What do you believe; calculations or your lying eyes?

[shnarkle]

We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made with incredible powers of observation, but someone took a break when it came time to program my brain pan. In the last week, I've read two articles that are both related. One was dealing with the military's ability to fire at a target over 80 miles away; in passing they mentioned "line of sight".

Then I read this little tid bit of information concerning the curvature of the earth; it's an undisputed law in the scientific community. "Eight inches for every mile squared." This is impossible, isn't it? How cam this be possible? Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake, and I'm supposed to believe this? Seriously, what's the real formula? It has to be way more than this. Eight inches for every twenty miles? How about eight inches for every 4oo miles? That seems to fit better with what I see. I know that doesn't fit with an earth with a four thousand mile radius, but someone must have made a mistake somewhere with that calculation.

Any scientists ready to enlighten me on this one?

 

[bbyrd009]

what i mostly dislike in this argument--besides the fact that no conclusions will be reached--is that OG Flat Earthers had no interest in actually proving a flat earth; the intent was a spiritual one, referencing the fact that for all practical purposes, when you step out your door, iow, the earth was flat--that a person functions on a plane called the earth, and all of his meaningful interactions will occur on that plane.

 

[shnarkle]

what i mostly dislike in this argument--besides the fact that no conclusions will be reached--is that OG Flat Earthers had no interest in actually proving a flat earth; the intent was a spiritual one, referencing the fact that for all practical purposes, when you step out your door, iow, the earth was flat--that a person functions on a plane called the earth, and all of his meaningful interactions will occur on that plane.

I'm not really up on the "flat earthers" issue. I'm more interested in finding out how or why this formula came about, how and why it's supposed to work, etc. My question really is about perception, optics, refraction, optical phenomenon, optical illusions etc.

Why are we able to see around the curvature of the earth in the first place? There must be something about the atmosphere that causes refraction of light or something so that we can do this, no?

The other issue is just that the earth seems bigger than the equation seems to indicate. Perhaps I'm reading the equation wrong, I don't know.

 

[lforrest]

D=-63360*(sqrt(R^2-L^2)-R)
63360 is to convert miles to inches
R is the radius of the earth in miles (3959 miles)
L is the length of the tangent line straight out from you in miles. (1 mile)
D is the distance from the end of the tangent line to the earth's surface in inches. (calculates to 8in at 1 mile)

The thing you gave is likely an approximation but you can compare the results with the actual formula. The error of the approximation is less than an inch up to 20 miles, so it is suitable for artillery. At a hundred miles the error increases to 3ft, and it increases more from there.

 

[lforrest]

The reason you see the horizon a few miles away is because your eyes are a little higher than the surface of the earth. If you were to go atop a high mountain the horizon would be much farther away.

 

[shnarkle]

D=-63360*(sqrt(R^2-L^2)-R)
63360 is to convert miles to inches
R is the radius of the earth in miles (3959 miles)
L is the length of the tangent line straight out from you in miles. (1 mile)
D is the distance from the end of the tangent line to the earth's surface in inches. (calculates to 8in at 1 mile)

The thing you gave is likely an approximation but you can compare the results with the actual formula.

When dealing with science, the idea is to compare the formula with the data gathered from observations. The problem we have is that the formula (e.g. 8" for every mile squared) gives us a number that doesn't compare with our observations. For example: five miles gives us 25 x 8 =200" or 16'8". You can put a telescope at water level on a lake that is well over five miles long and there is no observable drop of even a few inches. There must be something wrong with this formula. Even two miles is almost three feet according to this formula. My contention is that someone needs to update this formula to align with our observations, or at least to account for the discrepancies whether they be optical phenomena, atmospheric conditions etc.

 

[shnarkle]

The reason you see the horizon a few miles away is because your eyes are a little higher than the surface of the earth. If you were to go atop a high mountain the horizon would be much farther away.

No, the problem is that the horizon is much farther than a few miles away. Even at the level of a flat canal of water these experiments have been done repeatedly and the observations are the same, and refute the formula. These discrepancies need to be addressed, and accounted for, but science doesn't seem to feel the need to change the formula, or explain the discrepancies; at least I haven't seen anyone present any explanations so far.

 

[lforrest]

When dealing with science, the idea is to compare the formula with the data gathered from observations. The problem we have is that the formula (e.g. 8" for every mile squared) gives us a number that doesn't compare with our observations. For example: five miles gives us 25 x 8 =200" or 16'8". You can put a telescope at water level on a lake that is well over five miles long and there is no observable drop of even a few inches. There must be something wrong with this formula. Even two miles is almost three feet according to this formula. My contention is that someone needs to update this formula to align with our observations, or at least to account for the discrepancies whether they be optical phenomena, atmospheric conditions etc.

If you want to make observations do it right instead of using anecdotal evidence. Shine a perfectly level laser over a salt flat and take measurements at different distances.

 

[shnarkle]

If you want to make observations do it right instead of using anecdotal evidence. Shine a perfectly level laser over a salt flat and take measurements at different distances.

There are plenty who have gone before me and presented the facts quite plainly. A friend of mine worked at area 51 for a number of years, and it was no secret that the dry lake bed varies only a few inches over the entire length. NO ONE denies this FACT. The History channel just had an episode of Modern Marvels showing that a bridge over Lake Champlain had to use extra cement because of the curvature of the earth. How much were they short? An inch. An extra inch for a bridge that spans 23 miles. Some simply math should tell you that doesn't add up.

 

[heavenforbid]

We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made with incredible powers of observation, but someone took a break when it came time to program my brain pan. In the last week, I've read two articles that are both related. One was dealing with the military's ability to fire at a target over 80 miles away; in passing they mentioned "line of sight".Then I read this little tid bit of information concerning the curvature of the earth; it's an undisputed law in the scientific community. "Eight inches for every mile squared." This is impossible, isn't it? How cam this be possible? Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake, and I'm supposed to believe this? Seriously, what's the real formula? It has to be way more than this. Eight inches for every twenty miles? How about eight inches for every 4oo miles? That seems to fit better with what I see. I know that doesn't fit with an earth with a four thousand mile radius, but someone must have made a mistake somewhere with that calculation.Any scientists ready to enlighten me on this one?

So every square mile the earth curves eight inches? Show me this article.

 

[shnarkle]

So every square mile the earth curves eight inches? Show me this article.

A square mile is not the same thing as a mile squared. It isn't an article; it's an uncontested fact. For every mile squared(not to be confused with a square mile), the earth curves 8". This has to be true given that we live on an sphere that has a radius of approximately 4k miles. The problem is when we look down a canal that is over five miles long with a telescope we can see someone at the end even at water level. This is impossible because at a distance of five miles the other person should be 200" below the horizon. Five miles squared is 5 x 5 = 25. 25 x 8" = 200". This is a drop of over 16 feet. There is no drop whatsoever. It's perfectly flat, at least to the eye it is. This is why there must be some sort of optical phenomenon or some atmospheric phenomenon at work here. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any explanation for it yet.

There are countless articles, blogs, videos, etc. Just google 8" for every mile squared curvature of the earth.

I've looked at a few with no luck finding any explanation. I'm a bit technologically challenged so maybe you might have better luck than I have, and can post some explanation.

 

[heavenforbid]

A square mile is not the same thing as a mile squared. It isn't an article; it's an uncontested fact. For every mile squared(not to be confused with a square mile), the earth curves 8". This has to be true given that we live on an sphere that has a radius of approximately 4k miles. The problem is when we look down a canal that is over five miles long with a telescope we can see someone at the end even at water level. This is impossible because at a distance of five miles the other person should be 200" below the horizon. Five miles squared is 5 x 5 = 25. 25 x 8" = 200". This is a drop of over 16 feet. There is no drop whatsoever. It's perfectly flat, at least to the eye it is. This is why there must be some sort of optical phenomenon or some atmospheric phenomenon at work here. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any explanation for it yet.There are countless articles, blogs, videos, etc. Just google 8" for every mile squared curvature of the earth.I've looked at a few with no luck finding any explanation. I'm a bit technologically challenged so maybe you might have better luck than I have, and can post some explanation.

Post your question to thunderf00t (YouTube) He can work that out.

 

[shnarkle]

Post your question to thunderf00t (YouTube) He can work that out.

There's nothing wrong with the equation. It works perfectly fine all by itself. It's the observations that don't agree with the equation. He doesn't have anything on the subject.

 

[heavenforbid]

There's nothing wrong with the equation. It works perfectly fine all by itself. It's the observations that don't agree with the equation. He doesn't have anything on the subject.

I said to post it to him, he can explain it.