The Biggest Lie of All - (Videos)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: theMediator

Because you have to go high enough to see it. It's seen quite easily from high altitude. At low altitude you're too close to the horizon to see it.

30 000 feet is the normal altitude for commercial flights which equals 9.14400 km.
Sure, maybe it's not enough to see the 32km drop on 111km...but to not see any earth curvature?

I don't know, it doesn't sound convincing...of course, my calculations could all be wrong, I'm not a mathematician!

originally posted by: theMediator
even my signature says it : "The truth lies somewhere in the middle... ".

Argumentum ad temperantiam

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: theMediator

Because you have to go high enough to see it. It's seen quite easily from high altitude. At low altitude you're too close to the horizon to see it.

30 000 feet is the normal altitude for commercial flights which equals 9.14400 km.
Sure, maybe it's not enough to see the 32km drop on 111km...but to not see any earth curvature?

I don't know, it doesn't sound convincing...of course, my calculations could all be wrong, I'm not a mathematician!

Argument from incredulity

originally posted by: ngchunter

Again, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate!

No, you're playing an ignorant person who knows nothing about astronomy or the planet you live on.

Well at least I don't have to go into insults, nor that I claimed I'm an astronomy expert.

But I know words! I know that apparent means : "Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: "
So everything having to do with optical illusions fall into the "apparent" category.

That's what you asked, that's what you got.

Oh and I've seen the sun look bigger, yes mostly horizontaly, while it sets. At least, that's my perception.

...also, I started my reponse with : "Yes, good argument! "...
and all you finished your post was with insults. That's not good maners.

originally posted by: ngchunter

Argument from incredulity

Equivocation ?
Straw man ?
Argumentum ad hominem?
Appeal to moderation?
Loaded question ?
Non sequitur?
Slothful induction ?
...
Fallacy fallacy?

See, I can do it too

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter

Again, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate!

No, you're playing an ignorant person who knows nothing about astronomy or the planet you live on.

Well at least I don't have to go into insults, nor that I claimed I'm an astronomy expert.

Well you're clearly not an expert, but worse you seem to lack even a basic understanding of these concepts.

But I know words! I know that apparent means : "Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: "
So everything having to do with optical illusions fall into the "apparent" category.

Apparent size is a specific term in astronomy, you do not get to insert your own meaning. You're attempting to argue semantics with someone who actually understands the terminology. The apparent size is its true angular size from a particular location, such as the earth or an observer on the earth. This is to distinguish from the true physical size or diameter.

Oh and I've seen the sun look bigger, yes mostly horizontaly, while it sets. At least, that's my perception.

Your perception is irrelevant. I've already told you that your "perception" is only an optical illusion and it has nothing to do with the atmosphere or its actual apparent size. If you took a telescope with a solar filter and measured the angular diameter of its width you'd see it didn't change.

...also, I started my reponse with : "Yes, good argument! "...

You then proceeded to post falsehoods. Yes, it is a good argument, it completely debunks your flat earth nonsense.

and all you finished your post was with insults. That's not good maners.

Now you are lying. My post contained the truth, facts which debunk you.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter

Argument from incredulity

Equivocation ?
Straw man ?
Argumentum ad hominem?
Appeal to moderation?
Loaded question ?
Non sequitur?
Slothful induction ?
...
Fallacy fallacy?

See, I can do it too

You are just listing fallacies, I am pointing out specific fallacies you are making.

a reply to: theMediator

The average commercial flight flies between 35,000 and 39,000 feet depending on fuel load, weight, etc. To start to see the curvature of the earth, you have to be flying closer to 55,000 feet, which means you're looking at very specialized aircraft, such as the Concorde, or the U-2.

originally posted by: theMediator
I like so stand in the middle...even my signature says it : "The truth lies somewhere in the middle... ".
[

Junk science has no middle. Its just junk.

Lending weight to it by arguing for the sake of it is as bad as propagating the junk, and just as damaging to actual science principals.

You are obviously unaware of the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax which is very similar in scope to all this flat earth nonsense. People ran with all kinds of pseudo scientific crap due a mix of junk theory and ignorance.

In case you missed it, ATS's motto has been "Deny Ignorance" for a long, long time.

originally posted by: ngchunter
You are just listing fallacies, I am pointing out specific fallacies you are making.

Well that's what I did too.

a reply to: theMediator
If you're not seeing evidence of curvature when you ascend then why does the horizon to horizon distance increase? Why as you travel is there always more to come into view?

The maximum distance you can see as you ascend is not limited by capabilities of human vision as evidenced by the fact that the distance to the horizon continually increases with altitude.

a reply to: ngchunter

You didn't say Apparent size, you said "apparent width". How was I suppose to know you we're talking about the astronomy term Apparent Size, which is mostly called Angular diameter which "is an angular measurement describing how large a sphere or circle appears from a given point of view".
And after all, it still says POINT OF VIEW.

Ad homonim : Loaded question

Yes, you know more about your LOADED QUESTION than I do and you debunked me. You still had to insult me on top of it, which is bad maners.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: theMediator

The average commercial flight flies between 35,000 and 39,000 feet depending on fuel load, weight, etc. To start to see the curvature of the earth, you have to be flying closer to 55,000 feet, which means you're looking at very specialized aircraft, such as the Concorde, or the U-2.

I have no visual proof of that but you could very well be right.

originally posted by: theMediator
Maybe someone could help with my calculations here...

I might be wrong, but I counted in a sphere earth, everytime someone would go from north to south 111km, he would also to downwards about 32~ km...

Yes, your math is terribly wrong. The correct formula is sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius. The drop for 111 km would be 967 meters. At 30,000 feet altitude the horizon distance is about 341 km. At that distance the horizon has dropped about 9.12 km. Sound like a lot? At 341 km distance 9.12 km corresponds to an angular size of only 1.53 degrees, or about 3 times the apparent width of the sun or moon. It's not that much in reality.

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: ngchunter

You didn't say Apparent size,

originally posted by: ngchunter
I am talking about the apparent size, which is a measured value, not your personal perception and it is not larger due to the atmosphere.

you said "apparent width". How was I suppose to know you we're talking about the astronomy term Apparent Size, which is mostly called Angular diameter which "is an angular measurement describing how large a sphere or circle appears from a given point of view".
And after all, it still says POINT OF VIEW.

Point of view does not mean personal perception in the way you are talking. Yes, the apparent size is measured as an angular diameter, you do not need to teach me basic astronomy, I already know it.

Yes, you know more about your LOADED QUESTION than I do and you debunked me. You still had to insult me on top of it, which is bad maners.

Then report my posts instead of complaining about them publicly.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter
You are just listing fallacies, I am pointing out specific fallacies you are making.

Well that's what I did too.

No, you didn't.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
If you're not seeing evidence of curvature when you ascend then why does the horizon to horizon distance increase? Why as you travel is there always more to come into view?

Human vision tends to send distance to the center point of the horizon just like in th is picture. We can tell with experience that the tunnel doesn't get smaller only our visions makes it seem like it is. There are surely more variables to count for but I'm pretty sure that the same applies to what we see from a plane.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: theMediator
Maybe someone could help with my calculations here...

I might be wrong, but I counted in a sphere earth, everytime someone would go from north to south 111km, he would also to downwards about 32~ km...

Yes, your math is terribly wrong. The correct formula is sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius. The drop for 111 km would be 967 meters. At 30,000 feet altitude the horizon distance is about 341 km. At that distance the horizon has dropped about 9.12 km. Sound like a lot? At 341 km distance 9.12 km corresponds to an angular size of only 1.53 degrees, or about 3 times the apparent width of the sun or moon. It's not that much in reality.

Tell you what, if I use a theodolite app on my phone from cruising altitude next time I take a commercial flight later this year and I show that the true horizon is higher than the apparent horizon, will you shut up?

originally posted by: ngchunter
Then report my posts instead of complaining about them publicly.

You called my posts with ad homonims yet, you didn't report me?

I'm willing to believe you know indefinitely more than me in astronomy but your logic shows fallacies which could taint your judgement.

a reply to: theMediator

There's a good bit of visual proof out there. Plenty of flights in a U-2 have been recorded that show the curvature. Most people that ride in them comment that they're at 60,000 feet or so when they start to see it.