When are you flat earthers going to start thinking? I am almost embarrassed I have to explain this to you, but anyway, here we go.

Let's go with the figures you gave us.

1. The horizon we see in the picture is 60 miles wide, which is 30 miles to the right and 30 miles to the left of the center.

2. The curvature drop over 30 miles is 0.11367 miles, or 600.19 feet (using http://earthcurvature.com/). So, 0.11367 miles drop to the left, and 0.11367 miles drop to the right.

3. Given that this picture is 495 pixels wide, each pixel represents 60/495 miles, being 0.121212 miles per pixel.

4. Therefore, a 0.11367 miles drop takes up 0.11367/0.121212 pixels, being 0.93777 pixels.

Conclusion, we should be seeing nearly one pixel drop on the left, and nearly one pixel drop on the right, on an image that is 495 pixels wide. One single, lonely pixel !!!

>> "Everyone should take the time to do these experiments. They are eye-opening."

I think you are going to have to learn to open your eyes a little wider, and maybe hook them up to your brain. This is not rocket science, this is simply critical thinking, aka common sense.

I dare you to either prove me wrong, or to admit you were wrong. I expect you will simply ignore the truth and move on to the next fizzer.

Ha ha.  Nice try.  Translating to pixels will not help at all because the distance on any one picture is not 60 miles wide and therefore, the number of pixels provided would not be sufficient in relation to the distances shown from the height given in your chosen picture.  I did not say any of these pictures were 60 miles wide so your pixel play is erroneous.  I said I viewed sixty miles of horizon from my home (knowing the distance between landmarks).  Sixty miles of horizon that is missing 1/2 mile curve downward on each side. There is no curve. 

The concern about trolling would be more credible if also expressed about troll-like posts from flat-earthers.  

Ha ha.  Nice try.  Translating to pixels will not help at all because the distance on any one picture is not 60 miles wide and therefore, the number of pixels provided would not be sufficient in relation to the distances shown from the height given in your chosen picture.  I did not say any of these pictures were 60 miles wide so your pixel play is erroneous.  I said I viewed sixty miles of horizon from my home (knowing the distance between landmarks).  Sixty miles of horizon that is missing 1/2 mile curve downward on each side. There is no curve.

Duh, duh, duh !

This has absolutely nothing to do with pixels. If you can see 60 miles wide, good on you Charlie. But in order to see 60 miles wide you will have to stand so far away that you will NOT be able to see 0.11367 miles from such a distance.

Boy, I am starting to wonder whether it is you that is trolling this forum. I have never met anyone that is so thick. Even my 6 year old understands this.

Remember, the horizon is by definition "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet."

How does that prove the line is curved?




I think Samuel needs to explain.

Not all lines are straight. If you don't believe me, go and stand in front of a mirror and look at the line where your head and the background meet. Is that flat? (maybe I should have chosen a clearer example ;D)

So, the "definition" of the horizon proves nothing, neither flat nor curved. It's just a definition and utterly useless in proving anything.

_________________________________________________________

You should stick to whatever you're good at, even if it is only eating popcorn. 

Yes, I know the two points at the edge of my view from 2500ft.  They are sixty miles apart.  Each side must decline 1/2 mile to account for curvature commensurate with a 25,000 mile ball.  There is not even a fraction off of level across the entire horizon.  

There is (or "could well be" if you prefer), but the human eye (any human eye, not just the blind man's eye) is unable to see a 1 in 120 drop, especially not if the whole picture does not fit into your field of vision and if you have to move your head from left to right in order to see both ends of the 60 mile wide line.

I'll spell it out again: if you were standing 10 foot from a 0.11367 miles drop, yes, then you would see it. But if you were standing a hundred miles off you would NOT see it.

There is (or "could well be" if you prefer), but the human eye (any human eye, not just the blind man's eye) is unable to see a 1 in 120 drop, especially not if the whole picture does not fit into your field of vision and if you have to move your head from left to right in order to see both ends of the 60 mile wide line.

I'll spell it out again: if you were standing 10 foot from a 0.11367 miles drop, yes, then you would see it. But if you were standing a hundred miles off you would NOT see it.

That first sentence is a non sequitur because I've seen 60 miles of horizon personally, marked out at the edges with known landmarks and found the horizon perfectly level the entire 60 miles.  Curve commensurate with a 25,000 mile earth is non existent. 

That's much better. Curve has nothing to do with horizon.

Now Samuel is finally getting closer. :applause: