# Horizon

+++

The horizon in a concave Earth has two possibilities: it is either how light travels or how the eye or camera lens receives light. I had an attempt at the eye theory being solely responsible for the hull first effect, but it is disproved by the camera lens also picking up the same phenomenon as the video immediately below shows. This leaves bending light; and in a concave Earth this is always upwards. Let’s have a look at this phenomenon and compare it to the convex evidence.

### Observer’s horizon

The convex Earth has the Earth’s curvature as the cause of the horizon. The ship going over the horizon hull first is said to be evidence of this as the video below shows.

 (Click to animate). A ship disappears over the horizon, hull first. Notice the ship takes about 1 hour 15 min for most of its hull to drop below the horizon.

Observers have found this assumption to be invalid. Objects, such as ships, have been seen with the naked eye to pass over the horizon only to reappear again when using a magnifying lens. The first quote is from Morrow in the book Cellular Cosmology on page 68 to 72 and 73 to 76:

The whole of two further targets of dimensions 21×27 and 26×38 inches 7 inches above the water were even seen 5 miles away with the naked eye (the eye was about 30 inches above the water). When the observer lowered their head to 15 inches above the water, the targets became invisible. However, when a telescope was placed even lower, at 6 inches above the water, the targets were plainly visible.

On August 16 1896 from the Shore of lake Michigan, a very small portion of the top of the masts of a 40-feet high schooner were seen 12 miles away at 30 inches above the water with the naked eye. Opera glasses allowed half the height of the sails to be visible, whereas a 40x telescope enabled the vessel to be seen, including the hull. At 12 miles distant, the bottom of the hull would be 60 feet below the horizon of a convex surface; a clear 20 feet below the top of the mast.

+++

A modern day observer has noticed the same:

The ferries between Tenerife and Gran Canaria sail quite often so you can make a couple of experiments on one day. I used my binoculars, not too strong (10/35), and a a tourist telescope fixed on a viewpoint. The experiment showed the same thing this guy you’re arguing with said. When the chimneys of the ferries disappeared under the water I used my binoculars. The ferry popped up again. When it disappeared in my binocullars I switched to the telescope immediately. The ferry appeared in its entirety again.

+++

I implore readers to do the same and see for themselves. The obvious conclusion is that it is not the Earth’s curvature which causes the horizon; instead it is an observer’s horizon. How could this work?

 The size of the Earth circle is 3000px and the light circles 1500px in the above diagram (ratio is greatly exaggerated for demonstration purposes). The distances of the horizon is limited by the amount of curve of upward bending light and in 3D is shaped like a circus tent with the observer at the center point. In 3D, the bending light is a “circus top” shape, already discussed in the equinox article. Johannes Lang‘s illustration is probably the best depiction (page 172), demonstrated by Steve.

This “circus tent” shape also causes the bottom of tall objects to disappear from sight first as the distance between the object and the observer increases. Due to this bend, only the front of the object is seen, never the top face, which is a common counter argument from flat earthers. This is based on light traveling towards the center of the Earth cavity via magnetic pathways as demonstrated by engineers.

 The lowest ray of light from the bottom of the object before it hits the ground is in red. The lowest ray of light from the top of the object before it hits the ground is in yellow. The same concept is shown in the skycentrism V video at 2 min 35 secs and in Steve’s horizon video. Light traveling towards the center of the cavity via magnetic pathways does not allow an observer on the crust to view the top face of a tall object (e.g. a tall building) unless the observer is above the object.

Notice the distance between the two rays is about 4 times the height of the tall object. This is for light rays as circles with half the diameter as the Earth (3000px/1500px). The ship takes 1 hour 15 minutes for most of its hull to disappear. We can estimate about 1 hour 45 minutes for the entire hull to disappear (but not the sails). The speed of the vessel is unknown, but it is fair to say that it sailed a lot further than 3 and a third times the height of its hull over water during this time. This means that light rays bend at an angle much closer to the Earth’s diameter; this is of course assuming that light travels as a circle towards the center of the cavity. How much less is unknown unless the speed of the ship, height of its hull, and an accurate time for the hull’s disappearance are known. This very slow increase in curvature (at the start) also agrees with the “circus tent” shape of light.

### Water and the horizon

The above model of curved light relies on the ground blocking the rays to give us both the horizon and the appearance of a ship sinking beneath it. There are cases where we can see much further than we should over water on a clear sunny day, especially with magnification. Both 19th century authors Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Cyrus Teed both could see a few miles further than the supposed convex Earth 3-mile standard while looking over water on a clear day and through a telescope. Rowbotham even mentioned that lighthouse lights could be seen many miles further than they should with the visible eye from sailing ships between Ireland and England, with plenty of other examples referenced. He also mentions coastlines being visible with the naked eye on a clear sunny day which are too far away for the convex Earth scenario to be true. I can also attest to such stories told to me about the Isle of Man which could be spotted from the shore of Blackpool, UK on very rare clear sunny days. The poster, Andrew, has spotted the majority of the land including the dishes of GCHQ Bude on top of the Hartland peninsula on the horizon with 10X50 binoculars from the shoreline of Mother Ivey’s Bay on Trevose Head in Cornwall 54km away. The peninsula is only 99m high. The entire peninsula should be 229m below the horizon at a viewing distance of 54km, making the visible GCHQ Bude facility 130m below the horizon.

 The distance between the two shores is 54km and yet a poster on the southern shore saw most of the northern cliff face; the top of which should have been 130m below the horizon.

There are more observers noticing the same horizon “problem” that mathematically shouldn’t exist on a convex ball with straight light. On Concave Earth forum, the poster Primalredemption could see the shoreline on another Hawaiian island 26 miles away from a Sandy Beach on Oahu.

I could actually see the waves crashing against the shoreline of Molokai all the way from Sandy Beach on Oahu. All the way down to the shoreline. “ho that’s Coo bra”. “Yups it’s coo” until you realize that Molokai is 66 miles away, which would put the shoreline 2900 feet beneath the horizon on a convex Earth. And behind my view of Molokai was Maui, with a clear view of the North Shore. I’ve driven across that North Shore; I know how high it is above sea level. From my view, I was seeing the coast all the way down to the shoreline. According to the Convex Earth, that should have been 9000 feet beneath the horizon since Maui is 116 miles away.

+++

The distance is really 26 miles, not 66 miles. This is still a big problem.

 Sandy Beach on Oahu is 26 miles from the shoreline of Molokai.

How far under the horizon is a 26 mile shoreline? The curvature of the Earth drops from the horizontal by 8 inches per mile squared. So 26 miles is 8 x (26×26) = 5408 inches or 450.6 feet. The shoreline should be 450 feet below the horizon. A 6 foot man can is only supposed to see 3 miles, not 26! If we take that away from 26, we get a 23 mile “beyond the horizon” distance for a 6 foot man, which is 352.6 feet below his “calculated” visible horizon. He also says that the shoreline is always visible no matter the time of day or day of year.

Shorelines have even been spotted to be too far over land, not just water at 11 miles distance. On the David Icke forum a previous mainstream model believer “Spock” posted that a friend of his has spotted Blackpool Pleasure Beach (amusement park) from Ainsdale beach on Merseyside 11 miles away across the beach itself (low tide – no water). Blackpool Pleasure Beach should be 80 feet below the horizon. A 6 foot man can see 3 miles, so 8 miles too far (nearly 3 times) which is 42 feet below his supposed visible horizon. As the photos below show, it is clearly not.

 Rhino Binoculars used to spot a shoreline 11 miles away. The Blackpool shoreline across the sand is seen 11 miles away.

YouTuber Joeseph Winthrop has conducted tests with a blue and a green laser at 20 miles distance across mostly water at night. The height of the lasers was 45 feet. The cameraman is on a pier 15 feet above the water. This is a total of 60 feet elevation which should see a maximum 9.5 miles. The naked eye was able to pick up both lasers, but only the camera was sensitive enough to register the blue laser pen 20 miles away. Unless light is bending around a convex Earth to allow for the 100% increase in observable horizon, then this feat is an impossibility.

 (Click to animate). “The cameraman detects two very faint direct streaks of blue light. The cameraman was otherwise able to see this laser with his eyes, and most noticeably when the direct hits were made.”

Another interesting case is the lights of Milwaukee being seen at night across a large lake 136 km away in Grand Haven from an elevation which looks like the observer is just above the beach. This agrees with what Wilhelm Martin found that light bent the least at night. The picture below isn’t clear enough to make out exactly how much of Milwaukee is visible; however, the tallest building in the city is 601 feet. Only 32 buildings are above 230 feet with all but 5 of those between 230 and 400 feet tall. An observer height of 5 meters is supposed to see 8 km distance. Take that away from 136 km and we have 128 km (79.5 miles) beyond his “convex-straight-light-assumption-calculated” horizon. 79.5 miles equates to a drop below the horizon of (8 x (79.5 x 79.5) / 12) = 4213.5 feet. That is over 7 times more than the tallest building in Milwaukee.

 Wilhelm Martin’s experiment showed that light bent the least at night, which may contribute as to how the Milwaukee lights were seen at such fantastic distances just above the beach. The distance between Grand Haven and Milwaukee is 136km!

The news readers claim 136 km can be seen because of “super refraction”. Refraction on a convex Earth can only account for an extra 8% distance according to surveyors. What temperature and humidity difference would be needed in order to see a 600% increase in observable distance? Answers on a postcard.

The following four YouTube videos also show the same effect; and there are others like these if you look for them, such as the ones Karol has collected and a few of those belonging to the flat earthers.

 (Click to animate). The shoreline 50 miles distant can be seen with very little elevation. Big thanks to Don for finding the video. (Click to animate). Nothing is visible on the camera sensor on the horizon at all until the user zooms in and captures the full image of the rock and the windmill. Notice the lack of crisp image due to only some of the light being less bent. Distance is 15km and camera height is said to be 3m only. (Click to animate). Nothing is seen on the horizon by the camera sensor until the optical zoom is used and then the waves and boat become visible. (Click to animate). A larger boat is completely invisible until the zoom is used.

Another YouTube user “The-Abyss-is-open” is standing on a promenade (3m?) next to a beach at Hull looking down the River Umber. His total height at eye level is about 4.8m maximum. Behind an island there is a ship on the water in a harbour with most of its hull visible above the tops of the trees of the Island. There is water to the left, right, in front of, and behind the island, which means everything floating on water is the same level. Unless the ship is floating on water in a dock which is sealed off from the river with its gates closed, and the dock is filled with enough water to rise the ship considerably higher than the island itself (very tall gates, 12m+ perhaps), then this should be impossible. At 4.8m elevation, the camera should see 7.8km, or 4.84 miles until the horizon. To see the muddy beach of the island in front (6 miles or 9.65km distance) the elevation has to be just over 7m, yet he is no more than 4.8m high (probably less).

 (Click to animate). The dock is 6.5 miles away. Observer height is 4.8m maximum, yet most of the ship is higher than the tops of the trees on the island in front.

The reader Scud has also found modern lighthouse anomalies:

But the lights that can be seen from the greatest distance are the bulbs on top of the Empire State Building in New York City. Each of these bulbs has the power of 450 million candles, and can be seen from the ground from as far away as 80 miles . . . and from an airplane from as far away as 300 miles!

+++
The very top of the Empire State’s spire is 1250 feet. According to this website, a light could only remain visible out to 43.3 miles, not 80.

As water nearly always seems to be the common denominator, how does it cause this beyond the horizon effect on visible light? It cannot be refraction through water with the light ray bending up out of the ocean as visible light doesn’t travel very far through the ocean – about 200m in fact.

What have we so far found out in this article that links water to light? That’s right, you’ve probably already guessed it – electromagnetism. It is well-known that magnets and electrons affect water.

 (Click to animate). Static electricity from a comb bends flowing water towards itself. (Click to animate). A magnet repels water

We have seen that light bends like an electron around a magnet inside an electrified cavity of silicon. Static electricity (the negative electron flow towards the center of the cavity) moves flowing water towards itself. The ocean can’t move up to the “electron” field, but the electrostatic field can move down towards the ocean. Since light seems to be heavily influenced by the upward moving negatively charged field through which it travels, water must also have an effect on light. If we can see further over water than we should, then this water must attract the light (or rather the electrostatic field in which light is being influenced) so that there is less curve on light bending upwards. Because, this phenomenon is mostly demonstrated by magnification, only a small portion of the available light is affected; which is perhaps why a sunny day is always needed so that enough light is available when magnifying the image.

 The dotted lines are circles 2000px wide to denote some of the light bending less because the medium in which it travels is attracted to the water. The second observer can see the entire object further away than the first one.

Although the ocean can’t rise up to the electric field, there are actual scientific observations of water levels in a well rising at sunrise and falling at sunset:

In the field observations it was found that water level in the well rises during sunrise, when ionosphere is excited by solar radiation, and drops during sunset (relaxation process in ionosphere). Moreover, it was shown that the water level in well correlates with geomagnetic field perturbations during geomagnetic storms.

+++

There is also evidence that other longer wavelengths of light bend less.

### Wavelength and the horizon

1. Infrared photos
You’ve already read about the specially-made camera for the military in the 1950s that used infrared film and could see 20 miles distance at a ground height of 39 inches. There is also the infrared photo showing the horizon at a distance of 533km from an airplane at a height of 7000m. At this height, the horizon should be 296km, not nearly double at 533km. That is pretty wild refraction! The actual visible light distance was quoted as only a few kilometers even with binoculars due to reasons not specified (bad weather?) (Source: Die Hohlwelttheorie by Johannes Lang 1938, page 35, 154 and 175, taken from Die Frankfurter Illustrierte Zeitung no.30/1932.) Johannes even mentions other infra-red photographs such as one of London, showing the background rising above the foreground like the New York picture below (but nowhere near as impressive).

 Mount Shasta is 533km away, fully visible on the horizon in the background.

2. Superimposed infrared/visible light video
There is also an issue with those modern infrared cameras, such as the FLIR E4, E5, E6, and E8 Infrared Cameras with MSX®, which allow their sensors to pick up both light in the visible and infrared wavelength. When the option is chosen so that the two images are superimposed on one another by the camera’s viewfinder (the MSX technology), the images are never exactly aligned.

 The Flir E series with the msx technology which superimposes the image from the visible light camera on to the infrared image in order to add extra clarity to detail. Before and after shot showing how the infrared and visible light image do not align without software.

This is a known issue with the manufacturers, who have added software to the camera to compensate for this misalignment so that the two images can match up as one. Unfortunately some users have problems using MSX as the software doesn’t always line up the images correctly.

 The msx effect by the camera manufacturer Flir has to align the visible light image with the infrared one which sometimes doesn’t work giving a ghost image.

Even more interesting, one user upgraded his software to 1.19.8 on his E8, but still states:

The further away I am, the more drastic the ghost image is off center. (The ghost image is the visible light image added for clarity.)

+++
It is hardly proof positive, but the increase misalignment with distance of the visible light image from the infra red one, denotes that one of the wavelengths bends more than the other.

Radar also seems to suffer from this “problem”, even more than infrared. One of the readers, both here and on cluesforum.info – Scud, noticed that the radar antennas on top of boats have a range of 120 nautical miles or 222km.

A civil marine radar, for instance, may have user-selectable maximum instrumented display ranges of 72, or 96 or rarely 120 nautical miles, in accordance with international law… and maximum detection ranges of perhaps 150 nautical miles.

+++

The company Raymarine uses radar with a law-enforced maximum range of 72nm or 133km. According to this website, the height of the open array radar would have to be 1400m high to see 133km in the visible light spectrum! A visible light horizon from a 5m height is supposed to be 8km, not 133km. Radar must refract through the air 16 times further to get this horizon distance.

The radar isn’t bounced off the ionosphere as only radio waves of the AM bandwidth (3 and 30Mhz) do that – skywaves.

Marine (small-boat) radar typically operates at frequencies of 9.3 to 9.8 GHz, with most operating at 9.3 and 9.5Ghz.

+++

This phenomenon is well-known and blamed on what else but refraction of course.

The radar beam would follow a linear path in vacuum, but it really follows a somewhat curved path in the atmosphere because of the variation of the refractive index of air, that is called the radar horizon. Even when the beam is emitted parallel to the ground, it will rise above it as the Earth curvature sinks below the horizon.

+++

Refraction comes to the rescue again! Standard refraction adds 8% on to the horizon, and dispersion doesn’t work either if you keep on reading. So it is not the curvature of the Earth, but the varied curvature of the wavelengths of light that is to blame; and they curve upwards.

There is also the over-the-horizon radar explanation:

Surface waves have been used in over-the-horizon radar, which operates mainly at frequencies between 2 and 20 MHz over the sea, which has a sufficiently high conductivity to convey the surface waves to and from a reasonable distance (up to 100 km or more; over-horizon radar also uses skywave propagation at much greater distances).

+++

These frequencies are said to be only used for coastal radar stations, not small marine boats and so skywave propagation is ruled out. As for the “high conductivity across the sea”, water is a very poor medium for radar waves which is why sonar is used instead. As for a concave one, we have already seen that the likely reason is the effect water has on the electrostatic field which lessens the upward curve of light.

AM radio has the lowest frequency out of the four examples given here at 520 to 1,710 KHz. Therefore logically, it must also bend the least giving us the longest horizon so far… and it does.

Medium wave and short wave radio signals act differently during daytime and nighttime. During the day, AM signals travel by ground wave, diffracting around the curve of the earth over a distance up to a few hundred miles (or kilometers) from the signal transmitter. However, after sunset, changes in the ionosphere cause AM signals to travel by skywave, enabling AM radio stations to be heard much farther from their point of origin than is normal during the day.

+++

“Diffracting around the curve of the Earth”? Diffraction means “to break up or bend”. So their own official definition is stating that light is bending around the curve of the Earth. According to an ex-Navy electronics technician, this range varies from 100 to 300 miles (160 to 482 km). This variation of range again agrees with Wilhelm Martin’s experiments on bending visible light, which also varied at different times on different days. Corpernicans actually believe that visible light is a perfectly straight line that only varies its angle by refraction when it enters a medium of different density… yet light of a lower frequency (AM radio) bends around the curve of the Earth up to 482km? Are Corpernicans serious?

What about at night? Wilhelm showed that visible light bends the least at this time. Shouldn’t the AM radio horizon therefore also be massive at night? It is. At night, AM radio is said to be able to bounce off the ionosphere and become a skywave which allows it to travel across continents. This may or may not be true, but there does seem to be a contradiction. Supposedly, radio waves are absorbed by the electrons in the ionosphere which in turn emit them in the opposite direction back to Earth. However, the ionosphere is ionized during the day due to the Sun, thereby increasing the number of electrons available for absorption and emission… and yet distant AM radio fails during the day only to return at night. Wiki says “high-frequency (HF) radio waves are significantly damped within the D layer by collisions with electrons“; and “At night, the atmosphere becomes drained of its charge, and radio signals can go much farther with less loss of signal.” So electrons are needed, but not too many? Is that it? It doesn’t make much sense.

It makes sense though if AM radio waves bend much less at night… just like visible light funnily enough. It also offers a clue as to the cause of bending light itself – namely atmospheric charge, which again agrees perfectly with modern engineered silicon micro-cavities that when electrified, bend light as if it is following magnetic lines of force.

It doesn’t stop there. According to the ex-Navy electronics technician and the Great Yarmouth Radio Club, the horizon depends on the frequency of light (and of course on its intensity or amplitude):

Given two signals of equal strength and different frequencies, lower frequencies travel further than higher ones.

The ground wave follows the curvature of the Earth and its range does not depend upon the height of the antenna. However, the range does depend upon the transmitter power and also upon the operating frequency. Low frequencies travel further than high frequencies. Thus under ideal low noise conditions (noon, during winter), it is possible to communicate over distances of about 500 nautical miles at 2 MHz by using a 100 W transmitter. At 8 MHz, under the same conditions and using the same transmitter power, the maximum range is reduced to about 150 nautical miles.

Note that ground wave propagation is much less efficient over land than it is over sea because of the much lower conductivity of the ground and other factors. Consequently, ranges over land are greatly reduced.

Ground wave communications vary daily and with the seasons. Greatest communication ranges are achieved during the daytime in winter because background noise levels are lowest during these hours.”

+++

Just like radar and visible light, radio waves with an even higher frequency than AM radio have a further horizon over water. And, exactly as Wilhelm Martin has demonstrated, the horizon varies daily.

So, the distance to the horizon depends on:

• water
• time of day and day of year
• light frequency
• light intensity

And this variation over those four factors is absolutely massive. This is a very important concept to understand and cannot be overstated.

Now tell me this, how in the world is the “ship going over the horizon” and the “Bedford Level Experiment” suppose to show the Earth as a convex ball when the horizon is determined by the extremely varied curve of the EM wave? It simply isn’t.

# The horizon is an observer’s horizon.It is not determined by the geometric shape of the Earth.

+++

Refraction and frequencies
A counter argument is that these much greater horizons at lower frequencies have been caused by the change of the refractive index at differing frequencies. This phenomenon is called dispersion. This is described more in terms of resonance between the EM wave and the refractive material:

“In a typical material like glass this will correspond to electronic excitations, and will be in the UV. As you increase the frequency of the light and get nearer to this natural frequency the magnitude of the induced oscillations increases, and hence the interaction with the light increases. This is no different from any driven harmonic oscillator. As you pass through the resonance and carry on increasing the frequency the interaction strength, and hence the refractive index will fall again.”

+++

This means there is a rise and fall of the amount of refraction as the frequency of the EM wave gets closer to the matching frequency of the refractive material. This isn’t a one direction relationship between frequency and refraction, it’s a resonance point. It gets worse. The greater horizons at lower frequency can only be explained by refraction in the convex Earth, if these lower frequencies bend more around the Earth. This means that lower frequencies must refract more than the higher ones to diffract around the Earth. It turns out the opposite is the case.

If we actually look at the calculations of the amount of dispersion of visible light of different frequencies through air at the same pressure and temperature, refraction increases for the higher frequencies (shorter wavelength). The refractive index is 1.000268479 for a wavelength of 1700 nm (long wavelength/lower frequency) and 1.000286581 for 300 nm (shorter wavelength/higher frequency) for example. Yet, for the greater horizon distances in a convex Earth, all frequencies below visible light (i.e. radar and radio waves) must have a greater dispersion. This shows that the resonance point of air is below 300 nm, i.e. above visible light frequency.

The amount of refraction is also far too small to possibly account for such an increase in horizon distance. The above example shows about a 1/13 increase in refraction when the frequency is increased by nearly 6 times. Flint glass shows to have an increase of the refractive index by about 1/6 when the frequency increases by about 4 times or more – again the wrong way for either convex or concave Earth. Hyper physics confirms this low amount of difference:

“The values given are approximate and do not account for the SMALL variation of index with light wavelength which is called dispersion.”

+++

We have already seen that the difference in horizon distance between 2 MHz and 8 MHz (four times) at the same power is over three times – 500 nm to 150 nm. Dispersion through air (or any other material) doesn’t get these ratios with visible light.

### Summary

• A ship going hull first over the horizon is said to be proof of a convex Earth. However, there is anecdotal evidence that says otherwise.
• The only option left is that the horizon is caused by bending light and not the curvature of the Earth. This curvature is estimated to be very close to the curvature of the Earth (within horizon distances) thanks to experiments done by Wilhelm Martin.
• There are numerous examples of being able to see a horizon far beyond the Pythagorean convex supposition, but so far nearly only over water. This has been theorized to be caused by the electrostatic upwardly moving negatively charged field which bends towards water (as the ocean can’t move towards it) and thereby bending light less.
• This far-horizon phenomenon is even more pronounced at night, usually very dramatically, experimentally demonstrated by Wilhelm Martin.
• Two infrared photos show horizons over land and water far in excess of what should be possible with visible light. One photo taken by a specially-made military camera shows the background to be vertically above the foreground.
• Infrared FLIR cameras with MSX technology that superimpose an infrared image on top of a visible light one need software to align the images correctly. Sometimes the software doesn’t work, with one user stating “the further away I am, the more drastic the ghost image is off center.”
• Boat radar has a law enforced range of about 133km, 16 times further than it should according to the maths.
• The various reasons given for this incredible range are 1. skywaves – but the radar frequencies to allow this are way off; 2. refraction – standard refraction adds a mere 8% on to the horizon. 3. conducts vast distances through water – radar can’t penetrate water very far, hence submarines use sonar.
• AM radio has a varied horizon between 160 and 482km during the day and an intercontinental one at night.
• AM radio is said to bend along the curve of the Earth during the day (groundwave) and bounce of the ionosphere at night (skywave).
• Instead of skywave, which offers a contradiction, AM radio may travel further at night because of less bend as Wilhelm Martin demonstrated with visible light.
• According to reliable sources: “Given two signals of equal strength and different frequencies, lower frequencies travel further than higher ones.”
• Dispersion is said to possibly account for the differences in the bend of light at different frequencies. This falls down on three grounds: 1. Dispersion has a resonant frequency point, it isn’t linear in one direction. 2. For both air and glass, refraction increases with higher frequencies, not lower ones. 3. The amount of dispersion is far too low to explain the vast horizon differences.

With the articles so far, we’ve covered all physical phenomena inside the concave Earth with the exception of why the sky appears to curve around our heads. Bending light explains it, but not conceptually, or fully. I’ll leave that responsibility to others, such as Steven. The night sky has also not been touched upon yet.

Where does gravity fit into all this? Could gravity be an electromagnetic aspect, rather than a mystical property of mass as current theory dictates. Very possibly; and in a concave Earth, extremely likely.

### 73 Responses to Horizon

1. BlueMoon says:

Good news:
I’ve been working on modeling the path of light in a concave earth, and on the face of it, the path of bendy light makes sense for the most part.
There’s no way that I can see to fit in the moon. The moon can’t be the back of the sun, because solar eclipses and night are separate phenomena. The path of the March 2016 solar eclipse can’t be explained when you consider that the moon is visible during the day. If you would like to try to explain it, I’ll listen, but make sure your explanation fits with your other conjectures. And if you want to use Steven Christopher’s explanation, you should be aware that I have plenty of proof against it.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Good news:
I’ve been working on modeling the path of light in a concave earth, and on the face of it, the path of bendy light makes sense for the most part.

Yes, I did that for you. That German author in the 30s did it before me, and so did a Russian guy recently enough.

There’s no way that I can see to fit in the moon. The moon can’t be the back of the sun, because solar eclipses and night are separate phenomena. The path of the March 2016 solar eclipse can’t be explained when you consider that the moon is visible during the day. If you would like to try to explain it, I’ll listen, but make sure your explanation fits with your other conjectures. And if you want to use Steven Christopher’s explanation, you should be aware that I have plenty of proof against it.

Don’t know yet. Eventually I’ll have a look at the night sky properly. The Sun is more important in a concave Earth… I didn’t know how important until fairly recently, that’s why I started there first. 2016 is the year of testing. Then other stuff will get done and eventually the night sky. It may be I will never have a model for absolutely everything. It’ll depend on a bit of luck I think (like I had with retrograde planets). There is a lot of data out there to join together… and above all to find.

View Comment
2. Wild Heretic says:

Found and added something interesting about water levels and the electric atmosphere:

“In the field observations it was found that water level in the well rises during sunrise, when ionosphere is excited by solar radiation, and drops during sunset (relaxation process in ionosphere). Moreover, it was shown that the water level in well correlates with geomagnetic field perturbations during geomagnetic storms.”

View Comment
3. Wild Heretic says:

View Comment
4. arnott says:

Hi WH, I’ve been reading and digesting your site for some time. Thank you for your work.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is airplane contrails (forgive me if I’ve missed something obvious!). When they first appear in the distant horizon — let’s say, flying on a direct path overhead the observer.

From our standpoint, it looks as though the contrails are rising vertically before the contrail “flattens out,” if you will, and appears to take a more horizontal path overhead.

I’m assuming the answer here has to do with bending light — but do you have any further extrapolations or ideas to shed some more understanding on this issue?

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Do you mean that the contrails follow a dome sky shape? Yes, the dome shape and horizon are all to do with bendy light and probably the sensitivity of the eye/sensor. I assume those plane contrails follow the same pattern as rockets? The horizontal part is not an illusion, just the vertical horizon part I think.

View Comment
5. David says:

In regards to Dizzib’s pictures showing a more curved horizon at altitude and his assumption ” if both horizons are at the same position in-frame then any fisheye distortion should be identical since the lens’ glass is fixed and unchanging.”.

This is not the case because the high altitude picture is seeing a horizon much further away than the low altitude picture and so the fish eye distortion is greater due to the distance. Also all balloon footage showing curved horizon shows it both concave and convex based on the motion of the camera, when the camera is bouncing downwards it looks concave and when bouncing upwards it looks convex.

A combination of camera movement, fish eye lens and distance cause the horizon to look more curved at high altitude. Whether it would look that way to the naked eye is speculation at best.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

The balloon issue regarding curved horizon is a very tricky one.

View Comment
• dizzib says:

Hi David, fisheye lens mapping functions do not depend on distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

View Comment
• Steve says:

convex curvature in a concave earth without lens distortion…

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

That’s a very good video. I’m strongly leaning towards this kind of explanation at the moment. The fog is a novel idea to mimick visibility. The horizon haze is exactly what we see and the curve does vary, and not just because of height either. Makes sense. That is why the horizon is always at eye-level, it is the lack of visibility causing the slight downwards curve.

I was thinking that the “looking down on the spotlight” thing didn’t make sense to me. We can only see as far as light let’s us see and that must always be at eye level, because we are always looking straight ahead.

View Comment
• David says:

Hi Dizzib, Maybe the fisheye doesn’t depend on distance but the curve being created by the cameras movement which flips between convex and concave could be effected by distance as the light must travel further from the distant horizon to the lens. The curve fluctuates so much in those videos due to the cameras movement I don’t see how taking two snapshots can be accurate.

View Comment
6. Wild Heretic says:

I’ve added another piece of amazing evidence for longer wavelengths of light bending less – radio waves.

View Comment
7. Hoi Polloi says:

Note how the in-browser “Google Earth” forces you to “turn” the viewing angle (your “head/camera”) toward the ball-shaped Earth as you go higher, because they must make it seem as though you can see the horizon at observed eye levels at such heights. Their simulation would fail reality at the moment as hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people use their tool to check such a thing.

A hilarious “bust” for the reality of plane and high altitude travel. particularly because it is such a frustrating experience to have the obviously artificial limit imposed on the virtual experience that clearly does not need such artificial limits, except to preserve NASA’s fiction.

View Comment
• Observer says:

Yes, and even when the angle was previously locked-in at perfectly perpendicular, pointing straight down to capture that nice image of your backyard, somewhere on this site someone pointed out this fact:

if one does the math according to the current-consensus “convex-ball-with-us-living-on-the-outside” claim, even if one WERE to actually have a “LowEarthOrbit satellite” pointing a camera straight down towards earth (as the “Google LowEarthOrbit ‘satellite’ photos of your backyard” purport to show) one would have to be floating 5,000 kilometers above sea level (!), to even begin to have any “non-earth” blackness even barely staring to appear in the frame corners.

So, as was pointed out, when Google stitches these photos of our backyards together, and then gives us the ability to “zoom-out”, suddenly Google incongruently claims that “you can totally see the ENTIRE ‘convex ball of earth’ in the frame, when zoomed-out to just a few hundred kilometers above sea level.”

Whoever made the zoom-feature couldn’t possibly get BOTH of the bullshit stories (the convex-earth story, and the satellite story) to match up. So, the end result is that Google shows their stitched “ball” image MUCH earlier in the zoom-out-process than they should.

And thus, as Hoi right pointed out above, now Google has begun forcing a NON-straight-down “camera angle CHANGE” onto their zoom-out feature, in an attempt to hide this incongruency between their stories.

Obviously, all of these backyard-showing “satellite” photos are merely taken from downward-pointing-cameras attached to the bottom of the glass “ionosphere” barrier itself (a possible, low-chance way) or taken from downward-pointing-cameras attached to the bottom of plain old regular airplanes (the more probable, high-chance way.)

And obviously, at least to me anyway, we are NOT living on the outside of a convex-ball. The old flat-earth explanation could be correct (low-chance) OR the concave-ball-and-we-are-living-inside-it explanation IS correct (high-chance). Either way, the current consensus convex-ball explanation is obviously PROVEN WRONG.

View Comment
• Observer says:

rightly 🙂

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Nice bit of info on Google Earth, Observer. I can use that in the latest article on satellites. Brilliant.

I think I know how they do it regarding satellite images. Stay tuned. I’ll be a while yet as I have split this up into 2 articles (it is too big), but the images one is coming to an end.

View Comment
• Observer says:

My pleasure, but please do confirm this memory I have, by doing the math yourself before adding it, to avoid me causing you any embarrassment.

I merely remember someone having posted basically something like this: “About 5,000 km from earth is the height one would have to be, in the convex-consensus, for 4 little areas of blackness to begin to appear in the 4 corners of the photo frame.”

I thought for sure that I had read that here (since recently I basically only read here and CluesForum) but since you seem to have the gift of total-recall, if you don’t remember that comment being posted here (or at CluesForum) then I guess I might have read it in the comments of some ConcaveEarthRelated youtube video that must have been posted here, or at CF. I can’t seem to find it now.

When I first read it, I showed my wife, “See, here Google is claiming that this is a depiction of what the earth looks like from a few hundred kilometers high, looking straight down, notice how it’s already depicting a ball shape with black corners of “space” already appearing at the 4 corners, but if you do the math, like this poster did here, check it out, at this paltry height of a few kilometers we should NOT be seeing any black corners yet, those should only begin to appear if the “camera” were 5,000km high. This is a mistake by a factor of 15 or 20.”

So it sure is interesting to me, to read Hoi report that NOW Google Earth is forcing an Angle Change, and thus Google is no longer allowing that “straight down” depiction flaw to be seen so easily.

View Comment
• Observer says:

Oops, typo correction (perhaps you can simply make this correction in the post itself)

The mistaken sentence was:
at this paltry height of a few kilometers we should NOT be seeing any black corners yet, those should only begin to appear if the “camera” were 5,000km high

The correct sentence is:
at this paltry height of a few hundred kilometers we should NOT be seeing any black corners yet, those should only begin to appear if the “camera” were 5,000km high

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I don’t think that comment was here Observer. I’ll do a quick check. It’s a pity I haven’t got a good comment search engine for users. I have one on the admin side.

Found it, I think. I searched for “5000” and found this comment by Nils:

“Have a look at „Google Earth“ from whatever location – and set the height to about 40 kilometers (Felix) and up to 100 kilometers (space shuttle flight we saw/glass sky we consider).

Assumed, they did their homework on converting values on „Google Earth“ to „correctly“ convex, one nohow would be able to see the „ball“ – which is „earth“ – from those distances as a whole.

Not even close to it! (I need to set it “5,000 kilometers”, to even see all edges of convex earth.)

Why should they do so, if this (in case of Felix) can be easily revealed – if that was not the agenda, to keep us believing in a convex earth?

Yes, they are crafty deceptive buggers 🙂
And the pieces of the puzzle they provide us with do not match.

Just for the heck of it, Nils”

EDIT: Observer, I’ve added a search bar at the top of the page. I’ve installed a plug in that displays the comments which contain those search words. Those comments are below the post. So scroll down and you will see the relevant comments under the post. I hope that helps users to find info from a while ago.

View Comment
• Observer says:

Yes, that was the post I had read, thank you for finding it.

Obviously, my memory of the post (and my explanation to my wife) was wrong.

The post there was basically saying, “Google shows the-ball-depiction only from 5000km, yet NASA and Felix show the-ball-depiction from a mere 100km and even 40km.”

So my memory was wrong, because somehow I entered that post into my mind as saying “Google is showing the-ball-depiction too early!”

Still, this fact seems to remain true:

BEFORE, as that post mentioned, when using Google Earth to see the-ball-depiction, one could keep the “camera” pointed straight down,

but NOW, as Hoi mentioned, when using Google Earth to see the-ball-depiction, one can NOT keep the “camera” pointed straight down, a forced-angle change has been introduced.

So my main point still stands: can someone do the math to figure out “According to the official convex-consensus calculation, if one WERE to hold a “camera” pointed straight down (with the center of “the ball” located directly under the “camera”, meaning the “camera” being perfectly perpendicular to sea level), at what altitude SHOULD we start to see 4 black corners appearing in the frame?”

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I’d love to know that too. There may be another variable involved such as how wide the lens is or something like that. I’m not that knowledgeable with photography to know those kind of things.

View Comment
• Observer says:

Hmmm, I don’t know, it seems Google-Earth-Browser-Plug-In is NOT “currently forcing an angle change” as I thought Hoi was reporting. But I could be mistaken about what he meant.

As of right now, it seems Google-Earth-Browser-Plug-In IS still “allowing the perfectly straight-down view” as it did in the past.

The big change I notice is that now the “altitude, in kilometers” is not being shown at all. What happened to the altitude information, for example the 5,000km number that Nils reported before, which should be appearing somewhere?

In this screenshot which I took right now, we can see the blackness starting to appear in the 4 corners, but there is no longer any indication about what “altitude” “above” “the ball” this depiction is purporting to depict:

http://i.imgur.com/idWgRv4.jpg

“According to the official convex-consensus calculation, if one WERE to hold a “camera” pointed straight down (with the center of “the ball” located directly under the “camera”, meaning the “camera” being perfectly perpendicular to sea level), at what altitude SHOULD we start to see 4 black corners appearing in the frame?”

And yes WH, as you mentioned, the “what kind of camera are we imagining” factor WILL need to be added in to the calculation, of course.

Hope someone can step up and post that calculation here, so that from now on every time we see any official “ball” depiction we can prove that the “ball” depiction is being shown TOO EARLY: that the “ball” depiction creators aren’t properly following the official convex-consensus calculation! 🙂

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I installed Google earth about a week ago and it gives me the altitude as the camera pans away. Maybe it is something to do with the plug in not having that feature?

View Comment
• Observer says:

OK, so in addition to the “in-Browser Plug-in”, I went ahead and downloaded the “Desktop Google Earth version 7.1.2.204” to see what you are saying WH, and yes, you’re right: the Desktop version DOES show the “altitude” in miles as the “camera” zooms-out (let’s be precise and say “zooms-out”, because the word “pans” describes a totally different camera motion, right?)

So here is a screenshot, showing that the Desktop version depicts both the left-and-right “edges” of “the ball” appearing within the “camera” frame at an altitude of exactly 3974 Miles:

i.imgur.com/8CMi7KW.jpg

Question number 1:
So, someone with math skills please help, DOES the official convex-consensus calculation agree with Google’s depiction? SHOULD both the left-and-right “edges” of “the ball” be appearing within the “camera” frame at an altitude of exactly 3974 Miles?

Question number 2:
Why does the Google Earth “in-Browser Plug-in” NOT show the altitude height number at all?
i.imgur.com/idWgRv4.jpg

Comment to Hoi:
Hi Hoi 🙂 about your report: “Note how the in-browser “Google Earth” forces you to “turn” the viewing angle (your “head/camera”) toward the ball-shaped Earth as you go higher” wildheretic.com/horizon/#comment-6366
Well, now I think I understand this “forced angle-change” you were pointing out. Yes, that is illogical of Google to force any angle-change, and it smells like they ARE trying to hide the fact that their “ball” depiction is bullshit.
Yet, do you now see how with a few extra clicks of the top arrow button, one CAN continue to see the “ball” depiction of the “horizon” as you zoom-out higher and higher? It is troublesome, but one CAN negate the forced angle-change. Here are three screenshots showing that:
i.imgur.com/C0cd7fB.jpg
i.imgur.com/QzqLpnu.jpg
i.imgur.com/JCIqnuf.jpg
But your point remains true Hoi. There definitely is some Google fuckery going on, with the “in-Browser Plug-in version having a default setting of forcing an angle-change on folks when looking at the horizon and rising like a hot air balloon (a forced angle-change which most folks won’t figure out how to negate)” as you noticed, AND the “don’t show how many miles up in altitude this depiction purports to be, in the in-Browser Plug-in version” as I noticed.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Observer, I’ve added a “view comment” link at the bottom right hand side of the comment which takes you to a new page with just that comment on it (and a few other related comments I think). If you put that link in your post then it is easy for everyone to see.
So, “wildheretic.com/horizon/#comment-6366” becomes “http://www.wildheretic.com/horizon/?cid=6366”.

I’ve proof that Google Earth uses photos from either 800-1500 feet over habitation (aerial photography), and about 3000 feet in wilderness (satellite image). Every eye altitude above that is a rendering by the software, i.e. not real. I’ll show you properly in the next article.

View Comment
• Hoi Polloi says:

Right, Observer. My point is that in this image: i.imgur.com/JCIqnuf.jpg

… you should be able to place the *top* of the convex Earth ball at the very center of the screen or even below you and look at nothing but stars, which is where a direct “up” (away from Earth) motion should bring your perspective. As it is, there is an artificial limit to the “pitch” navigation that tilts you down, like a cop holding your neck as you get into the back of the police car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_%28mechanics%29

There should by default be a full 6 degrees of freedom to explore the area above and around Earth. Otherwise, “The Earth” seems a bit of a misuse of their own terminology and it could be better named Google Crust or Google Global Surface.

If their globe model is correct, every star should be precisely in its correct place in the heavens along with the Sun, Moon, planets, and so on, and it should be easy to do.

I’d like to see a realistic “rise” from the surface of the Earth to “outer space” with no forcing of pitch, yaw, rotation or anything else. The fact they do not allow this implies more than a designer’s resistance to user confusion — it implies the designer of the program does not want to show the holes in their globe model.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Hoi, I wonder why they always tilt the view in the Google Earth. I was playing around with it a couple of weeks ago and at tens of miles altitude (their software rendering equivalent of altitude – it isn’t real), the look is vertical, then some altitude below that, sometimes way below that, the angle changes to a more 45 degree side view. I rotated the view from north to south and the exact same 45 degree view “from the back” takes place. I don’t know exactly why. It could be raw satellite data (landsat) is always at a tilt because they are looking between the nadir and the horizon in reality. I don’t know at the moment, I’m still looking into the field of view and their defined mechanics of it all. Just finished modis instrument (terra and aqua), next is landsat.

View Comment
8. I’m not convinced the horizon would stay at eye level in a concave earth. Examining your diagram:

The observer’s local horizontal is a tangent to the earth’s surface below but the yellow line is obviously declined as some angle to this tangent.

So wouldn’t the observer have to look slightly down at this angle to see the top of the tall object peeking just above a declined horizon ?

View Comment
• How about this: the edge of the view cone is what forms the horizon, or verge as I believe LSC calls it (much better terminology). At low altitudes you’re sitting very low at the center of this large verge circle and so the horizon appears to be flat all around you at eye level.

But at high alititude the curvature of this verge circle will become apparent i.e. what might look like a convex earth’s curvature is actually the curvature of the verge circle.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Possibly. I’d have to think about it. What do you mean by view cone? Is there a diagram to look at?

The problem is I don’t see any curvature on the horizon, not just the dipping down. The only curves I’ve seen so far is because of the camera lens where the curvature of the horizon on the ground is the same as high up, but needs further looking into. If you can show otherwise, I’ll definitely have a look at the verge circle idea.

View Comment
• Cool! This high altitude balloon video got me thinking:

The lens is wide-angle so distorts the view around the center as expected.

I’ve noticed at takeoff a straight horizon manifests around halfway up the screen, but at 111,000 ft it manifests maybe 2/5 the way up which would suggest it’s become slightly convex.

I’ll probably try to make a video showing this.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Quite possibly, although these balloon videos are really hard to interpret accurately.

View Comment
• I agree. Those HAB’ers sure love those pesky fish-eye lenses 🙂 Someone needs to send up a camera with a normal lens.

I’ve made a diagram to better explain my current understanding:

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/cet/asset/verge-1.png

It’s important to note the yellow and red lines are parallel at O.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Ah yes, very good.

View Comment
• Cyrus Teed’s Cellular Cosmogony p63 says “the distant horizon appears a little below the actual level at point of observation” and this makes sense to me. I suggest the pics at the top of this page do show the horizon a little below eye level but the dip is so small as to be imperceptible, maybe a few degrees of arc.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Maybe, but Samuel Birley Rowbotham at 3 stories high measured the horizon to be at eye level with a leveling apparatus – http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#D. Who is correct? I don’t know.

It would be interesting to go to the top of a very tall skyscraper and use a theolite and see. That’s a 4th practical experiment to consider and the third one possible with a theolite.

View Comment
• That’s a very good idea for an experiment WH. From the top floor of the Burj Khalifa (0.584km up) looking over water I calculate the horizon dip would be 0.78 degrees in the Copernican model. The concave calculation is more complex and one I’m currently trying to figure out.

For a 3 storey building, say 20m up, the Copernican horizon should dip some 0.15 degrees. How accurate was Rowbothan’s clinometer ? Is his experiment written up somewhere ?

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Maybe some day we can do this. It would be even better to do this at various floors of a really tall building. Get 13 results from 0 to 584m up going up every 50m and see if there is a change.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Dizzib, can you point me to how you get those calculations for the horizon dip? That would be very useful for future experiments.

View Comment
• In a Copernican model the calulation is at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100726050025AAFAHN3. Theta simplifies to arccos(r/(r+h)) where r is earth’s radius and h is observer height.

I was going to attempt to figure out a formula for a concave model unless you already have it ? I think it would have to make certain assumptions about the light ray path.

It occurs to me we could do this experiment on a mountain top overlooking the sea. Also, I can see the logic behind Rowbotham’s experiment but I can’t find any no mention of exactly what instrument he used or it’s accuracy.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for that. It’s not possible for the concave Earth unless we know the light ray path which unfortunately varies over the 24 hour period. It could possibly be done roughly within certain parameters.

Yes, a mountain ledge or top would be fine. As long as we can level the instrument on the top I can’t see a problem.

View Comment
• I made a video comparing near-ground and near-space horizons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Ml7hT-rFU&feature=youtu.be. I’m thinking of making another with footage from a different team/location/equipment.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Very good.

View Comment
• Hoi Polloi says:

dizzib (Andy Cook), I am not sure your video here makes much sense, linguistically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Ml7hT-rFU

You say “any distortion is cancelled [sic] out” but you don’t explain what you mean.

Are you saying that the lens is distorting a true horizon, which should appear straight? You conclude the video by suggesting higher altitudes result in greater images of “curvature”, but do you mean greater distortion?

I’m afraid it doesn’t make much sense.

View Comment
• dizzib says:

I finally got around to making a second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1njKpSWLqhs

@Hoi if both horizons are at the same position in-frame then any fisheye distortion should be identical since the lens’ glass is fixed and unchanging. This allows a direct and valid comparison to be made.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, the only question is, is this a constant or a variable effect. Since I have also seen a flat horizon at altitude, I would say this is a variable effect.

It is good to get this out so we don’t argue about a non-issue with convexers. It is interesting that the horizon still seems to remain at eye level, with the middle bulge to be higher than eye level at high altitude.

View Comment
• dizzib says:

A curved horizon must necessarily be below eye level due to the properties of 3D space: imagine being in the centre of a large horizontally level hula-hoop — as you look left or right it appears as a straight line because it’s at eye-level. Now move up a bit so the hoop is below eye-level and you’ll start to see the curvature!

Anyway, I’m quite satisfied the horizon curves at altitude and is exactly what I expect to see in a concave earth with bendy light.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Nice description dizzib. I looked closely at that last video and it did look like the middle of the horizon was slightly above the zero line at high altitude compared to the lower one. Or, is it that the camera may have been looking down slightly the whole time anyway?

View Comment
• dizzib says:

No, the vertical in-frame position of the horizon depends entirely on when I choose take the snapshot of the pitching horizon — a few frames earlier or later will have it appear higher or lower, therefore no conclusion can be drawn from its vertical in-frame position.

What’s important is both horizons lay on top of one another so we can make a valid comparison of their shapes.

The only thing we can observe from HAB footage is that the horizon becomes more curved at altitude, that is all.

btw at what altitude did you see your flat horizon? I’d wager much lower than this near-space HAB footage 🙂

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

It’s the balloon footage in the article. The horizon is a bit hazy though, so there could be a bit of leeway there.

View Comment
• RSKJ says:

Hello dizzib and WH,

I am still trying to figure out how the horizon works according to this model. I was on a plane recently and the horizon seemed to rise up to my eye level. It seemed flat at 11,000 feet up, but it coudl have had a slight curvature, its very difficult to say.

Is the horizon supposed to curve at some altitude according to the concave earth / bendy light model? Previously I had always thought the horizon would appear flat, no matter the observer’s height.

Also, just as a thought experiment, how would the horizon look like for an observer at a very high altitude, almost touching the glass? And how would the shape of the earth appear to be if we were to look directly down at it from the height of the glass sky?

Thank you again for the interesting discussions.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Only the industry can tell you that. I’ve no idea how it would look.

View Comment
• dizzib says:

Hi RSKJ,

Good questions. Observation says the horizon curves at altitude therefore it must be below eye level (as I explained a couple of posts ago). We can extrapolate and infer the higher we go the more it wil curve and sink down. We also know the higher we go the more of the earth’s surface we can see.

So at some extremely high altitude (way above the glass sky!), we can deduce the horizon will curve around to form a circle, and it will be so far below eye level that we’ll need to look down to observe it.

I’d imagine at the limit we’d be able to see half of the earth’s surface but the circle would be quite small!

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I’m not sure about that. If we invert the straight light convex Corpernican view into the bendy light concave Earth like-for-like, then wouldn’t the horizon always be at eye-level?
http://www.andrepiet.nl/holle_aarde/inversed_earth_3.htm

This is not to say that in ideal conditions, this is reality in a concave Earth, but that is my understanding. Of course light bend is very variable due to water, time of day, day of year etc. so therefore so is the horizon distance and probably also the amount of bend of the horizon – hence why some videos have more bend (or none at all) than others.

That is my take anyway.

EDIT: Having said that, at ground level, the horizon is always at eye level no matter the degree of bend on the light (distance to the horizon), so…

View Comment
• dizzib says:

Fair enough WH, it seems we have different understandings :). Here’s mine: https://dizzib.github.io/earth/cet/asset/verge-1.png

Anyway thanks for that link, very interesting.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I think I get what you mean, but correct me if I don’t.

My interpretation is that the angle or shape of the light curve doesn’t matter as to the objects seen position above or below the horizon, in a sense. It is just that the yellow line allows the top of the tall object to be just seen above the horizon, which in this case is just below where the yellow line is closest to the crust. But I think I know what you mean. Maybe the dotted line is misleading or even wrong as to the distance of the object because the dotted line is a straight line. It’s a very tough subject as “up” and “down” is very difficult in a concave earth.

I don’t know if that is very clear. Here’s a quick diagram showing how the nearer the object the observer gets, the further away the horizon is and the more of the object can be seen. I’ve added more observers too. The height of the last observer is about the same as the height of the tall object, yet all four observers would see the building at eye level according to this interpretation. I’ve also added the same tall building within the horizon of the “little observer” to show that observer would have to look up at the tall building.

Not an easy subject and one which possibly needs further looking at.

View Comment
• Ok, referring back to your simplest diagram…

Imagine the observer, let’s call him O, drops a plumb line down to the earth’s surface — it will intersect the surface at 90 degrees, say at P. Now at O draw a line perpendicular to OP. This is the observer’s local horizontal.

Ignoring the red and dotted lines for now, imagine taking the yellow line joining the observer to the verge and sweeping it through 360 degrees around the plumb line to make a ‘cone’ albeit with a curved surface.

This is the ‘view cone’ (for want of a better term) and is the volume enclosed by all possible light rays from the verge to the observer.

Perhaps I will make a diagram and/or video 🙂

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Done it. That’s the same as my diagrams. So we are on the same page. My diagrams are describing a circle verge, but in 2D. I nearly put in this simple diagram but I didn’t want to clutter so I included it with a tall building.

Here is it on both sides for extra visualization effect.

Ah, so all is good then. Damn it dizzib, I just spent the best part of an hour doing my nut 🙂 At least you’ve shown me that I should show the simple horizon version picture without the building as well as the others.

View Comment
• Thanks 🙂

This confirms my current understanding that O sees the horizon when looking slightly downwards along the yellow line.

Shouldn’t the black horizontal straight line(s) be curving upwards away from O and into empty space ?

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

The black horizontal line is merely fictitious. It’s just me copying your instructions – “Now at O draw a line perpendicular to OP. This is the observer’s local horizontal.”

View Comment
• Sorry, I was just surprised to see the extended local horizontal intersecting the verge as I thought they’d be independent.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

All input like this is welcome as it helps me to see if I need to make things clearer and how. I’ve changed the first horizon diagram so it is crystal clear as to what I am showing and I’ve slightly changed the second one. I think everything is as clear as I can make it now. 🙂

View Comment
• SPACE says:

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith There’s Astronomical Horizon – Going straight to the stars and True Horizon – going along Earth curvature. So True Horizon is false horizon? or bended by light?
I was reading about astronomical research and there was wise note, that most precise data is along equator, basically between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
Observations towards north or south is “glitching”, making errors.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Interesting.

View Comment
9. Tebukota says:

I’m still not 100% convinced, but this is the best article I’ve ever seen out there about this problem. This theory has definitely not been debunked by anyone, and every skeptic seems to discredit the theory with the boat under the horizon thing. It’s kind of shocking to discover this and get your entire worldview shaken, but it’s also exciting.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

It’s just my attempt to put together something that seems to fit these sometimes very strange phenomena.

View Comment
10. Bob says:

hahaha the radar data is a SLAM.
Well done man.

View Comment
11. Great analysis.. This is the only theory that seems to explain the horizon. It amazes me how few people seem to even grasp the problem of the fact the horizon is at eye level, even as high as 400km (ISS pictures). Comparing this level to virtual reality renderings of the Earth at this height, it becomes altogether obvious something is seriously wrong with the idea we are on a Convex ball with light following a straight path.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Exactly. It is an extremely major stumbling block for any convex Earth scenario whether it is helio or geocentric. I can’t see how they are going to get round that one. They’ll just have to ignore it and hope it goes away. I don’t believe that is a genuine photo from the “Space station”, but if we took that height (in the ultra hot thermosphere as well) we should be able to see 2294km according to this website – http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

That is more than a third of the radius of the Earth!

View Comment
12. karol says:
13. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Amazing read and well done i was visualizing it all, what a wild ride, i have learned alot from your thesis WH

I like to refer to this site and the great easy to read and understand format and thx for that little plug
My mind was blown away and looking forward to reading this all over again

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Don. It wasn’t easy. Fits and starts and rethinks, but eventually things started flowing. I wanted gravity to be the other way around, but it doesn’t seem like it is (looks like Scud was right). I’ll be much busier over the next few months, but hopefully I’ll eventually be able to get the solstices article out. The one area I am not sure on is stars/asteroids/comets. Because gravity is the other way round, I’m going to have to look at other mechanisms when the time comes I think.

No problem for the plug. I always give credit to where I found the information and came across the idea.

View Comment