27
posted ago by throwaway_27_ ago by throwaway_27_ +44 / -17

I noticed some folks in c/Conspiracies/p/15IXWXnIo6 arguing about the shape of the Earth. It doesn't look to be in bad faith, so I create this post for anyone interested.

Personally, looking at the Sun (ouch) and the Moon is enough for me.

Comments (660)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
throwaway_27_ [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1

I can see a city thats 20-30 miles away

Do you account for your geographical altitude when inputting the values in the second calculator's eyesight height field? My city is 500 meters above sea-level, so it shows the horizon as 50mi away.

What's your reasoning for not seeing objects much further? Why can't I see the Alps from where I am?

2
VicariousJambi 2 points ago +3 / -1

My city is 500 meters above sea-level, so it shows the horizon as 50mi away.

Thats....... not how that works. If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth. If you scroll down on that page they go over exactly all of the variables of the equation.

What's your reasoning for not seeing objects much further? Why can't I see the Alps from where I am?

Humidity. Eventually theres too much water to see through to get a clear picture of anything. This video goes over this concept in a little more depth.

Why Can't Everyone See Mount Everest on a Flat Earth? [3mins 5 seconds] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvH0Y1L41s

0
throwaway_27_ [S] 0 points ago +2 / -2

Thats....... not how that works. If you scroll down on that page they go over exactly all of the variables of the equation.

Okay, let's discuss this. If we can't agree on how to use a calculator, what's the point in having it. I did scroll down the page, and it does say to input your eyesight level from the sea level:

h — Eyesight level above mean sea level;

https://files.catbox.moe/rkfn1f.png

If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth.

Yes, this is correct. Which is why I'm asking you, are you accounting for your geographic altitude (from sea-level) when you use that calculator?

1
VicariousJambi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well you did leave this part out of the quote where I explained why this was incorrect to do. Edit: I see you edited in a comment on it

If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth.

The Calculator would have to have even more variables, altitude above sea level of viewing position and the position of what you're viewing for it to be even more accurate. You can see how that starts to get overly complicated when you get that specific. You probably couldn't even make a calculator out of it since you're not even using a simple ball anymore. They're using 3959 (r) as a constant just to make things simpler.

are you accounting for your geographic altitude (from sea-level) when you use that calculator?

In my original example of the cities, I checked the altitudes for both the place I am and the place I was viewing and they are the same altitude above sea level. If a 3959 mile radius ball (or whatever) is now 3959.5 that isn't gonna change a whole hell of a lot in the numbers. 266 feet is a lot. According to a quick search 1 "story" of a building is 14' tall. 266/14 = 19 Wheres the 19 story building hiding?

-1
Iknowitsu -1 points ago +4 / -5

Fake and gay shills talking to eachother.

Fake conversations.

Fake discussion.

Fake debate.

Fake issue.