horizon is curved at altitude

Globe Math is not supporting what you think those images show.

thats the point.

The calcs will match the horizon curve

Per walt bislin or many others

Every single prediction of the curvature have always failed.

Nope

It works great

Hence why no "curvature proof" has ever came with math alongside it.