100% proof there is no curvature - the flatness test proves flat earth

I notice you appear to be using Google Earth or a similar satellite based imaging system - to prove a flat earth with no satellites. Thats curious, but what about the Corona program > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite) and the fact that the CIA helped sell satellite imagery to Google Earth from KeyHole Inc (named after the KH satellite program) https://pando.com/2015/07/01/cia-foia-google-keyhole/ I guess you can't really comment because there are no satellites on a flat earth...but all the same, it's interesting, right ?

Refraction?

I love this experiment, really thinking outside the globe on this, haha.

ah great video, I've done some viewing from mount maunganui beach to whale island and whakatane heads, trying to get some perspective and learn.

" it just cannot work on a curved surface."

It can work on a curved surface. All you would need to do is put your horizon line sloped incorrectly downwards to match the drop of the surface. That's why you had to put the "horizon" below the apparent one to get a match.

We can work it out if you like. Here's the prediction: you will have put your horizon below the apparent one by the angle required to match the curvature drop. You used a telephoto lens to take the picture, so vertical angle of view about 7 degrees, right?

Excellent test! Keep up the good work. This is so obvious and so intuitive.

The globe earth has curvature but no physical "curvature drop". "Curvature drop" is about a geometrical idea, not about physical realities. It has some relevance of measurements of "distance to horizon" and "target hidden height", but that's generally all it will be relevant for.

"Curvature drop" is counted from a tangent line -- typically from the local horizontal line of the observer -- extended to a point ABOVE the target. So the "drop down" will be from an imaginary straight line down to the target. The drop down to a target will not show up in photos. It will not affect a straight line of sight above the horizon.

Buildings and other structures may be hidden below the horizon if the tangent line meets the horizon -- if people use other straight lines than a local horizontal line. Mountains will usually be visible.

If people use Samuel Rowbotham's curvature formula "8 inches per mile squared" then it usually will get pretty messed up, because he gives misleading information.

can someone please get a laser pointer across Hawaii n it's islands. one is 100miles apart...if there is no curvature between two points across water 100miles apart then there is no curvature.

+C.B.S.

I have no idea of how you have interpreted that curvature should work? Those mountain peaks are clearly visible, and there isn't anything that can indicate that they shouldn't be visible either.

Curvature will not cause the terrain to physically drop down ... in terms of height above sea level. If the terrain appears to drop down then it's usually caused by the camera angle (pointing the camera upwards). If the horizon appears to rise up to eye level or above then it's usually caused by the camera pointing slightly downwards.

If you want to measure a "drop down" then you will need a theodolite and exact knowledge about distances and heights. You didn't use a theodolite.

The horizon will of course not continue to rise up. It doesn't build up to be higher and higher.

The last time I tried to look into a flat earth video based on mountain heights then I was quickly blocked from posting comments. It happened when I asked questions about WHY mountain peaks should "sink" 770 feet ... when I pointed out that none of the sources indicated any physical "sinking".

Is this video based on the same type of idea?

That other guy had got everything correct except for his core idea that curvature of the earth should cause a physical drop in height for mountains at a distance. He made a few minor mistakes, but they were all related to the same idea.
* He could clearly see those mountain peaks.
* Credible an neutral sources indicated that he should see them.
* The topographic map indicated that he should see them.

But then he added the idea that the curvature of the earth should cause those mountain peaks to "sink" 770 feet.

Good video mate, keep up the good work and don't stop trying. I have enjoyed watching everyone of your videos, thanks.

Curvature as many flat earth believers try to use it only applies if the viewers eyes (camera) and the object being viewed are both at sea level.  Once either point is above sea level then you are looking above the curve and curvature doesn't play the part you think it does.

YOUR sea level is off a bit. It should be at the shoreline.

In an early video you, had shown (via editing) how much of those mountains should be covered up by the horizon... that was enough for me.

The thing is with large objects (mountains, skyscrappers, etc...) there seems to always be discrepancies. Why not just plant a smaller object (like a car), find a landmark 5m above sea level and see if it can be spotted from yonder? Wouldn't that simplify the test?

ok, after replicating the experiment in my lounge, and in 3d software to make sure the test actually is accurate, I've found that:
1) the distance measurement must be taken from camera to the peak (or highest visible part of the object), or as close as possible for maximum accuracy.
2) the height of the camera above sea level must be accounted for.
2) the test decreases in accuracy as the objects deviate from the vertical line of the camera (ie, move left or right from center of frame)
3) with the objects in a perfectly straight vertical line (see no. 2) and exact measurements of distance (see above) and height above sea level, as well as camera height, the test is flawless (also assuming no lens distortion).

Bottom line: The test works, as long as a telephoto lens is used to keep the angle of the shot to a minimum. and extreme care is taken to correlate the peaks (or buildings) in the photos . Over large enough distances the angles diminish and exact camera to peak distances are not needed.

DEBUNKED. I know you believe your video, but you are wrong. Took me a bit to figure out what's going on. Did you invent this or dig it from the flat earth book of trickery?

Your method is adding in a correction for the earths curvature at the distance of the mountains.

How?
First your line in the water represents a negative angle and a height that is proportionate to distance. By moving this up and down and saying this line is the water line, you are adjusting the slope. Calling it the waterline does nothing. You have to locate your widget on this line to make your angles work.

EDIT: Removed offset from negative line to widget base.
Your measuring widget is interesting. It gives the appearance of operating at a fixed distance. Not true. Each of its colored lines originate at the distance of the mountain and the negative height represented by the white line at that distance. The negative height of the widget matches the earths curve at the distance of the mountain. If the white line represents a line into the picture with the right slope, it can match the curve of the earth at the distance of the mountains fairly well. In your pictures where you are measuring, imagine a side view. You have a horizontal line from camera that is level. You have a straight line at a negative angle to the widget base which extends past the mountains. Imagine the four angles on the widget are separate and located at the distance of each mountain they measure. Notice the actual vertical distance each widget is below horizontal for each mountain is proportional to distance. This lowers the expected height of each mountain roughly the same as the curve of the earth.Matching two mountains by adjusting the white line gives a line with a negative slope. The line that fits the curve roughly can be described as: (5 meters - 7.1meters/km). This line starts at the camera (5 meters ) and strikes the water less than 1km away. Thanks for video. It gave me several hours of fun figuring this out.

well done. the visual representation was great. this needs done all over.

Another slam dunk. Combining the heights of the peaks and using the overlay of the graph was so well done. You really make the data/concept so visually accessible.

what camera did you use for the photo ? lens, zoom etc .

I dont follow what you are doing with calculated angles .