Uploaded March 2017 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
So it turns out that the horizon does not always "rise to eye level" as you gain altitude as this video shows. In fact it does not even do this on a hypothetical flat earth.
This is video of a flight from LA to frankfurt. The aircraft is at 35000 feet or 10.5km high most of the way.
On a sphere earth of radius 6370km at this height the horizon is 365km away and down at an angle of 3.3 degrees.
Now on a flat earth there is no reason for there to be a horizon at all. But there is one and lets assume that it is also at 365km away (caused by what ever magic the reality challenged what to make up). The horizon is at ground level and the plane is at 10.5km. So obviously you have to look down at some angle to see the horizon. Trig tells me that the angle A is described by Tan A = 10.5/365. With A thus being 1.6 degrees.
So is the horizon dipped by 3.3 degrees or only by 1.6 degrees in this video?
Original footage is from Cloud Surfing channel youtube.com/channel/UCX-bwmHHvskeQIBg03RAcDg
So it turns out that the horizon does not always "rise to eye level" as you gain altitude as this video shows. In fact it does not even do this on a hypothetical flat earth.
This is video of a flight from LA to frankfurt. The aircraft is at 35000 feet or 10.5km high most of the way.
On a sphere earth of radius 6370km at this height the horizon is 365km away and down at an angle of 3.3 degrees.
Now on a flat earth there is no reason for there to be a horizon at all. But there is one and lets assume that it is also at 365km away (caused by what ever magic the reality challenged what to make up). The horizon is at ground level and the plane is at 10.5km. So obviously you have to look down at some angle to see the horizon. Trig tells me that the angle A is described by Tan A = 10.5/365. With A thus being 1.6 degrees.
So is the horizon dipped by 3.3 degrees or only by 1.6 degrees in this video?
Original footage is from Cloud Surfing channel youtube.com/channel/UCX-bwmHHvskeQIBg03RAcDg
