Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from? - Page 14

01nate · #**261** Posted **May 22, 2017, 4:46 AM**

here's my zoom

koops65 · #**262** Posted **May 22, 2017, 10:48 AM**

I'm under the impression that you didn't understand what I said, and that was the simple explanation...

For a more advanced explanation it would take an advanced math class to fully grasp the principles behind it all. That is beyond most peoples abilities, including even mine...

I'll repeat... the "curvature" thing only happens over a flat surface. Water works very well for this sort of thing... land does not, unless it's perfectly flat, which is quite rare in Southern Ontario.

vid · #**263** Posted **May 22, 2017, 1:30 PM**

You're not looking at a large enough percentage of the planet's surface to actually see the curve. You're simply not high enough and the terrain itself is masking it.

This is over 1,000 feet up, looking more than 20 miles away. No curve:

~35,000 feet over Georgian Bay, no curve

40,000 feet over Winnipeg. Maybe there's a curve?

It's very subtle even from an airplane so don't be upset if you don't see it from ground level.

500 feet up, hard to tell if there is a curve because the photo is so grainy

120 feet up. Curve??

Anyway back on topic, I don't know why I didn't post there here yet: Toronto's skyline as seen from the 7th floor of the Sheraton Hotel in Hamilton:

All photos are mine

koops65 · #**264** Posted **May 22, 2017, 3:26 PM**

I like the pix vid, but you didn't understand either... the curve you can see from space, or the Moon (a complete sphere), or if you simply get up high enough off the ground, isn't what we're talking about here.

The curve we're talking about is simply what you can see on the horizon, or that point at which you can no longer see things because they have "curved" down, and below, the horizon.
When you see the top 3/4 of downtown Toronto's tall towers, you know for a fact there is more to them at the bottom, but you can't see that part because they are below, or behind, the horizon.
You get that effect because your viewpoint is almost on the surface (a metre or 2 makes little difference over 50 kilometres) and you're looking over a basically flat surface (again, waves a few metres high will also have little effect over 50 km) but as soon as your viewpoint moves up, the effect diminishes until it's gone. To put it another way, to see the bottom 50 metres of those tall towers, you need to raise your viewpoint at least 50 metres as well.
Again... the instant you look over a non-flat surface, like land, or you are too high up (the closer to the surface, the better), the effect is lost.

WhipperSnapper · #**265** Posted **May 22, 2017, 5:43 PM**

The curvature is present on the horizon when looking across Lake Ontario but, it's not more than a few feet. You need to be hundreds if not thousand of kilometres away for the curvature to block out a skyscraper skyline. That situation doesn't exist.

MonctonRad · #**266** Posted **May 22, 2017, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The curvature is present on the horizon when looking across Lake Ontario but, it's not more than a few feet. You need to be hundreds if not thousand of kilometres away for the curvature to block out a skyscraper skyline. That situation doesn't exist.

Not true. On the coastline, it's not uncommon to see only the sails of a sailboat on the horizon but not the body of the boat. This isn't just due to waves. It only takes a few miles to knock a couple of feet off the bottom of an object due to the curvature of the Earth.

Beedok · #**267** Posted **May 22, 2017, 6:10 PM**

http://www.stephenjbeard.com/
Is this relevant?

koops65 · #**268** Posted **May 22, 2017, 7:21 PM**

I knew there was a part of my explanation that was missing, and that's it... the atmospheric lensing effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The curvature is present on the horizon when looking across Lake Ontario but, it's not more than a few feet. You need to be hundreds if not thousand of kilometres away for the curvature to block out a skyscraper skyline. That situation doesn't exist.

If you do the math, you'll find that the curve is approximately 12.5 cm per kilometre. Looking at Toronto from the other side of the lake, would be about 50 km's, or about 6 metres. (about 20 feet)
Add to that the lensing effect (which only happens under certain conditions, and is rare) and you get a good "curvature of the Earth" effect, like I posted weeks ago...

MolsonExport · #**269** Posted **May 22, 2017, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

http://www.stephenjbeard.com/
Is this relevant?

I find the graphic amusing. There are no moose (nor very many coniferous trees...maybe if cliches rule the day, there should be a flaming river icon on the Cleveland side) to be found on the north shore of Lake Erie...in fact, nice beaches aside, there isn't much at all on the north shore of Lake Erie. Somewhat puzzling, given its location in Canada...perhaps there just weren't any good natural harbors (back in the day when this really mattered) to get a decently-sized city on the Canadian side.

MonctonRad · #**270** Posted **May 22, 2017, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I find the graphic amusing. There are no moose (nor very many coniferous trees...maybe if cliches rule the day, there should be a flaming river icon on the Cleveland side) to be found on the north shore of Lake Erie...

If you read the graphic, they do include a disclaimer "cultural representation of Ontario not to scale", which I found amusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

in fact, nice beaches aside, there isn't much at all on the north shore of Lake Erie. Somewhat puzzling, given its location in Canada...perhaps there just weren't any good natural harbors (back in the day when this really mattered) to get a decently-sized city on the Canadian side.

Yes. I have always found this odd too. The north shore of Lake Erie should really be Canada's Riviera. Why is it that no one lives there????

north 42 · #**271** Posted **May 22, 2017, 10:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If you read the graphic, they do include a disclaimer "cultural representation of Ontario not to scale", which I found amusing.

Yes. I have always found this odd too. The north shore of Lake Erie should really be Canada's Riviera. Why is it that no one lives there????

Well our section of Lake Erie in Essex County is very popular, especially along the local wine route between Leamington and Kingsville to Amherstburg. Leamington is also the largest municipality on the northern shore of Erie!

01nate · #**272** Posted **May 23, 2017, 11:44 AM**

What this picture shows is that in order for 800' of toronto to be missing from 78 meters above sea level 800' of my bench mark at 308 meters across toronto must also be missing. Meaning that level is not relative sea, level is level. My pic is not across water so that rules out a mirage, you can go there in the daytime and downtown is still there just fuzzy same size though, so that rules out atmospheric lensing. Open your eyes to the flat plain you live on.It looks flat cause it is flat

Franco401 · #**273** Posted **May 23, 2017, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01nate

What this picture shows is that in order for 800' of toronto to be missing from 78 meters above sea level 800' of my bench mark at 308 meters across toronto must also be missing. Meaning that level is not relative sea, level is level. My pic is not across water so that rules out a mirage, you can go there in the daytime and downtown is still there just fuzzy same size though, so that rules out atmospheric lensing. Open your eyes to the flat plain you live on.It looks flat cause it is flat

That was completely incoherent.

TorontoDrew · #**274** Posted **May 23, 2017, 3:05 PM**

I can't believe people need explaining that there is a curvature happening when looking across large bodies of water.

Showing pictures from higher vantage point proves nothing as the higher up you go the further away the horizon is and the effect of the earth curve.

For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 5 km away.

Geometry tells us that the distance of the horizon – i.e. the farthest point the eye can see before Earth curves out beneath our view – depends simply on the height of the observer. For example, if you stood atop Mount Everest which is 8,848 meters tall, the horizon would be about 370 km away. So the curvature of the earth of Toronto from Niagara on the lake is very apparent.

Source: https://i.ytimg.com/

TorontoDrew · #**275** Posted **May 23, 2017, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The curvature is present on the horizon when looking across Lake Ontario but, it's not more than a few feet. You need to be hundreds if not thousand of kilometres away for the curvature to block out a skyscraper skyline. That situation doesn't exist.

This is from 92km across lake Michighan in Grand Mere State Park. It looks like it would take about 180km to block out the Chicago skyline completely with the curvature of the horizon.
Images source: https://www.metabunk.org

SpongeG · #**276** Posted **May 23, 2017, 8:01 PM**

I don't have a pic but there are a few spots in Nanaimo where you can see Downtown Vancouver's skyline.

leftimage · #**277** Posted **Sep 17, 2017, 6:45 PM**

Some guy on reddit shared the findings of an informal study he did on this exact subject...

According to him, Montreal is one of the cities visible from the furthest away, worldwide. He said the other champions were Charlotte, NC and Atlanta. He also mentioned Toronto, Chicago, and Liverpool (?) as being standouts.

The furthest pic he could find of MTL was from whiteface mountain, NY (129kms). Must have been taken with an extremely capable telephoto lens to be so crisp and zoomed in.

2nd furthest is from Mansfield (posted a few pages back). 3rd was from Fairfax, VT (shared by me a few pages back).

The furthest pic he found overall is jaw-dropping. Charlotte from Roan Mountain, taken 157kms away.

SaskScraper · #**278** Posted **Sep 17, 2017, 7:21 PM**

Anyone that's been to Sandy Hook point (nude beach) in New Jersey, or Fire Island ferry on Long Island on a clear day you can see the top of Manhattan skyline, & recognize the curvature of the earth.

You can also recognize the curvature of earth on the flattest part of The Prairies when you can only see tallest buildings dozens of miles away from Winnipeg or Regina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eemy

...
Driving back east last November, we could see the lights from the Regina skyline just as we were leaving Moosejaw, which is about 70km.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

furstest i have photographed winnipegs skyline from is ruffly 16miles out

Monolith · #**279** Posted **Sep 27, 2017, 4:57 PM**

Metro Vancouver - From 104 km Distance

Heliotrope Ridge - Mt. Baker by Brandon Connor, on Flickr

Dirt_Devil · #**280** Posted **Sep 27, 2017, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by leftimage

Some guy on reddit shared the findings of an informal study he did on this exact subject...

According to him, Montreal is one of the cities visible from the furthest away, worldwide. He said the other champions were Charlotte, NC and Atlanta. He also mentioned Toronto, Chicago, and Liverpool (?) as being standouts.

The furthest pic he could find of MTL was from whiteface mountain, NY (129kms). Must have been taken with an extremely capable telephoto lens to be so crisp and zoomed in.

Cool picture. Impressive to think if Whiteface Mountain was in between Montreal and Quebec City, you could probably see one city on one side and the other on the other side with such a telephoto lens.

As when I was flying to Montreal from Halifax late in the evening...We were flying over Sherbroke and could see Montreal's lights from one side of the plane and Quebec City's in the distance on the other side.