Yes. And these results ignore refraction. I now see at Wikipedia that “[refraction] changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86.” (Another site mentions the 3.86 but also " the refraction varies considerably from day to day, and from one place to another. It is particularly variable over water: because of … a thermal boundary layer, … these temperature contrasts are particularly marked near shore … if there is an offshore breeze.".)
Using 3.86, 60km would be a better guess than 55km when refraction is considered. This seems a much weaker refraction effect than that implied by the figures in OP.
Yes, and if everyone else reached that conclusion long ago, I apologize!
I was just happy to solve the simple trig for the non-refraction case, and am pleased to derive Wikipedia’s answer. I still think there ought to be a cute similar triangle derivation that avoids the cos = 1 - x^2/2
Can the statue of liberty be seen from anywhere 60 miles away? Because there is land that is in excess of 3000’ altitude near Woodstock, about 60 miles away. I imagine you could see her from there. On a very clear day. With binoculars.
“2) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.”
Sadly, my son’s High School Science teacher asked if one rose above Boston in a Helicopter, how long would it take for Paris to appear below it? Despite the ‘trick’ that its the long way around, and ignoring the fact that Boston and Paris aren’t anywhere near the same latitude, the correct answer is “Never”. But the teacher wouldn’t accept that. She firmly believed the earth would appear to travel under the helicopter. I guess she never listens to the AM traffic helicopter reports.
“Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.”
So, the flat earthers use the Stratosphere jump as part of their reasoning about the earth rotating (or not) yet ignore the fact that the earth’s curvature can clearly be seen in the background? (Disclaimer - or was that due to some sort of wide-angle lens?)
Anyhow I believe I’ve seen images on YouTube from amateurl rocketeers who got a payload up high enough to show curvature.
And these are all government agencies or NASA, right?
The atmosphere of (a spherical) Earth has a mass of around 11,350,000,000,000,000,000lbs. That seems like a kind of non-trivial amount of stuff. Given that it seeped out of cracks in the already-spinning spherical planet, one would not expect it to shed all its momentum acquire a non-rotational “static” presence (which would mean we should be experiencing constant thousand mile per hour wind everywhere). Nor to be so ephemeral as to allow shit to lose all of its momentum upon losing contact with the ground.
But meanwhile, the OP has trundled off, not having been active at all since starting this thread, so maybe it is time to retire it.
I don’t think flat-earthers actually think the earth is curvaturically challenged, they just get something out of thinking they know something that the sheeple don’t.
And there’s stuff like this, which either a joke and/or clickbait.
Because the Earth is flat and you have been brainwashed by the scientific establishment. There can be no other explanation. Anyone who says otherwise is in league with the Devil or (worse) an atheist.
What you’re describing here is scattering, not refraction. Refraction doesn’t cause a hazy glow, it just changes the apparent position of an object - like looking down into a swimming pool, and seeing the bottom higher up than it actually is.
I do apologize … I have a busy life away from the internet and tend to do my surfing in fits and starts.
I guess it was inevitable that some posters would make the mental leap to supposing that I subscribed to the flat earth theory … I don’t, and can rebut almost all of the FE “evidence”, but these claims by Dubay had me stumped. But now I get it. it is all down to refraction.
And what isn’t due to refraction is simply bullshit. Try to find a cite for some of them that doesn’t circle right back to the original Flathead manifesto.