/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10290763]

https://youtu.be/KxLwaaU1aNk

[Anonymous No.10290848]

>>10290763
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T1-htS37uM

[Anonymous No.10290878]

>>10290848
Rory ignoring the X axis again


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fl0ZDj1UJw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vi1bnjH4TQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiT2TNGAfbw

https://youtu.be/PaanEaMDIx0

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&ei=Ez46XIOXJInGjwSc8ojYDQ&q=online+persona+management+services&oq=online+persona+mangement+services&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0..2623...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.04JgkgauOW4

[Anonymous No.10290883]

https://youtu.be/0q8CbKnpSoM?t=354

What is the size of Chicago in terms of length and width? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-size-of-Chicago-in......
Jun 9, 2018 - Chicago is about 40 miles long

40x40=1600x8=12800/12=1060 foot apex
Alternatively stated either side of Chicago City should be 1060 feet curved down ward from the middle of Chicago City.
That s just part of the X axis.

Z axis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs

52x52=2704x8=21632/12=1802 feet

List of tallest buildings in Chicago - Wikipedia
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
The tallest building in the city is the 108-story Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower), which rises 1,451 feet

[Anonymous No.10290903]

>>10290878
Hmm? How does that respond to anything in the video?

[Anonymous No.10291088]

>>10290903
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKvUFhkxAc

https://youtu.be/54xutVJIxUg?t=185

BBC Earth Lab
Published on Jan 24, 2017
Flying to 70,000 feet, James May gets to see the curvature of the Earth as he reaches the edge of space
https://youtu.be/8OnJCqtTxsA?t=153

9 Ways to Tell Who's Lying to You
Doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions. By now, if you’re catching on, it should be clear that a true story will hang together better than a string of lies. Returning to the case of the shirt, it’s quite likely that clothing from a more expensive store will look more expensive. If what you’re seeing doesn’t fit with what you know to be the case, it’s very likely that you’re not being told the truth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201407/9-ways-tell-whos-lying-you

Lying can be cognitively demanding. You must suppress the truth and construct a falsehood that is plausible on its face and does not contradict anything known by the listener, nor likely to be known.
http://time.com/77940/detect-lying/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction:_Spot_the_Liar!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefscjx9EFY

14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

https://youtu.be/VCW-kis5yyA

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.

(127 852 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
3.1963

(119 431 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
2.985775

[Anonymous No.10291111]

>>10291088
You're still not responding to the video. On a flat Earth 8000 feet of the mountain would be visible. But only 3000 feet of the mountain is visible, which is what would occur on a spherical Earth. This proves the Earth is not flat.

[Anonymous No.10291121]

When a camera attached to the balloon snapped their picture in front of the curve of the Earth, it had risen about 30 kilometres into the atmosphere
Up, up and away
Stone said that was higher than 99 per cent of the Earth's air.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/space-balloon-cut-knife-students-saskatchewan-1.4116526

30 km = 98425 feet

Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Association.
November 07, 2014
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

98425 divided by 40000 = 2.46...

[Anonymous No.10291127]

>>10291111
checkin them quads
watch the entire video
he didn t disprove anything
He was really struggling at the end
Loved the flat diagrams though

Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Association.
November 07, 2014
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

[Anonymous No.10291133]

I MAKIN A POOPOO PFFFFBRRRBRBRLLRLRTTTTTT SPLRRRPRRLRT

[Anonymous No.10291137]

>>10291127
flattards wrangling with scale episode #209138102

[Anonymous No.10291143]

>>10291111
Here I ll do the math for you...

123x123=15129x8=121032/12=10086 foot apex
10086 feet =1.91 miles

The 828-metre (2,717 ft) tall Burj Khalifa in Dubai has been the tallest building since 2008.[1] The Burj Khalifa has been classified as Megatall.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings

San Jacinto Peak/Elevation
10,830
wikipedia

San Jacinto Summit, Elevation 10804 feet
https://graphics.stanford.edu/public_photos/san_jacinto_2001/
Aug 18, 2001 - Los Angeles, Elevation 330 feet. The summit of Mount San Jacinto stands 10,804 feet above sea level.

https://youtu.be/KxLwaaU1aNk

10804-10086=718 feet

[Anonymous No.10291149]

>>10291137
>>10291133

[Anonymous No.10291156]

Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Association.
November 07, 2014
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

[Anonymous No.10291168]

>>10291156
why me not can tell tiny arc from high place ?? ??

[Anonymous No.10291173]

>>10291168
We should go higher...


Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Association.
November 07, 2014
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

[Anonymous No.10291176]

flattards wrangling with scale episode 408927340987230948

and no, "i'm incredulous" is not an argument

[Anonymous No.10291180]

Ron Shekelson
Undeniable proof of Flat Earth!!! There should be over 72 miles of curvature at that distance!!!!
2 months ago (edited)


Hugh Cameron
According to the Earth Curve Calculator, at 35,000 and a target distance of 760 miles, the horizon would be at 230 miles. Any object after that should be hidden as the earth curves away from you and the target at 760 miles would have to be 187000 feet high to be seen.
Great video.
2 months ago (edited)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4ILdFaueLg

[Anonymous No.10291184]

Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Association.
November 07, 2014
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html


The balloon would rise some 90,000 feet before popping from the pressure outside it
https://aerospace.illinois.edu/news/high-altitude-balloon-class-emphasizes-hands-learning

[Anonymous No.10291197]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2HwbHy-s8k

All images in the GOES archive are processed in McIDAS using GOES channel 1 visible and GOES channel 4 infrared data. The underlying colored land image is from the NASA Blue Marble Next Generation data set. When using this basemap for web or other publications, please provide the following credit line: The basemap was provided by the Earth Observatory Team - NASA
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov)
ftp://ftp.nnvl.noaa.gov/SiteDescription.txt

Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

[Anonymous No.10291262]

>>10291180
https://www.heywhatsthat.com/?view=XSKK8CK7

If you look south-southwest like he does (and enable horizon display to guide you), you'll find the features he points out, which are not, in fact, Baja and environs. Some cunt on youtube declaring "I can see Baja" does not mean he can actually see Baja.

[Anonymous No.10291280]

https://youtu.be/J-Y5Nw3xwyE?t=98

[Anonymous No.10291378]

The city of Los Angeles covers a total area of 502.7 square miles (1,302 km2), comprising 468.7 square miles (1,214 km2) of land and 34.0 square miles (88 km2) of water. The city extends for 44 miles (71 km) longitudinally and for 29 miles (47 km) latitudinally. The perimeter of the city is 342 miles (550 km).
Los Angeles - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

44 x 44 = 1936 x 8 = 15844 / 12 = 1290 foot apex in the middle of the city. Each side of city should be 1200+ feet lower than the middle.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=44&h0=0......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fumN_7FL-xA

Here s the city against a table top for comparison...

[Anonymous No.10291398]

Are you having fun with all this jibber-jabber?

Let's say for a moment that all of the deception is real. Let's say all of the imagery is fake, all of the world (except you of course) is in on some rounder conspiracy.

What phenomenon do you know of that can be explained only by a flat Earth model? In other words, what proof do you have that the world is flat?

You spend so much time being an edgy little brat, but no time at all explaining a flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.10291412]

>>10291184
>Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest

Fuck off tard mongler. I can go up a hill only 600m high which overlooks a 270 degree panoramic view of the ocean and see the very fucking obvious curvature of the earth.

Christ I wish there was some automated way to permanently remove flat-earthers from the gene pool, then we might actually have some hope of colonizing the stars

[Anonymous No.10291417]

>>10291412
>I wish
You could help by saging your replies.

[Anonymous No.10291427]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V3rmDG5J8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WtSTPodQ60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWgA8HGEj4g

https://youtu.be/BancjpzmSnw?t=826

[Anonymous No.10291437]

>>10291412
November 07, 2014
Photographing the Curvature of the Earth: Trickier Than You Think-- Earth Science Picture of the Day is a service of the Universities Space Research Associatlion. Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or (12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.htm

600 m = 1968.5 feet

According to Neil D Tyson you can t...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefscjx9EFY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKvUFhkxAc&t=5s

14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

[Anonymous No.10291441]

>>10291127
>he didn t disprove anything
>He was really struggling at the end
Where was he wrong?

[Anonymous No.10291448]

>>10291143
>123x123=15129x8=121032/12=10086 foot apex
That's not the amount obscured by the obstruction. You need to take into account the height of the viewer, the height of the obstruction, their distances from each other, etc. The math is in the video I posted.

[Anonymous No.10291451]

>>10291437
https://youtu.be/54xutVJIxUg?t=185

14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

Many people claim to have photographed the curvature of the Earth. But the curvature they show is not that of the Earth. In almost every case, it's caused by barrel distortion in the camera lens. If the horizon is placed above the middle of the frame (top photo), its left and right edge turn down, mimicking a curvature in the sense expected of a round Earth. If placed below the middle of the frame (bottom photo), the left and right portions turn up – the wrong way! Barrel distortion happens because the image scale (degrees/pixel) decreases away from the optical axis. This occurs when a sphere (celestial sphere) is projected onto a flat surface, the focal plane of the camera. The wider the field of view, the more evident the barrel distortion becomes.

Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

[Anonymous No.10291464]

>>10291427
I don't know what you were showing tin the first two vids (other than that we have a north celestial pole), but the second two were horrendous torrents of verbiage and the essential element was, "the sky appears rotated between two locations." Well duh. But the salient bit is, they share the same circumpolar constellations around a *southern* celestial pole. How can a disk rotate around two poles that simultaneously exist on one just side on the plane?
More jibber-jabber from you.

[Anonymous No.10291467]

>>10291448
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=123&h0=150&unit=imperial

h1 = Target hidden height
7777.2248 feet

[Anonymous No.10291471]

>>10291451
It is important to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imagery in order to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion.
That said, flattards aren't allowed to use photography per their own claim that all imagery is CGI, therefore untrustworthy.

[Anonymous No.10291474]

>>10291467
So that gives 3000 feet of visible mountain, which is what is observed. So you just proved that the Earth is not flat, good job.

[Anonymous No.10291478]

The metaphor for the structural integrity of flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.10291488]

>>10291471
LOL

https://youtu.be/yefscjx9EFY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKvUFhkxAc

https://youtu.be/54xutVJIxUg?t=185

BBC Earth Lab
Published on Jan 24, 2017
Flying to 70,000 feet, James May gets to see the curvature of the Earth as he reaches the edge of space
https://youtu.be/8OnJCqtTxsA?t=153

9 Ways to Tell Who's Lying to You
Doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions. By now, if you’re catching on, it should be clear that a true story will hang together better than a string of lies. Returning to the case of the shirt, it’s quite likely that clothing from a more expensive store will look more expensive. If what you’re seeing doesn’t fit with what you know to be the case, it’s very likely that you’re not being told the truth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201407/9-ways-tell-whos-lying-you

Lying can be cognitively demanding. You must suppress the truth and construct a falsehood that is plausible on its face and does not contradict anything known by the listener, nor likely to be known.
http://time.com/77940/detect-lying/

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.

(127 852 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
3.1963

(119 431 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
2.985775

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/431554750119550976?lang=en

14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

[Anonymous No.10291493]

>>10291488
>LOL
Explain what you think is funny, please.

[Anonymous No.10291498]

>>10291488
>https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=123&h0=150&unit=imperial
>h1 = Target hidden height
>7777.2248 feet
>>10291474

[Anonymous No.10291512]

>>10291498
>>10291488
Do you use any words of your own, or are you play acting as a Tamarian?

[Anonymous No.10291516]

>>10291498
He got the height wrong. See https://youtu.be/-T1-htS37uM?t=525 which uses several different methods including his own picture to show that it's 3000 feet visible.

[Anonymous No.10291523]

>>10291493
Neil Tyson contradicting the BBC and others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKvUFhkxAc

https://youtu.be/54xutVJIxUg?t=185

BBC Earth Lab
Published on Jan 24, 2017
Flying to 70,000 feet, James May gets to see the curvature of the Earth as he reaches the edge of space
https://youtu.be/8OnJCqtTxsA?t=153

9 Ways to Tell Who's Lying to You
Doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions. By now, if you’re catching on, it should be clear that a true story will hang together better than a string of lies. Returning to the case of the shirt, it’s quite likely that clothing from a more expensive store will look more expensive. If what you’re seeing doesn’t fit with what you know to be the case, it’s very likely that you’re not being told the truth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201407/9-ways-tell-whos-lying-you

Lying can be cognitively demanding. You must suppress the truth and construct a falsehood that is plausible on its face and does not contradict anything known by the listener, nor likely to be known.
http://time.com/77940/detect-lying/

https://youtu.be/yefscjx9EFY


14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.

(127 852 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
3.1963

(119 431 feet) / (40 000 feet) =
2.985775

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/431554750119550976?lang=en

[Anonymous No.10291525]

>>10291498
Where is the 8000 feet of mountain that should be visible on a flat Earth?

[Anonymous No.10291562]

>>10291523
So you post a lot without saying anything yourself.
But the bit about NDT: it is cleverly clipped to make it look like he's saying the Earth is flat. He didn't. What he's saying is, the curvature seen in the skydive is far more extreme, due to the nature of the lens used. You're the one who is showing highly edited clips in a deceptive way. Ironic, given:
>>10291523
>9 Ways to Tell Who's Lying to You

You're not doing very good at it. Of course, you avoid being called out too directly by posting clips, rather than your own words. You won't explain yourself. You hide behind memes. You're a deceiver and a liar.

Evaluate yourself:
>>10291523
>http://time.com/77940/detect-lying/

[Anonymous No.10291578]

Could the flat Earth peeps out there please explain why the moon appears upside down in the northern hemisphere relative to the southern hemisphere? Dying to know

[Anonymous No.10291612]

>>10291516
See the two farthest peaks?
According to google maps they re 74 miles apart. Let s be conservative and say 70 miles.
That s over 3200 feet of missing curvature on the x axis. They always have to avoid the x axis.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=70&h0=0&unit=imperial

[Anonymous No.10291631]

>>10291578
https://youtu.be/97LbcBxJAnw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

[Anonymous No.10291634]

[Anonymous No.10291639]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iWhWJhSvg

https://stratostar.net/how-high-can-a-balloon-go-before-it-pops/

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/about/project-echo.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrvSr5JvX4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-vUkZHnjGI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8MeZ6lpwI

What Would Happen If You Popped A Balloon In Space? » Science ABC
https://www.scienceabc.com Nature Universe
Due to the lack of external air pressure, the balloon would continue to expand and almost instantly pop all on its own!
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-would-happen-if-you-popped-a-balloon-in-space.html

https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/technotes%3A464/datastream/PDF/view

*100 km/62 miles*
Outer space does not begin at a definite altitude above the Earth's surface. However, the Kármán line, an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level, is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping.
Outer space - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

Echo 1A (commonly referred to as just Echo 1) was put successfully into a *944-to-1,048-mile*(1,519 to 1,687 km) orbit by another Thor-Delta,[4][5] and a microwave transmission from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was received at Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey, on August 12,[2] 1960.

The 30.5-meter (100 ft) diameter balloon was made of 0.5-mil-thick (12.7 μm) metalized 0.2-micrometer-thick (0.00787-mil) biaxially oriented PET film ("Mylar") material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo#Echo_1

These unmanned balloons, carrying light, but very precise instruments, approached an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records).
Flight altitude record - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

[Anonymous No.10291643]

>>10291631
Waitasec... the people across the disk in.. what is that - Australia? can see the Moon at the same time as those in S America, but they can't see the Sun simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.10291677]

>>10291631
Odd isn't it how despite the relative size difference and distance we never notice the moon rotate a millimeter from picture to picture, telescope or not.

Then there's the whole 'A sphere's surface can never be flatly lit from a single light source, no matter the exposure or luminosity.'

[Anonymous No.10291678]

>>10291612
>missing curvature on the x axis.
The mountains are more or less the same distance from the observer. If I'm interpreting your cryptic, abbreviated text correctly, you're saying that a separation between the mountains even at the same distance from the observer is going to somehow affect the visible height. Am I reading you correctly?

[Anonymous No.10291688]

Debate on Monday

https://youtu.be/Z-F1SVz0nn0

[Anonymous No.10291696]

>>10291678

[Anonymous No.10291697]

>>10291677
Actually, we do Liar. It's called "libration," and is caused by a difference in orbital speed between perigee and apogee.

[Anonymous No.10291701]

>>10291696
Is English a second language for you"? Can you not make points on your own? I have no idea what you're trying to tell me because the flaws in that meme render it useless.

[Anonymous No.10291702]

>>10291677
checkin them dubs

[Anonymous No.10291704]

>>10291702
And IF the surface were not matte but glossy. Liar.

[Anonymous No.10291711]

>>10291701
He's saying if they're 70 miles apart, you should see some bowing apart, like bridge towers.
Course, how do you tell a mountain is tilted?
(Very diplomatically - they're sensitive to that)

[Anonymous No.10291714]

Kindergarten Three Dimensional Shapes
How many flat surfaces does a sphere have? 0
https://www.helpteaching.com/questions/80361/look-at-the-sphere-sphere-how-many-flat-surfaces-does-a-sphe

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+earth&rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0-6u8-c_fAhWn4IMKHSqxDPUQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=641

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&biw=1366&bih=641&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=rCAtXPubMKO0jwTtj7_YAw&q=sphere&oq=sphere&gs_l=img.3..0j0i67j0l8.17936.19223..19858...0.0..0.184.940.0j6......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.ft_bMia8AHc

https://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

https://www.redbull.com/ca-en/mysterious-places-part-5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwzsXXDW5IM

[Anonymous No.10291722]

>>10291714
This corridor is actually straight, because the tiles are all flat. The illusion id created by the transit authority using bending lights so people think they're going somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10291730]

>>10290763

Do these people not understand how fucking big the Earth is? The little diagram down on the bottom right of the image implies that Mt San Jacinto would like an 1/8th of the size of the planet.

[Anonymous No.10291734]

>>10291612
>That s over 3200 feet of missing curvature on the x axis.
Based on what? The calculator you're using gives the amount of height obscured by the curve between an observer and target. It doesn't tell you anything about the "x axis."

And you still haven't replied to the fact that the fact that you only see 3000 feet of the mountain and not 800 feet proves the Earth isn't flat. Since you repeatedly refuse to respond I'll just assume you have no response and admit the Earth is not flat.

[Anonymous No.10291735]

>>10291696
It's funny because you can clearly see curvature in the horizon since there is more space between the water and the red line at the ends than there is in the middle of the red line.

[Anonymous No.10291741]

>>10291398
>>10291631
>>10291643
>>10291677
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5042249.0
pic related

[Anonymous No.10291743]

>>10291730
Yeah we know how big it is. A 20 mile section is all it takes to prove the numbers are off. X axis tumps the Z axis.

>>10291734
You don t know how to calculate the apex of the curve between two points with or without an online calculator?

[Anonymous No.10291748]

>>10291735
That lake is 40 miles in length.
Max. length: 40 mi (64 km)

Guess how much curve is missing from that axis...
https://www.6sqft.com/brooklyns-future-tallest-tower-to-hit-1066-feet/

[Anonymous No.10291751]

>>10291741
There s no reference for Sun or Moon distance on wikipedia or anywhere. Never been measured. Can t be due to atmospheric refraction....

*References (or refs or simply reliable sources), on Wikipedia, are important to verify content*
*and inform the reader of its source. This page shows you how to provide inline citations using ref tags*
*which result in superscripted footnote numbers, like this:[1]*
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners*

The distance to the Sun and/or Moon has never been measured. That s why there is no reference for it on wikipedia.
There is no reference to add to wikipedia,
Sun, no reference for distance
*Observation data*
*Mean distance*
*from Earth 1 au ≈ 1.496×108 km*
*8 min 19 s at light speed*
Visual brightness (V) −26.74[1]
Absolute magnitude 4.83[1]
Spectral classification G2V[2]
Metallicity Z = 0.0122[3]
Angular size 31.6–32.7 minutes of arc[4]
Adjectives Solar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFEDMfmGvBY

https://youtu.be/2fQ3m0dBO0M

Moon, no reference for distance
*Orbital characteristics*
*Epoch J2000*
*Perigee 362600 km*
*(356400–370400 km)*
*Apogee 405400 km*
*(404000–406700 km)*

Semi-major axis
384399 km (0.00257 AU)[1]
Eccentricity 0.0549[1]
Orbital period
27.321661 d
(27d 7h 43min 11.5s[1])
Synodic period
29.530589 d
(29d 12h 44min 2.9s)
Average orbital speed
1.022 km/s
Inclination 5.145° to the ecliptic[2][a]
Longitude of ascending node
Regressing by one revolution in 18.61 years
Argument of perigee
Progressing by one revolution in 8.85 years
Satellite of Earth[b][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nU3rSZnwOI

https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

https://www.google.com/search?q=atmospheric+refraction&rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&oq=atmospheric+refraction&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61j35i39j0l2.4341j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Anonymous No.10291775]

Is this a bot spamming the thread or just a really autistic schizo?

[Anonymous No.10291776]

>>10291775
The infamous balloon retard

[Anonymous No.10291778]

>>10291743
You do understand how distances appear to compress as you zoom in on far away things, right?

[Anonymous No.10291779]

>>10291631
No. In that example you would see two different (but overlapping in parts) faces of the moon.
What the photos show is the same face but rotated.
Your fucking illustration literally doesn't match what the two photos are showing.

I'm going to save this because it's actually hilarious.

[Anonymous No.10291781]

>>10291751
>There s no reference for Sun or Moon distance on wikipedia or anywhere. Never been measured. Can t be due to atmospheric refraction.

[Anonymous No.10291782]

>>10291704
And if the light source were close and not far away.

[Anonymous No.10291783]

>>10291776
I have yet to meet any flattard schizo on this entire website who can debunk this video: a whole fifty minutes of uninterrupted ISS footage where the astronaut moves all throughout the station. Literally cannot be explained by "muh wires" or "muh zero g plane"
https://youtu.be/QvTmdIhYnes
Have a look in the /x/ thread I posted it in if you want some laughs
>>>/x/22028125

[Anonymous No.10291789]

>>10291783
Interstellar was almost 3 hours of fake space i think NASA can afford to do 50 minutes, schlomo.

[Anonymous No.10291791]

>>10291782
Light source can be far away.

[Anonymous No.10291796]

>>10291789
>Interstellar was almost 3 hours of fake space
You are retarded. Most of the movie does not take place in apparent zero gravity. There is hardly any particular shot that lasts more than 10 seconds at a time in weightlessness and none of these shots are actually convincing in any sort of way.

[Anonymous No.10291799]

>>10291796
bruh, it's a joke

[Anonymous No.10291802]

>>10291791
Right, granted the observer also has to be far away.
Basically the "hotspot" is the size the light source appears to you, so if the light source appears to you as the size of the object, the entire object appears to be the "hotspot".

[Anonymous No.10291803]

Reminder that if the moon was local like flattards claim, we would have to see different faces of it as it approached us and moved away from us. This is demonstrably not what happens.

[Anonymous No.10291807]

>>10291799
Sorry, I spent a good few hours today arguing with people in that /x/ thread who would genuinely say something like you just said so I'm having a hard time adjusting to the fact that I'm not on the site's dumbest board anymore

[Anonymous No.10291815]

>>10291743
What that's calculating is the height obscured if you were 0 feet from the ground 70 miles away, not the apex. See pic. The apex is only 815 feet. Ironic that you claim I can't calculate the apex when you're calculation is 4 times too large.

[Anonymous No.10291817]

>>10291803
You should check out >>10291631
It's good for a laugh.

[Anonymous No.10291824]

>>10291817
For chuckles, might as well look at all the fE memes.

[Anonymous No.10291829]

>>10291817
I bet he even posted it in earnest and all. What a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.10291849]

>>10291748
>how much curve is missing
What do you mean by curve? The apex is

2*3959(sin(20pi/24901))^2 = 0.0504 miles = 266 feet

There should be no curve on a flat earth but there clearly is a curve. You lose.

[Anonymous No.10291851]

>>10291815
No it s calculating the apex of the curvature between two points on the x axis.

100x100=10000x8=80000/12=6666 foot apex

https://imgur.com/gallery/pqTvn

Gotta hide the easiest way to calculate and prove there s no curvature though.

[Anonymous No.10291859]

https://youtu.be/0q8CbKnpSoM?t=354

What is the size of Chicago in terms of length and width? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-size-of-Chicago-in......
Jun 9, 2018 - Chicago is about 40 miles long

40x40=1600x8=12800/12=1060 foot apex
Alternatively stated either side of Chicago City should be 1060 feet curved down ward from the middle of Chicago City.
That s just part of the X axis.

Z axis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs

52x52=2704x8=21632/12=1802 feet

List of tallest buildings in Chicago - Wikipedia
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
The tallest building in the city is the 108-story Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower), which rises 1,451 feet

[Anonymous No.10291861]

>>10291859
Man, you talk a lot for someone who says so little.

[Anonymous No.10291864]

>>10291849
The apex would be 1066 feet with each side sloping downward 1066 feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JrPrT_lnkg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMdIsBvMRs

Bendy water

[Anonymous No.10291866]

>>10290763
>using imperial units

Retard detected and opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.10291867]

>>10291851
>No it s calculating the apex of the curvature between two points on the x axis.
It's quite clearly not. Are you retarded? Look at pic related and then look at the pic in >>10291815 for the apex.

[Anonymous No.10291872]

>>10291864

[Anonymous No.10291874]

New John D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0yFIuedQZk

[Anonymous No.10291877]

>>10291864
The apex is the maximum height of the curve in between the two peaks. Whatever you're calculating is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10291879]

>>10291851
>No it s calculating the apex of the curvature between two points on the x axis.
It's quite clearly not. Are you retarded? Look at pic related and then look at the pic in >>10291815 (You) for the apex.

[Anonymous No.10291880]

>>10291872
>>10291867
>>10291864

[Anonymous No.10291886]

found the download for the shape of universe

[Anonymous No.10291887]

>>10291748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTYWBJD-dEE

[Anonymous No.10291890]

>>10291886
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

[Anonymous No.10291893]

>>10291781
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJp3fC5CLqs


https://www.google.com/search?q=atmospheric+refraction&rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&oq=atmospheric+refraction&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61j35i39j0l2.4341j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

“The sun which had made ‘positively his last appearance’ seven days earlier surprised us by lifting more than half its disk above the horizon on May 8. A glow on the northern horizon resolved itself into the sun at 11 am that day. A quarter of an hour later the unreasonable visitor disappeared again, only to rise again at 11:40 am, set at 1 pm, rise at 1:10 pm and set lingeringly at 1:20 pm. These curious phenomena were due to refraction which amounted to 2° 37 at 1:20 pm. The temperature was 15° below 0° Fahr., and we calculated that the refraction was 2° above normal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

[Anonymous No.10291894]

>>10291887
>gets completely and utterly BTFO
>posts fucking Bob Ross videos to support his point
You're trolling, right?

[Anonymous No.10291897]

>>10291893
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJp3fC5CLqs [Embed]
I will answer any direct questions you have. If you can't take the time to use your words, neither will I.
So what's your issue?

[Anonymous No.10291905]

>>10291894
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O87D-xh4HfQ

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-16/local/me-355_1_world-record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-F1SVz0nn0

[Anonymous No.10291912]

>>10291880
No response to

>>10291877
>>10291879
>>10291815

You lost. Earth can't be flat by your own evidence.

[Anonymous No.10291913]

>>10290878
>>10290883
>>10291088
>>10291121
>>10291127
>>10291143
>>10291156
>>10291173
>>10291180
>>10291184
>>10291197
>>10291280
>>10291378
>>10291427
>>10291437
>>10291451
>>10291467
>>10291488
>>10291498
>>10291523
>>10291612
>>10291631
>>10291639
>>10291677
>>10291688
>>10291696
>>10291714
>>10291741
>>10291743
>>10291748
>>10291751
>>10291851
>>10291859
>>10291864
>>10291874
>>10291887
>>10291893
>>10291905
I like how you haven't actually posted a single argument despite all your regurgitated links and infographics that you don't understand. Simply spamming a thread with this doesn't make your position appear any more valid. Enjoy your ban though.

[Anonymous No.10291916]

>>10291913
Not to mention you've literally posted more hours of footage than it would be possible to actually watch within the 8 hours this thread has been up for. Gish galloping only goes to show how dishonest your points really are because you won't take the time to explain anything in your own words. None of what you posted actually holds up under scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.10291917]

>>10291872
>Eye height = 0
Nigga what are you doing laying on the ground?

[Anonymous No.10291919]

>>10291916
Not to mention the very first video he posted proves the Earth isn't flat and he hasn't responded to this the entire time.

[Anonymous No.10291923]

>>10291851
>>10291879
Are you guys talking about the sagitta?
At a distance of 70 km, it's like 1000m.
The distance between the objects (straight line is close enough for the distances we're talking about, even though it cuts through the Earth) is radius-sqrt(radius2-distance2). In a spreadsheet, put the earth's radius (km) in A1, and your distance (km) in B1. Cell formula to find meter of sagitta is =1000*(A1-SQRT(A1*A1-A2*A2)).

[Anonymous No.10291924]

>>10291917
He's trying to calculate the apex of curvature between two points. What he's actually doing is calculating a height 4 times the amount of apex, which has no physical meaning.

[Anonymous No.10291925]

>>10291917
Kek not even, at 0 your eye would literally be half in the ground. It even shows "distance to the horizon" as 0 in the image which is literally not possible. He's either trolling, retarded, or a deceitful fuck

[Anonymous No.10291926]

Are you guys talking about the sagitta?
At a distance of 70 km, it's like 1000m.
The distance between the objects (straight line is close enough for the distances we're talking about, even though it cuts through the Earth) is radius-sqrt(radius2-distance2). In a spreadsheet, put the earth's radius (km) in A1, and your distance (km) in A2. Cell formula to find meter of sagitta is =1000*(A1-SQRT(A1*A1-A2*A2)).

[Anonymous No.10291927]

>>10291917
>>10291880
>>10291859
>>10291851
>>10291743
>>10291711
>>10291696
The x axis. It s not hard to figure out.

[Anonymous No.10291928]

https://youtu.be/XIHD_DcfKHk

[Anonymous No.10291932]

>>10291927
You put the observer height as 0 in a curve calculator in order to supposedly prove that the curve doesn't exist. You are utterly retarded.

[Anonymous No.10291935]

>>10291926
The apex for 70 km is 384 meters

We ll convert and round down to 43 miles with an apex of 1233 feet

https://www.google.com/search?q=online+persona+management+services&rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&oq=onlin&aqs=chrome.3.69i59j69i61l2j69i59j69i61j69i57.4519j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

ob·fus·ca·tion
/ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

[Anonymous No.10291936]

>>10291923
There's no reason to use the chord length as distance. I've already given you the formula:

2r(sin(d*pi/(2*C)))^2

where r is the radius of the Earth and C is the circumference of Earth.

So 70 km distance gives us an apex of 0.0959 km = 96 meters. You're way off.

[Anonymous No.10291942]

>>10291926
See >>10291936

[Anonymous No.10291943]

>>10291936
>>10291935

[Anonymous No.10291944]

>>10291935
Draw a picture of what you think the apex means and what physical significance it has, because nothing you're saying makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10291948]

>>10291943
Do you have any response to the post you're replying to? If not then you concede the Earth isn't flat.

[Anonymous No.10291950]

>>10291935
>observer height 0
He's doing it again

[Anonymous No.10291955]

>>10291935
Just divide the number that calculator gives you by 4 and you'll get the apex.

[Anonymous No.10291957]

>>10291950

[Anonymous No.10291960]

>>10291957
The center of the lens is not in the ground though. To have an eye height of 0 your eye would literally have to be half in the ground.

[Anonymous No.10291965]

>>10291950
You don t need or use observer height for an x axis observation.

https://youtu.be/OQgXED2enu0
Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). Even then, it's barely discernible and the observer must have a wide angle field of view. Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

27 km = 88582.7 feet

[Anonymous No.10291968]

>>10291965
>You don t need or use observer height for an x axis observation.
Exactly, so why are you setting observer height to zero and finding the amount obscured in front of you instead of calculating the apex? It's a very simple formula that doesn't involve observer height:

2r(sin(d*pi/(2*C)))^2

where r is the radius of the Earth and C is the circumference of Earth.

>Earth’s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest.
You already posted several pictures showing curvature that ironically claim there is no curvature. You lost, get over it.

[Anonymous No.10291969]

>>10291965
Are you trying to say something here? What's the point of this post?

[Anonymous No.10291970]

>>10291696
The x on the horizon line in your pic isn't the same x as seen on the diagram centered on the human's head.

[Anonymous No.10291977]

>>10291944
https://www.google.com/search?q=z+axis+x+axis&rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj00piV7OnfAhXk54MKHQaWD-UQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=641

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&ei=eLQ6XKWoMo3ZjgTqzZQo&q=apex+define&oq=apex+defin&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0..11342...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.erxDKk4TRo0

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CASMAE_enCA784CA784&biw=1366&bih=641&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=orQ6XJGFG-vIjgSSrKf4Dw&q=apex+define+curve&oq=apex+define+curve&gs_l=img.3...9842.9842..10094...0.0..0.98.98.1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.G5HptUoF7t4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaC60XHGPUg

[Anonymous No.10291980]

>>10291965
>You don t need or use observer height for an x axis observation.
Then why does the calculator even ask for an observer height? and why does changing the height from 0 to 6 feet drastically effect the output values?

[Anonymous No.10291986]

>>10291977
>completely fails to address the post he's replying to
Yep, you've lost the argument buddy. Any further posts are superfluous because you conceded. The Earth is round and you failed to prove otherwise. You can spam all the links you want in reply but it doesn't matter because the debate is already over.

[Anonymous No.10291992]

>>10291977
>the top or highest part of something, especially one forming a point.
So the apex of curvature is the height of the highest point in that curvature, which on a sphere is the sagitta.

The formula for finding this height has been given to you several times:

>>10291815
>>10291849
>>10291936
>>10291968

But every time you have ignored this and claimed that the obscured height for an observer at height 0 is the apex. This is in fact 4 times the height of the apex.

[Anonymous No.10291997]

>>10291968
It s not a sphere in all directions?
LOL
ob·fus·ca·tion
/ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

Sure is flat for something round and the math proves it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2HwbHy-s8k

https://youtu.be/0q8CbKnpSoM?t=354

What is the size of Chicago in terms of length and width? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-size-of-Chicago-in......
Jun 9, 2018 - Chicago is about 40 miles long

40x40=1600x8=12800/12=1060 foot apex
Alternatively stated either side of Chicago City should be 1060 feet curved down ward from the middle of Chicago City.
That s just part of the X axis.

Z axis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs

52x52=2704x8=21632/12=1802 feet

List of tallest buildings in Chicago - Wikipedia
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
The tallest building in the city is the 108-story Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower), which rises 1,451 feet

[Anonymous No.10292001]

He can't even form basic sentences lmao, he's so reliant on google to tell him what to think that he can only communicate through poorly understood youtube videos and copy-pasted dictionary definitions. Definitely the most embarrassing flat earther I've come across yet

[Anonymous No.10292007]

>>10291997
I like the part where you're told that you're using apex wrong and then you keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.10292008]

>>10291936
>There's no reason to use the chord length as distance. I've already given you the formula:
>2r(sin(d*pi/(2*C)))^2

Well, you need *some* distance. in your case, you use 'd'. In my case, I use the chord. Funny thing is, for 70km your sagitta is 96.034m, and the formula I originally used gives 96.036. Except the distance was supposed to be 70 miles, so we get 248.84m and 248.73m respectively. Pretty good, I'd say.
As to the Chicago picture, 52 miles comes to 137m - certainly not 1800 whatever that was.
And I have no idea how I got 1000m back in
>>10291926
??? Oops.

[Anonymous No.10292009]

>>10292007
I'm starting to think it's some deep-learning bot gone wrong. Notice how it doesn't actually address any points but just copies in some links that are vaguely related to what was said previously?

[Anonymous No.10292010]

>>10291997
>It s not a sphere in all directions?
Where did you get this from my post?

>40x40=1600x8=12800/12=1060 foot apex
This is not how you calculate apex. Draw a picture.

>Alternatively stated either side of Chicago City should be 1060 feet curved down ward from the middle of Chicago City.
No. Look at >>10291815 for a comparison of what you're doing with the apex. The apex is the difference in height between the ends of Chicago and its middle. What you're calculating is how high a building on one side of Chicago would have to be to see it while on the other side looking at ground level. This is equivalent to the apex multiplied by 4. If you are looking at Chicago in the x-axis then you seeing the entire curvature, nothing is being obscured. The middle of Chicago is only 266 feet higher than the edges.

[Anonymous No.10292017]

>>10292008
>Well, you need *some* distance. in your case, you use 'd'.
Yeah, d is the actual distance across the curved ground, not through the ground.

>I use the chord
That's the least of your errors though. You're approximating the obscured height at ground level, not the apex.

>Funny thing is, for 70km your sagitta is 96.034m, and the formula I originally used gives 96.036.
Then why did you say the sagitta was 1000m here>>10291926 ?

Do you see now that apex means the sagitta?

[Anonymous No.10292023]

>>10292017
>Then why did you say the sagitta was 1000m here
>>10291926 (You) ?
Ah. Because a web site I referenced
https://www.mathopenref.com/sagitta.html
put out that formula. When I divided by the 4 you mentioned (and I have no idea why this works) it matches your trig function.
Not a flat-Earther - just a brainlet at times.