It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BloatedSpheroid
a reply to: wildespace
In this vid and pic the yellow bases of the first row of turbines are not obscured. The eye level seems to be pretty close to the surface. I would say it's about 2m.
With an eye height of 2m, the horizon should be at 5.5 km. This means that according to the spheroid Earth's curve formula.......this pic must then have been taken within this 5.5 km distance.
Now you present this as evidence of the curvature of the Earth by pointing out that the turbines that are further away, in the second row, are being "cut off" from the bottom because they are being obscured by the curvature horizon.
Ok, so what is the distance between these rows?
The turbines are 749m-958m apart and installed in rows.
www.power-technology.com...
So the second row must then be within 6.5 km at which point you would get a hidden height of.........0.07 meters, aka 7cm.
These second row shafts, of 137 or 150 m high turbines(from bottom to blade tip) are almost being cut in half by the curvature you say?
When it should only be 7 cm?
Oops.
Again the supposed curvature fails.
At 7.5 km the hidden height would be 0.28 m. for the third row.
At 8.5 km it would be 0.62 m. for the fourth row.
It doesn't really matter what exact eye height and distance you take, with the max distances involved here, there simply isn't a large enough amount of drop across 1 km of surface to cut off almost half of the shaft of such a turbine, while leaving another turbine, 1 km closer, "untouched". Not even close.
However, the shot is probably taken from a further distance but according to Globe Earth math, the shot must have been taken within in 5.5 km of that first row of turbines, since they are not, or not noticably obscured by the horizon. If it was taken from much further away then at least the stretch between the camera and the first row of turbines, must be flat........
I like that Youtuber's comment in the vid description.
Exceptional clarity to view the windfarm as it drops over the horizon 22 miles away.
The horizon seems to be exactly at the base of the first row of turbines. If that is 22 miles away, then let me help you, at 22 miles, and a 2 m eyeheight, there should be a hidden height of 60m or about 200 ft.
We don't see any drop there. Nothing is obscured. If anyone wants to argue that I have the eye height wrong, and that it is much higher, then you will have the problem that the second row should not, or hardly be obscured either, it is only a km further away, and the third row is only 2 km further.
If you want to argue that he meant that the second row is at 22 miles, then the first row is still at 21 plus miles and the first row should still be obscured for a large part, but it isn't at all.
www.metabunk.org...
Conclusion, whatever it is that causes those views in the vid and the pic, is not a result of the supposed Earth curvature, there is no drop at all where there should be quite a lot, or there is way too much of it where it shouldn't be.(that much)
Take your pick.
The stuff you presented here as proof for a Globe Earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles, along with the supposed Globe Earth curvature math, actually disproves this belief.
intellectually honest and science based discussion
The turbines are 749m-958m apart and installed in rows.
look at the relative size of the blades - row 2 // 3 are near identical size - row one is much closer to the photographer
you clam that all 3 rows are equally spaced - you prove it
I care not for all the math involved in this,
I just want to see the edge and I'll straight up believe you.