The image is being distorted by the atmosphere and your eyeballs. The sun appears 'smaller' when there's less in the air. The colder the better, the clearer the better. A cold, clear day + unobstructed horizon + solid zoom camera will produce the results you're looking for.
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
To keep it simple, the maps aren't representative of the Earth. We don't have a true picture of what the Earth looks like. These are all estimations at this point, and so all maps are different.
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
I've touched on this before, long explanations are out there to search for - the gist is, there's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance in the helio model.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing. I have no proof either way.
The reason it's not really interesting to me is just the physics behind planes themselves. Plane radar. Planes wouldn't work on a spinning ball. Nor would their radar. Regardless of a sheep doing calculus on physics-stack-exchange, Earth, nor 'gravity', would cause the air to spin at the exact same speed at all altitudes along a perfect gradient as you go from the poles (0.25mph) to the equator (1100mph) on a spinning ball. The entire concept is something no one could ever reproduce empirically, and is ridiculous on its face. So whether or not a particular plane route happens isn't interesting - planes couldn't take off, land, or fly, if the earth was a spinning ball. To me, the fact that the flight takes place is simply a matter of our lack of understanding of the southern hemisphere. You should take a look at a 'flat map of the ball earth'. Look at where the equator is. Look at the land mass above the equator, and below it. 80% of livable 'Earth' is above the equator. Isn't that a bit odd in and of itself?
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uRpMCAmQo33CV4M2srWivf.jpg
I've touched on this before, long explanations are out there to search for - the gist is, there's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance in the helio model.
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing. I have no proof either way.
The reason it's not really interesting to me is just the physics behind planes themselves. Plane radar. Planes wouldn't work on a spinning ball. Nor would their radar. Regardless of a sheep doing calculus on physics-stack-exchange, Earth, nor 'gravity', would cause the air to spin at the exact same speed at all altitudes along a perfect gradient as you go from the poles (0.25mph) to the equator (1100mph) on a spinning ball. The entire concept is something no one could ever reproduce empirically, and is ridiculous on its face. So whether or not a particular plane route happens isn't interesting - planes couldn't take off, land, or fly, if the earth was a spinning ball. To me, the fact that the flight takes place is simply a matter of our lack of understanding of the southern hemisphere. You should take a look at a 'flat map of the ball earth'. Look at where the equator is. Look at the land mass above the equator, and below it. 80% of livable 'Earth' is above the equator. Isn't that a bit odd in and of itself?