@@IronHorse1722 Ross, it definitely destroys the argument that Sly intended it to destroy. Are you suggesting that we can only see so far, but then at the same time we can see a little bit further, but then that's it?
@@heatshield au-contraire, buddy, I'd say all it proved is some heat-mirage effects, and how atmospheric distortion has more effect, the more of it you look through. Temperature and relative humidity play a huge role, plus it's quite clear, this is another trick of the eye that works thanks to the technology used to zoom in from so far away, capturing far more of the light than the naked eye would normally detect. Not to mention, it shows the real effects of real curvature, in a limited specific location. Looking out to sea, the limits are generally controlled by distance and atmospheric conditions, plus viewing height... of course.
@@IronHorse1722 _"It shows the real effects of real curvature, in a limited specific location."_ And those effects match what we see looking out to sea. But somehow, _that_ isn't "real curvature" to you.
@@JetNix Well, I'm not certain, but it sounds like Mila Kunis, who played Jackie on _That '70s Show_ (the audio clip may be from that) and voices Meg Griffin on _Family Guy._
That lack of reference point ;) "the horizon always rises to eye level." On many flights, they would give away leveling devices to all passengers for free, so that everyone would be able to observe the dip of the horizon and proves Earth is a sphere. And as a nice side effect, to quench our thirsts, too! Such devices are called ‘bottled water’. Using these simple ‘instruments’ on a flight, we can demonstrate that Earth is a sphere. By drinking half of the water in a bottle of water, we can use the bottle as a simple leveling device. Firmly close the bottle, hold the bottle horizontally, and aim for the horizon line, all while keeping our eyes level with the surface of water inside the bottle. If weather condition allows it, it is not hard to observe that the horizon is below the eye level. The phenomenon is called the dip of the horizon, and can only occur with such magnitude if Earth is a sphere. Flat-Earthers repeatedly assert that “horizon always rises to eye level, no matter how high we are from the surface.” Using these simple ‘instruments,’ it is trivial to prove them wrong.
Your erroneous beliefs are typical of the average globidiot, who lacks the intelligence to interpret how they've simply made a very crude theodolite, which OVERCOMES the limits of human perspective, which must, by definition of the word horizontal, cause the horizon to converge AT EYE-LEVEL. There can be no other way, as the Law of Convergence cannot be broken. What you fail to grasp in this childish naive example, is that you, along with the plane, are in fact thousands of feet high in the air. The water beneath you, by definition, is at sea-level. On a globe, it should begin to immediately curve away and down from you, no exceptions, if the Law of Convergence wasn't a thing. You wouldn't need to artificially raise a personal water-level to your altitude in order to determine that all the water beneath you, isn't in fact at eye-level, in the first place. This is the purpose of the theodolite. The term "eye-level" is really a colloquial term explaining vision phenomena, not actual reality. Actual reality is your altitude above that visual level, and the instrument gives you a visual indication of how high another object would appear if it were at the same altitude as you, at the distance of the convergence point, the horizon. In other words, true, or actual, level. Were this actually occurring on a spherical globe, the drop would be an extra 30,000 odd feet beneath you, you'd necessarily be looking down, rather than out, from your window. But globers are so unwilling to accept common sense explanations, so mentally invested are they in their heliocentric nonsense.
@@IronHorse1722 hahahahahahahahaha. So standing at the beach I'm thousands of feet above the water. hahahahahahaha. You honestly get dumber. You think your eye can judge level better than an instrument. You are seeing down, just at such a small angle you can't tell. You have to go 69 MILES before you would get 1 degree of drop numpty. Stick to being a drunk, you do that right at least.
I'm a high IQ flexpert, so gimme a sec.... Ah yes, that convergence point on the 2nd closer hill is at a different angle of attack and therefore the vanishing point interacts with the aether layer at a closer point, thus making the car lower via perspective at an apparently lower elevation, even though the 'apparently' separate horizons are both the same and really at the same eye level. My mentor Gary Wybenga will be along shortly to back my floptics with some footage of a stopsign in front of a hill.
Fully agree. In addition, those bike riders were in internal desequilibrium and external detached from the cars so the redshift could not be observed in the buoyancy of the swan, which makes the video complete and utterly useless as “proof” of the so-called globe. Cherry on the cake: the total failed CGI attempt on the “eye level” experiment. First Sky cannot count and second there was no independent variable mentioned, total scientific fail. (Brilliant video Sly!!!!)
In your 4 lines examples, those lines could have been on the ceiling and the camera looking up, or on the floor with the camera looking straight down, or the camera on it's side with vertical lines. As you said, you need some reference frame to know where eye level actually is.
I am always amazed by how simple explanations are to tell how things work, but are totally beyond the comprehension of some Flat Earthers. The horizon rises to eye level is one, has it ever occurred to them that their line of sight from their eyes are "Dropping" to the horizon.
Brenda, Wolfie just stopped by the shop and bought one. Bob "loves" it when Wolfie just "magically" seems to have the very thing to debunk them. So does Wolfie.
Excellent and simply explained debunk of several FE nonsense. Thanks. It would also also work for cars going around a curve with a wall on the inside of the curve. This would make the "horizon" vertical to confuse them even more.
yeah, "the horizon rises to eye level" is one of their standard lies, and it can be destroyed with a simple thought experiment: imagine an observer sitting on a beach, looking out over the ocean. now imagine another observer, flying 40000 feet above the first one, looking in the same direction at the same time. so whose eye level is the horizon at? can't be both.
Damn! I was sure you were going to actually have that line on the ceiling. Flatards are forever talking about eye level which to me at least seems completely meaningless as it would have to be wherever your eyes are looking the way I see that concept. Nice demonstration of the optical effects we experience there.
The real eye level is a plane, perpendicular to the plumbline. There is no level with the eye level, and no horizon at eye level. The horizon is on the tangent to the level sea, below the plane at sea level.
@@ReinoGoo I don't know, to me it's just a rough terminology for essentially straight ahead, definitely no scientific description of anything. I could well be wrong though. These flatards use it all the time as if it's a precise location you could take measurements from and I very much doubt that.
@@lorditsprobingtime6668 Eye level is a useful tool to use to determine levels and grade, when building things or measure the earth. You can set up a laser and measure the fall from the plane, or use an auto level or a teodolite.
@@ReinoGoo Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant with that. We both know we have no flat horizon and level just means locally level as in level with the horizon or perpendicular to the local gravity. Very odd coincidence is Arctic Reflection just put one out about Phuket Wang and his silly explanation about some windmills sinking behind the horizon I saw just minutes ago and Pooky seems to think he's explained how things vanish over the horizon and we should all fully understand that process which can in the real world that the rest of us live, there's only one, curvature. Here we are now talking about some of exactly the same thing. Strange coincidence eh lol.
Is there a video somewhere that would disprove the seeing too far thing by going to one of these locations they have used and debunking at that location? It seems to me to be the only thing left in their bag of tricks that I can't show to be debunked. The problem is they seem to be right according to all calculations that Google provides for calculating the curvature. Something that should be completely gone from view is somehow still there. Not using the whole 8 inch per mile squared thing. Using the actual calculators that NASA and other scientists have put out. I asked professor Dave why it's possible to see those things. Only response was "they're lying. You can't." They're lying doesn't debunk anything. They're lying let me show you how I know does. I have a couple friends who have started down the flat earth path and that's the one thing I can't debunk. Oil rig that should be completely gone. Laser light and human that shouldn't be visible. Buildings that should be well below the curve still visible. Drives me crazy since all of these other things like this video do such a great job debunking sunsets, sun locations, curvature of a waterway, etc. If anyone has one, a video taken from the exact spot where a flat earther claims to see too far showing you actually can't. I need that. Lol
Excellent demonstration for proof that the Earth is a sphere, however this demonstration or any demonstration will not prove whether it's the Earth that revolves around the Sun or it's the Sun that revolves around a static Earth. Sounds like a simpleton question, but for any observations that prove the answer is one way, counter proof can prove just the opposite, and vice-versa.
Arguably any system could be mathematically described a number of different ways (with varying levels of complexity and extra “stuff”). The trouble with geocentrism is that’s its only straw. But that is not how science is done, occam’s razor exists and in science that means selecting the best simple solution. To match the same level of completeness and accuracy as the heliocentric model, geocentrism has to invent and twist so many knots it’s unreasonable to suggest it’s the better model.
The point is.. Spherical earth.. which dispels the whole Flat Earth stuff.. If you want to get in to observational tracking of planets, distances to stars, and the fact that several nations have space programs which rely heavily on the Heliocentric reality we live in.. that's on you to DISprove if you are so inclined.
Dont take this the wrong way but... I was into the "Debate" about flat Earth ears ago and found your channel enlighting and informative as well as man others but I find it odd that you need to make even more content when you have already proven your point. Its like someone asking "I am not sure how to make ice cream" and someone making a video on how to make ice cream and then making more and more content on the same subject. I came to the conclusion that 80% of the flatards were into the subject to make money and the other 20% were just retareded and its a pity that you need to keep making content for the 20%
Did you notice how the cars going uphill looked like they were pointed on an upward slope and the cars going down look like they were pointed on a down slope. Ships sailing away don't do that. They don't tilt as if they are on a slope
Before I reply.. the 11 comments which you spammed my comment section with using your other "My 2 cents" account landed in "Held for Review"(spam).. and they will also die there... dont spam my comment section again... I let this one through to properly define your claim.. The cars in my video were performing a 4°(back hill) and 3.5°(front hill) angle change.. also why I clearly stated "Small Scale Demonstration". To scale, what was observed in the video vs the Globe, if I was 50m above the ground: cars going over the back hill would have started to be seen at 444km distance and would need to be 11km tall. cars going over the front hill would have started to be seen at 388km distance and would need to be 6km tall. To this scale, the cars, with recognizable features and scale length >40km, of course it is easily noticed that they tilt towards/away from the observer. To full scale, the Tallest ship to date is the Symphony of the Seas cruise ship. It stands 65m above the surface. Geometrically speaking, from that same 50m observation elevation, one would only be able to see that Ship to 54km distance (a few more km with refraction). and at that distance, ONLY it's highest point would be visible. This means that it would only lean 0.5° AWAY from the observer. Which given it's height would be about from your elbow to your fingertips. If you have a method for observing that 0.5° lean away from you.. at over 54km.. to any degree of accuracy only seeing the highest point of the ship.. I'd love to hear it.
Ships sailing over the horizon is on a tangentline, parallel to the level water. Your eyes is on that tangentline. That's why you can se over the horizon. Therefore you see the ship straight from the side, from both sides (or all sides) of the horizon.
@@ReinoGoo your imaginary tangent is just the point in the distance where the equivalent elevation to your elevation is compressed to small to see as separate from the surface. It's not a tangent...it's simple perspective The ship will never appear to be slanting upward on the slanting surface @Reino Göransson your actually looking at the angles that make a rectangle. Just like looking down a long hall where the ceiling seems to slant down to "meet" the floor slanting upward towards eye level.
@@slysparkane808 your observation doesn't match what we see with a ship sailing away. Why? Because the water isn't a hump or hill like your video @Sly Sparkane If the water surface was like a hill or a hump you would definitely see a ship tilted as it sails up the slope. You will never see that because it's not a slant or a slope. The ship is simply sailing away over a flat surface and looks like it is doing exactly that.
That second, closer hill was a moment of brilliance, man. So simple, but so devastating.
Simple, yes. Devastating? Bwahahahahaha!! 🤣🤣🤣
@@IronHorse1722 Ross, it definitely destroys the argument that Sly intended it to destroy.
Are you suggesting that we can only see so far, but then at the same time we can see a little bit further, but then that's it?
@@IronHorse1722 Jesus, ever have an original thought? Bwahs and crying laughter emojis? The output of a four year old, lol.
@@heatshield au-contraire, buddy, I'd say all it proved is some heat-mirage effects, and how atmospheric distortion has more effect, the more of it you look through. Temperature and relative humidity play a huge role, plus it's quite clear, this is another trick of the eye that works thanks to the technology used to zoom in from so far away, capturing far more of the light than the naked eye would normally detect.
Not to mention, it shows the real effects of real curvature, in a limited specific location. Looking out to sea, the limits are generally controlled by distance and atmospheric conditions, plus viewing height... of course.
@@IronHorse1722 _"It shows the real effects of real curvature, in a limited specific location."_ And those effects match what we see looking out to sea. But somehow, _that_ isn't "real curvature" to you.
Well done Sly! Too bad the nitwits will simply ignore it, but there's only so much we can do.
You can lead a flat earther to water but you cant make him think
@QED Totally agree!
Nice demo. Having two consecutive dips in the road above eye level was a genius stroke.
Part right at least. It was definitely a stroke.
Glad to hear from you, Sly. You don't put out much lately. I miss your videos.
That *thunder*"ohmygawd" never gets old. =)
neither does "thanks, bob!" ok, there was no "thanks, bob!" in this video, but still :-)
I think I recognize the voice, but don't want to spoil the mystery! 😉
@@bobblum5973 I don't know who's voice is that)
@@JetNix Well, I'm not certain, but it sounds like Mila Kunis, who played Jackie on _That '70s Show_ (the audio clip may be from that) and voices Meg Griffin on _Family Guy._
That lack of reference point ;)
"the horizon always rises to eye level."
On many flights, they would give away leveling devices to all passengers for free, so that everyone would be able to observe the dip of the horizon and proves Earth is a sphere. And as a nice side effect, to quench our thirsts, too!
Such devices are called ‘bottled water’. Using these simple ‘instruments’ on a flight, we can demonstrate that Earth is a sphere.
By drinking half of the water in a bottle of water, we can use the bottle as a simple leveling device.
Firmly close the bottle, hold the bottle horizontally, and aim for the horizon line, all while keeping our eyes level with the surface of water inside the bottle. If weather condition allows it, it is not hard to observe that the horizon is below the eye level.
The phenomenon is called the dip of the horizon, and can only occur with such magnitude if Earth is a sphere.
Flat-Earthers repeatedly assert that “horizon always rises to eye level, no matter how high we are from the surface.” Using these simple ‘instruments,’ it is trivial to prove them wrong.
Your erroneous beliefs are typical of the average globidiot, who lacks the intelligence to interpret how they've simply made a very crude theodolite, which OVERCOMES the limits of human perspective, which must, by definition of the word horizontal, cause the horizon to converge AT EYE-LEVEL. There can be no other way, as the Law of Convergence cannot be broken.
What you fail to grasp in this childish naive example, is that you, along with the plane, are in fact thousands of feet high in the air. The water beneath you, by definition, is at sea-level. On a globe, it should begin to immediately curve away and down from you, no exceptions, if the Law of Convergence wasn't a thing. You wouldn't need to artificially raise a personal water-level to your altitude in order to determine that all the water beneath you, isn't in fact at eye-level, in the first place.
This is the purpose of the theodolite. The term "eye-level" is really a colloquial term explaining vision phenomena, not actual reality. Actual reality is your altitude above that visual level, and the instrument gives you a visual indication of how high another object would appear if it were at the same altitude as you, at the distance of the convergence point, the horizon. In other words, true, or actual, level.
Were this actually occurring on a spherical globe, the drop would be an extra 30,000 odd feet beneath you, you'd necessarily be looking down, rather than out, from your window. But globers are so unwilling to accept common sense explanations, so mentally invested are they in their heliocentric nonsense.
@@IronHorse1722 Holy shit what a typical mountain of nonsense. Your life is a failure, no one values or desires your opinions. On ANY subject, lol.
@@IronHorse1722 hahahahahahahahaha. So standing at the beach I'm thousands of feet above the water. hahahahahahaha. You honestly get dumber. You think your eye can judge level better than an instrument. You are seeing down, just at such a small angle you can't tell. You have to go 69 MILES before you would get 1 degree of drop numpty. Stick to being a drunk, you do that right at least.
Bottled water! On Concorde it was gin and tonic. How I miss that aircraft.
@@IronHorse1722 at 35000ft the drop to the horizon is around 3°, I very much doubt that *you* can judge that by eye. What a tit you are.
I'm a high IQ flexpert, so gimme a sec.... Ah yes, that convergence point on the 2nd closer hill is at a different angle of attack and therefore the vanishing point interacts with the aether layer at a closer point, thus making the car lower via perspective at an apparently lower elevation, even though the 'apparently' separate horizons are both the same and really at the same eye level.
My mentor Gary Wybenga will be along shortly to back my floptics with some footage of a stopsign in front of a hill.
Fully agree. In addition, those bike riders were in internal desequilibrium and external detached from the cars so the redshift could not be observed in the buoyancy of the swan, which makes the video complete and utterly useless as “proof” of the so-called globe.
Cherry on the cake: the total failed CGI attempt on the “eye level” experiment. First Sky cannot count and second there was no independent variable mentioned, total scientific fail.
(Brilliant video Sly!!!!)
@@ILikeEpicurus Ah yes, the independent variable... nothing works or is real without an independent variable.
@@quantumdegreaser2115
🥚< Egg.
Need I say more?
@@quantumdegreaser2115 Dude, I need some more QD vids.
@@awatt Somebody needs to draw an egg with a face, hands, and feet, pointing to a picture of Riley, saying "This is an idiot."
In your 4 lines examples, those lines could have been on the ceiling and the camera looking up, or on the floor with the camera looking straight down, or the camera on it's side with vertical lines. As you said, you need some reference frame to know where eye level actually is.
I am always amazed by how simple explanations are to tell how things work, but are totally beyond the comprehension of some Flat Earthers.
The horizon rises to eye level is one, has it ever occurred to them that their line of sight from their eyes are "Dropping" to the horizon.
Excellent - btw Bob and Catz really stirred up a hornet's nest with their video on the sextant. You should do one too. 😀
Brenda, Wolfie just stopped by the shop and bought one. Bob "loves" it when Wolfie just "magically" seems to have the very thing to debunk them.
So does Wolfie.
@@whereswa11y th-cam.com/video/r60YfNltm_c/w-d-xo.html
Me yesterday: "Hmm... Sly's been quiet for some time now".
Sly today: BOOMOMG!
I think you need to think about Sly a little bit more often...
That second hill in front of the other is such a nicely straightforward way to shut down bogus optics fairy tales.
I’ve bookmarked that. Should come in handy.
Excellent and simply explained debunk of several FE nonsense. Thanks. It would also also work for cars going around a curve with a wall on the inside of the curve. This would make the "horizon" vertical to confuse them even more.
Great Video Sly!!! Especially the auto level refrence!!!
Sly, never mind.
All flerfers will ignore this.
Not all of them, apparently. Iron Horse weighed in with some weapons-grade bollocks.
Nice to hear from you Sly. Hope you are well over there.
Most quality auto levels do not list a maximum range. To use it at longer ranges, simply change the eyepiece like any other telescope.
Wonderful, simple explanations. Now if only the simple minds of the Flat Earth believers will just grasp the concepts.
Glad to see you back!
Several points made in this short video that I've been wanting to make.
You rock Sly
GREETINGS FROM
DENMARK 🇩🇰🖖 🇩 🇰🖖🇩🇰♥️ 👍 👍
I do like a quickie!
yeah, "the horizon rises to eye level" is one of their standard lies, and it can be destroyed with a simple thought experiment:
imagine an observer sitting on a beach, looking out over the ocean. now imagine another observer, flying 40000 feet above the first one, looking in the same direction at the same time. so whose eye level is the horizon at? can't be both.
Writing this so the Flatties don't have to:
Nu-Uh!
Good one ! The destruction is becoming more complete & they are as desperate as ever. 😂
Love these videos. Me and my Twitter self approve. 😂
Sly gets his team of bikers out for a recreational flerf demolition.
Not a good time to be a FE... nicely done.
There was never a good time be a flat earther.
Put a ball coated with Vanta black and reflect lights of of it. That will really confuse the flatties.
You take no prisoners.
Long time, no see. Quality over quantity, always :-D
Sly, I love your videos. I wish that I had your talent to show ignorant fools as they are.
Keep up the good work.
That road is really flat, just some type of plerspective or CGI or something. LOL
Damn! I was sure you were going to actually have that line on the ceiling. Flatards are forever talking about eye level which to me at least seems completely meaningless as it would have to be wherever your eyes are looking the way I see that concept.
Nice demonstration of the optical effects we experience there.
The real eye level is a plane, perpendicular to the plumbline.
There is no level with the eye level, and no horizon at eye level.
The horizon is on the tangent to the level sea, below the plane at sea level.
@@ReinoGoo I don't know, to me it's just a rough terminology for essentially straight ahead, definitely no scientific description of anything. I could well be wrong though.
These flatards use it all the time as if it's a precise location you could take measurements from and I very much doubt that.
How long is it down to the flat and level water?
Half of the way to the ”flat” and level horizon.
@@lorditsprobingtime6668 Eye level is a useful tool to use to determine levels and grade, when building things or measure the earth.
You can set up a laser and measure the fall from the plane, or use an auto level or a teodolite.
@@ReinoGoo Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant with that.
We both know we have no flat horizon and level just means locally level as in level with the horizon or perpendicular to the local gravity.
Very odd coincidence is Arctic Reflection just put one out about Phuket Wang and his silly explanation about some windmills sinking behind the horizon I saw just minutes ago and Pooky seems to think he's explained how things vanish over the horizon and we should all fully understand that process which can in the real world that the rest of us live, there's only one, curvature. Here we are now talking about some of exactly the same thing. Strange coincidence eh lol.
thanks Sly
Hey there stranger!
Nice!
Ouch! That hurt.
Okay, unless I missed it no flerf has replied to this yet? I can't wait for the brilliance! /s
Just watched "The Color of Magic" . Me...Great entertainment. Flatties.... Astro Physics textbook.
Here I thought flat earth was dead and forgotten. Flers still around I assume. So I assume the rehash the same arguments.
Is there a video somewhere that would disprove the seeing too far thing by going to one of these locations they have used and debunking at that location? It seems to me to be the only thing left in their bag of tricks that I can't show to be debunked. The problem is they seem to be right according to all calculations that Google provides for calculating the curvature. Something that should be completely gone from view is somehow still there. Not using the whole 8 inch per mile squared thing. Using the actual calculators that NASA and other scientists have put out. I asked professor Dave why it's possible to see those things. Only response was "they're lying. You can't." They're lying doesn't debunk anything. They're lying let me show you how I know does. I have a couple friends who have started down the flat earth path and that's the one thing I can't debunk. Oil rig that should be completely gone. Laser light and human that shouldn't be visible. Buildings that should be well below the curve still visible. Drives me crazy since all of these other things like this video do such a great job debunking sunsets, sun locations, curvature of a waterway, etc. If anyone has one, a video taken from the exact spot where a flat earther claims to see too far showing you actually can't. I need that. Lol
Excellent demonstration for proof that the Earth is a sphere, however this demonstration or any demonstration will not prove whether it's the Earth that revolves around the Sun or it's the Sun that revolves around a static Earth. Sounds like a simpleton question, but for any observations that prove the answer is one way, counter proof can prove just the opposite, and vice-versa.
Yeah, no.
@@DoctorShocktor " Yeah, no " not so, but then what do you know !
@@paulpurdue5963 It's beyond obvious you know very little, as you deny everything that proves you wrong. You're no different from a flerf.
Arguably any system could be mathematically described a number of different ways (with varying levels of complexity and extra “stuff”). The trouble with geocentrism is that’s its only straw. But that is not how science is done, occam’s razor exists and in science that means selecting the best simple solution. To match the same level of completeness and accuracy as the heliocentric model, geocentrism has to invent and twist so many knots it’s unreasonable to suggest it’s the better model.
The point is.. Spherical earth.. which dispels the whole Flat Earth stuff.. If you want to get in to observational tracking of planets, distances to stars, and the fact that several nations have space programs which rely heavily on the Heliocentric reality we live in.. that's on you to DISprove if you are so inclined.
Dirty err! Lol
Dont take this the wrong way but...
I was into the "Debate" about flat Earth ears ago and found your channel enlighting and informative as well as man others but I find it odd that you need to make even more content when you have already proven your point.
Its like someone asking "I am not sure how to make ice cream" and someone making a video on how to make ice cream and then making more and more content on the same subject.
I came to the conclusion that 80% of the flatards were into the subject to make money and the other 20% were just retareded and its a pity that you need to keep making content for the 20%
It’s fun though.
Did you notice how the cars going uphill looked like they were pointed on an upward slope and the cars going down look like they were pointed on a down slope. Ships sailing away don't do that. They don't tilt as if they are on a slope
Before I reply.. the 11 comments which you spammed my comment section with using your other "My 2 cents" account landed in "Held for Review"(spam).. and they will also die there... dont spam my comment section again... I let this one through to properly define your claim..
The cars in my video were performing a 4°(back hill) and 3.5°(front hill) angle change.. also why I clearly stated "Small Scale Demonstration".
To scale, what was observed in the video vs the Globe, if I was 50m above the ground:
cars going over the back hill would have started to be seen at 444km distance and would need to be 11km tall.
cars going over the front hill would have started to be seen at 388km distance and would need to be 6km tall.
To this scale, the cars, with recognizable features and scale length >40km, of course it is easily noticed that they tilt towards/away from the observer.
To full scale, the Tallest ship to date is the Symphony of the Seas cruise ship. It stands 65m above the surface.
Geometrically speaking, from that same 50m observation elevation, one would only be able to see that Ship to 54km distance (a few more km with refraction). and at that distance, ONLY it's highest point would be visible. This means that it would only lean 0.5° AWAY from the observer. Which given it's height would be about from your elbow to your fingertips. If you have a method for observing that 0.5° lean away from you.. at over 54km.. to any degree of accuracy only seeing the highest point of the ship.. I'd love to hear it.
Ships sailing over the horizon is on a tangentline, parallel to the level water.
Your eyes is on that tangentline. That's why you can se over the horizon.
Therefore you see the ship straight from the side, from both sides (or all sides) of the horizon.
@@ReinoGoo your imaginary tangent is just the point in the distance where the equivalent elevation to your elevation is compressed to small to see as separate from the surface. It's not a tangent...it's simple perspective
The ship will never appear to be slanting upward on the slanting surface
@Reino Göransson your actually looking at the angles that make a rectangle. Just like looking down a long hall where the ceiling seems to slant down to "meet" the floor slanting upward towards eye level.
@@slysparkane808 your observation doesn't match what we see with a ship sailing away. Why? Because the water isn't a hump or hill like your video
@Sly Sparkane If the water surface was like a hill or a hump you would definitely see a ship tilted as it sails up the slope. You will never see that because it's not a slant or a slope. The ship is simply sailing away over a flat surface and looks like it is doing exactly that.
@@fetruth9514 As usual you make no sense and you're full of wind, troll on Gary!