The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Alvin on January 08, 2021, 12:39:14 AM

Title: Question about the stars.
Post by: Alvin on January 08, 2021, 12:39:14 AM
If we knew the exact location of 3 stars at one moment in time, we would be able to measure the angels between them and then use triangulation to work out the locations of different countries, and then make an accurate flat earth map.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(surveying)
The principle would be the same as here, except working in 3 dimensions instead of 2, hence why we need 3 points instead of 2.

The formula for calculating your location takes the 3d coordinates of the 3 stars you are using, and the visual angle between each pair.

I thought I could look at star charts for the night sky in different countries, and use more stars than 3, I could use some simultaneous equations to calculate the exact location of the stars, using only the angles we can see in those countries, and without using any of the fake distances round earth maps have.

Here I found a problem. If you take 2 stars from two well known constellations, apparently the visual angle between them is the same no matter where you are. Now this makes no sense, because the triangulation formula would then mean that all these places are somehow 0 meters from each other. The difference in visual angle between countries can't be too small to measure, because that would mean that the stars are very far away, around 50 thousand miles away if you can't see a difference of a degree when you move a thousand miles away. It wouldn't make sense for a star that far away to appear high in the sky in one place, yet near the horizon in another.

What am I missing here? The results of the math seem to be nonsensical.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 02:06:18 AM
Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Alvin on January 08, 2021, 10:00:53 AM
Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted? When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 08, 2021, 01:12:31 PM
Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted?
Light is distorted by something as simple as a plain sheet of glass, so I am failing to understand your question.
When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".
If you ever look through a window, you are seeing distorted light.

If you have ever looked through a light projected through a glass of water or a prism, you have seen light bending.

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.
Stars look the way do due to their composition and the composition of the air above us.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Alvin on January 08, 2021, 02:36:13 PM
Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted?
Light is distorted by something as simple as a plain sheet of glass, so I am failing to understand your question.
When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".
If you ever look through a window, you are seeing distorted light.

If you have ever looked through a light projected through a glass of water or a prism, you have seen light bending.

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.
Stars look the way do due to their composition and the composition of the air above us.

I have never seen the air be made of glass or water.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
You guys really need to figure out the quote function.... this thread is a mess
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 11, 2021, 06:46:02 AM
Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Even if it existed, EA, according to the wiki, only operates in the vertical plane - it bends light 'upwards'. It does not operate in azimuth. But yet the azimuth angles between pairs of stars remain almost perfectly constant, regardless of where on earth we view them from, and whether they are high or low in the night sky.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this Tom.

Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 11, 2021, 12:43:27 PM
I have never seen the air be made of glass or water.
It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JHelzer on January 11, 2021, 02:05:47 PM
It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 11, 2021, 02:22:22 PM
It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.
I have no clue where you get your information, but the air above our heads is full of sand and water.

"At any one instant, the Earth’s atmosphere contains 37.5 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 1 inch of rain if condensed. This amount is recycled, through evaporation powered by the Sun, 40 times each year in what is known as the hydrologic cycle." - https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/ (https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/)

Clouds carry particulates (typically sand) around which moisture gathers.

"The size of a sandstorm depends on the strength of the wind. The storm can be up to 100 kilometers wide and several kilometers high. In rare cases, they are as big as the sandstorm we had last week. Sometimes they can be so big and thick that you don’t see the sun for days." -
https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/ (https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/)
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on January 11, 2021, 03:47:36 PM
It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.
I have no clue where you get your information, but the air above our heads is full of sand and water.

"At any one instant, the Earth’s atmosphere contains 37.5 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 1 inch of rain if condensed. This amount is recycled, through evaporation powered by the Sun, 40 times each year in what is known as the hydrologic cycle." - https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/ (https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/)

Clouds carry particulates (typically sand) around which moisture gathers.

"The size of a sandstorm depends on the strength of the wind. The storm can be up to 100 kilometers wide and several kilometers high. In rare cases, they are as big as the sandstorm we had last week. Sometimes they can be so big and thick that you don’t see the sun for days." -
https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/ (https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/)

You're not wrong that theres lots of stuff up there.

Be careful with your wording though: 'sand' has a specific size definition of 0.063 - 2 mm.
Wind can blow these particles around (sand dunes!) But it's pretty hard for these larger diameter grains to stay aloft.

Particulates that nucleate water vapor condensation are generally in the 4 -15 ųm range but as much as 32 ųm above the Sahara (van der Does et al. 2016).

And that verybigsounding number of water gallons in the atmosphere is big for sure!  But in other units that's 12,900 cubic km of water in 51,800,000 cubic km of gases.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JHelzer on January 12, 2021, 01:35:51 PM
Quote
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:31 PM
I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked by whether or not the atmosphere is capable of distorting light. As it happens, yes it is, but not by very much and, far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JHelzer on January 14, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked...
Agreed.

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain...
Agreed.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 14, 2021, 04:29:52 PM
Quote
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.
I apologize for using the word, "full." You are correct it is not full.
I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked by whether or not the atmosphere is capable of distorting light. As it happens, yes it is, but not by very much and, far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.
However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 14, 2021, 05:07:23 PM
However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon, which is why celestial navigators try to avoid taking star shots close to the horizon (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf)). I'd say that my 'not by very much' is fair in that context, and I'd also point to the far more important second part of that sentence where I said that

Quote
far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 06:03:26 PM
However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon, which is why celestial navigators try to avoid taking star shots close to the horizon (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf)). I'd say that my 'not by very much' is fair in that context, and I'd also point to the far more important second part of that sentence where I said that

Quote
far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.
If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

I am making an attempt to find the video right now, but there was a video made sometime back where a series of flashing lights were placed on a frozen lake and the furthest one (some eight miles away) was quite visible on camera.

I believe a half degree of refraction to be insufficient to explain this.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 19, 2021, 07:52:00 PM
Quote
Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon

If you want to maximise the refractive effect, a clear calm night and a cold surface will do it.

Quote
If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

There isn't enough information in your comment to do that - you'd need accurate observer heights, and accurate target heights. If you can provide those, then we can work it out.

Again, the far more important point in the context of this thread:

Quote
there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.


Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 20, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
Quote
Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon

If you want to maximise the refractive effect, a clear calm night and a cold surface will do it.

Quote
If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

There isn't enough information in your comment to do that - you'd need accurate observer heights, and accurate target heights. If you can provide those, then we can work it out.

Again, the far more important point in the context of this thread:

Quote
there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.
Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 20, 2021, 01:21:03 PM
Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

Ok, but I'm afraid we're going to need an awful lot more precision (like, what exactly does 'lake level' mean?), and evidence, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion or analysis - I guess you'd better dig out the video.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could address the broader point that I'm repeating, which is that there is no FET distortion mechanism capable of retaining the constant angular separation between the stars as they move around the sky, rotating around the two fixed pole stars (whose elevation is equal to observer latitude), whilst simultaneously explaining the disappearance of stars below the horizon, the invisibility of the pole stars in the opposite hemispheres, or the consistent due south heading of the southern pole star regardless of longitude. 
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 20, 2021, 04:52:23 PM
Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

Ok, but I'm afraid we're going to need an awful lot more precision (like, what exactly does 'lake level' mean?), and evidence, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion or analysis - I guess you'd better dig out the video.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could address the broader point that I'm repeating, which is that there is no FET distortion mechanism capable of retaining the constant angular separation between the stars as they move around the sky, rotating around the two fixed pole stars (whose elevation is equal to observer latitude), whilst simultaneously explaining the disappearance of stars below the horizon, the invisibility of the pole stars in the opposite hemispheres, or the consistent due south heading of the southern pole star regardless of longitude.
Lake level is lake level. You have flashing lights placed on the surface of a frozen lake. The camera taking pictures of them is at the same height.

If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

An object in the sky can disappear from your sight because it gets too far away to be seen.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on January 20, 2021, 05:36:45 PM
Here. I'm 90% sure this is the one you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we_gGMFZzkI
 The YT user has uploaded numerous similar videos shooting things over frozen lakes. Shooting over a frozen lake seems like a way to reduce atmospheric effects that may influence the path of light/lasers. I would argue it's not particularly helpful.

 The one he does across Lake Winnipeg while ice fishing (excellent multi tasking) shows very clearly (to me at least) how much variation in temperature/humidity there is even across a frozen lake. Note the wavy/haziness or the dancing of the lines in the mid-far distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BWeLhcfOdg

I would recommend not watching the videos because they dont show anything one way or the other ;D
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 20, 2021, 07:53:53 PM
Thanks for the videos, Iceman.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the enormous effort that clearly goes into the making of these videos, and the contrasting complete absence of any kind of rigour in the designs of the experiments or analysis of the outputs. Filming an object at long range, plugging the heights and range into a calculator and concluding that the earth must be flat is completely ignoring refraction, which is often, as it is in the videos you've posted, very apparent in the footage shot. It's not clear what the creators are suggesting - are they saying that such refraction effects are impossible? In which case we need to go to basic lab experiments showing that it very much is. Or are they saying it could happen, but are challenging the amount of refraction that might be possible? In which case, why? What is the basis for this challenge? If there was genuine curiosity as to what is going on, why not repeat the experiments at different times of the day and different times of year - why not try to get results at a time of known low refraction?

If you wanted to set up a demonstration of extreme atmospheric refraction, making possible the viewing of objects far beyond the expected visible horizon, then you would do it at night over a cold or frozen lake. The more extreme the temperature gradient, the better. 


Quote from: Action80
If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

I can claim it, and I do - the two things are not mutually exclusive. The area of maximum refraction occurs across the lowest layers of the atmosphere, along the earth's surface - that's why the sun and moon lose their apparent circular shape and often become wobbly as they set, and why the shimmer appears in those videos Iceman posted. But, as I said earlier, away from the horizon, refraction effects are minimal, which is how marine navigators can safely navigate using star shots to plot their lat and long.

To pick just one of many FET problems from my previous post(s), consider just the two pole stars, Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Their behaviour simply doesn't match what you would expect if the earth was flat. Their elevation or altitude angle almost perfectly matches the observer's latitude in their respective hemispheres. If you were to attempt to calculate their apparent range based on this fact and a flat earth, you would get completely different results depending on what latitudes your two observation angles were taken from. This cannot be correct, and there is no possible distortion effect that could correct this error for every observed angle to give the same result for all latitude combinations, whilst preserving the constant angular separation between the pole stars and their neighbours. Try it - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, FET issues deepen when you consider that two observers in, for example, South Africa and Australia can observe Sigma Octantis at the same time - there is a small overlap, depending on the time of year, in the hours of darkness for the respective continents. And those two observers will see Sigma Octantis on the same heading - due South, which on the monopole FE map has them standing with their backs to the North pole, which means they facing in different directions, at roughly right angles, and yet are observing the same celestial object at the same time. There is no credible explanation for this, and no feasible distortion mechanism that can explain it within FET. This debate is ongoing on another thread in the FE theory forum, and we are awaiting a reply from Tom on it. I'll be interested to see what he says, as I will be in your thoughts on this as well.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on January 21, 2021, 01:09:56 PM
Thanks for the videos, Iceman.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the enormous effort that clearly goes into the making of these videos, and the contrasting complete absence of any kind of rigour in the designs of the experiments or analysis of the outputs. Filming an object at long range, plugging the heights and range into a calculator and concluding that the earth must be flat is completely ignoring refraction, which is often, as it is in the videos you've posted, very apparent in the footage shot. It's not clear what the creators are suggesting - are they saying that such refraction effects are impossible? In which case we need to go to basic lab experiments showing that it very much is. Or are they saying it could happen, but are challenging the amount of refraction that might be possible? In which case, why? What is the basis for this challenge? If there was genuine curiosity as to what is going on, why not repeat the experiments at different times of the day and different times of year - why not try to get results at a time of known low refraction?

If you wanted to set up a demonstration of extreme atmospheric refraction, making possible the viewing of objects far beyond the expected visible horizon, then you would do it at night over a cold or frozen lake. The more extreme the temperature gradient, the better. 


Quote from: Action80
If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

I can claim it, and I do - the two things are not mutually exclusive. The area of maximum refraction occurs across the lowest layers of the atmosphere, along the earth's surface - that's why the sun and moon lose their apparent circular shape and often become wobbly as they set, and why the shimmer appears in those videos Iceman posted. But, as I said earlier, away from the horizon, refraction effects are minimal, which is how marine navigators can safely navigate using star shots to plot their lat and long.

To pick just one of many FET problems from my previous post(s), consider just the two pole stars, Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Their behaviour simply doesn't match what you would expect if the earth was flat. Their elevation or altitude angle almost perfectly matches the observer's latitude in their respective hemispheres. If you were to attempt to calculate their apparent range based on this fact and a flat earth, you would get completely different results depending on what latitudes your two observation angles were taken from. This cannot be correct, and there is no possible distortion effect that could correct this error for every observed angle to give the same result for all latitude combinations, whilst preserving the constant angular separation between the pole stars and their neighbours. Try it - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, FET issues deepen when you consider that two observers in, for example, South Africa and Australia can observe Sigma Octantis at the same time - there is a small overlap, depending on the time of year, in the hours of darkness for the respective continents. And those two observers will see Sigma Octantis on the same heading - due South, which on the monopole FE map has them standing with their backs to the North pole, which means they facing in different directions, at roughly right angles, and yet are observing the same celestial object at the same time. There is no credible explanation for this, and no feasible distortion mechanism that can explain it within FET. This debate is ongoing on another thread in the FE theory forum, and we are awaiting a reply from Tom on it. I'll be interested to see what he says, as I will be in your thoughts on this as well.
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing. Regardless, you are claiming refraction and other forms of distortion is what contributes to the ability of these lights at ground level to be seen, when they clearly should not be seen according to numbers provided by RET.

Seems you are arguing against your own statements.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on January 21, 2021, 02:50:09 PM
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing.

Shimmer is evidence of large amounts of refraction occurring - it is precisely what you would expect to see in situations where objects are visible well beyond where you would expect the visible horizon to be.

Quote
Regardless, you are claiming refraction and other forms of distortion is what contributes to the ability of these lights at ground level to be seen, when they clearly should not be seen according to numbers provided by RET.

Not other forms of distortion - just refraction. I used the phrase to describe the various effects, real or otherwise (perspective, EA), that FET uses to try to explain the massive disparity between what we would expect to see if the world was flat, and what we actually do see. There isn't really a RET, as such, is there? There's a body of science, the totality of which is entirely consistent with the earth being a globe. The 'numbers provided by RET' that you are referring to are simply the range, without refraction, at which an observer at a certain height would be be able to observe an object of a certain height without the curvature of the earth blocking the view, as it were - simple geometry. Refraction makes it possible to see far further than this, depending on the conditions at the time. This is easily proven, as I said, by repeating observations at different times of day or in different weather conditions. You will find very different observable ranges for the same object/viewer conditions - large temp gradients, in particular, generate large refraction effects.

Quote
Seems you are arguing against your own statements.

No, I'm not. As I said, there is nothing even remotely mysterious about atmospheric refraction. The only odd thing here is why people keep making these videos, often in situations where you expect maximum refraction to occur, and then completely ignore refraction in their analysis. Again, this refraction effect is at a maximum close to the horizontal. That's why the setting sun is often wobbly, but the sun higher in the sky, or the moon or the stars, are a much more stable picture. Hence my point about celestial navigation - you can reliably navigate using the stars, but you would be wise to try to use stars that aren't close to the horizon. And talking of navigation, I'm still awaiting an answer as to how our two observers in Australia and South America can be facing in different directions and yet both be observing the same star on the same southerly heading. Again, there is no credible mechanism that could distort any shape or presentation of the night sky that make could this true for all observers of the southern pole star - it simply doesn't make sense. In the other thread I mentioned I even showed that, for a very brief period of time in the southern hemisphere's winter, it is possible for observers in South America, Africa and Australia to all be in darkness at the same time, all looking south at the same star, even though, according to the monopole FET map, they are facing in three completely different directions. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 02, 2021, 03:17:47 PM
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing.

Shimmer is evidence of large amounts of refraction occurring - it is precisely what you would expect to see in situations where objects are visible well beyond where you would expect the visible horizon to be.
Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 02, 2021, 04:19:13 PM

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 02, 2021, 04:50:51 PM

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.
You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 02, 2021, 05:30:27 PM

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all. 
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 02, 2021, 06:25:58 PM

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all.
Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 02, 2021, 08:36:22 PM

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 02, 2021, 09:36:12 PM
Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

Why do you think an 8 mile long lab is ridiculous?

The LIGO lab's two arms form a 5 mile optical path. 

The LHC lab is over 16 miles long.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 03, 2021, 12:47:40 PM

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?
I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 04, 2021, 09:04:07 AM

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Sorry, I'm now not really clear what your point actually is. Are you saying the lights in the video are, or are not shimmering? And are you saying that mirrors can help you see round corners, but refraction can't?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 04, 2021, 12:18:00 PM

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Sorry, I'm now not really clear what your point actually is. Are you saying the lights in the video are, or are not shimmering? And are you saying that mirrors can help you see round corners, but refraction can't?
You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimmering.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 04, 2021, 12:40:48 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 04, 2021, 02:39:08 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 02:57:24 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 04, 2021, 03:01:36 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 03:09:48 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on February 04, 2021, 04:34:14 PM
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 04, 2021, 04:51:39 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 04, 2021, 04:59:03 PM

29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

So about 0.04 degrees then?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 05:45:22 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 04, 2021, 07:09:15 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 07:46:10 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2021, 12:41:37 PM
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2021, 12:43:27 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 08, 2021, 02:13:39 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

So you are saying that we need to have an 8 mile long lab to test your theory, which clearly isn't going to happen.

Which makes it not a theory, since we can't actually test it to prove or disprove it either way.

You have an interesting hypothesis then, but no way to prove it.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2021, 04:51:23 PM

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

So you are saying that we need to have an 8 mile long lab to test your theory, which clearly isn't going to happen.

Which makes it not a theory, since we can't actually test it to prove or disprove it either way.

You have an interesting hypothesis then, but no way to prove it.
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on February 08, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Waves. On the Great Lakes. Blocking view of a city skyline.

Some big waves can develop on the Great Lakes for sure - unrelated, but check out the info around the "White Hurricane" of 1913 : 35-foot waves!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913

But those are never going to be the reason someone cant see Chicago unless you're standing in the swash zone along the beach. The reason the skyline is transiently visible across that distance is from refractive effects producing a mirage.  Just google "Chicago skyline from Michigan" for some beauty pics and several articles
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 08, 2021, 06:28:49 PM
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.

Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2021, 08:05:21 PM
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Waves. On the Great Lakes. Blocking view of a city skyline.

Some big waves can develop on the Great Lakes for sure - unrelated, but check out the info around the "White Hurricane" of 1913 : 35-foot waves!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913

But those are never going to be the reason someone cant see Chicago unless you're standing in the swash zone along the beach. The reason the skyline is transiently visible across that distance is from refractive effects producing a mirage.  Just google "Chicago skyline from Michigan" for some beauty pics and several articles
Actually, you write as if I would know nothing about it.

I live quite nearby and enjoy cycling along the southern tip of Lake Michigan from Chicago all the way to St. Joseph, MI.

Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that. I have no clue what you are writing about and that is due to the fact you have no clue about what you are writing.

As far as the weather is concerned (in the area between Chicago and Southwest Michigan) it is more often than not, cloudy over that area of Lake Michigan.

These are indeed the reasons for the skyline being out of view of observers.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2021, 08:07:42 PM
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 08, 2021, 09:26:42 PM
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Action80 on February 09, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
I wrote," Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction." I have no clue why you would ask for an experiment I performed to determine refraction does not cause shimmering.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: JSS on February 09, 2021, 05:16:59 PM
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
I wrote," Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction." I have no clue why you would ask for an experiment I performed to determine refraction does not cause shimmering.

You wrote "Shimmer is NOT refraction" and then "Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction" which is rather confusing.  What exactly are you trying to say here?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: AATW on February 16, 2021, 02:42:12 PM
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:

(https://i.ibb.co/kBbkqss/waves-b.jpg)

If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.

(https://i.ibb.co/nDmsNSt/waves.jpg)

Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.
under (https://i.ibb.co/cJ53JBf/waves-d.jpg)

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0817-asktom-20140817-column.html#:~:text=At%20any%20given%20wind%20speed,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Quote
Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Iceman on February 16, 2021, 03:29:01 PM
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:

(https://i.ibb.co/kBbkqss/waves-b.jpg)

If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.

(https://i.ibb.co/nDmsNSt/waves.jpg)

Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.
under (https://i.ibb.co/cJ53JBf/waves-d.jpg)

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0817-asktom-20140817-column.html#:~:text=At%20any%20given%20wind%20speed,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Quote
Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.

A nice demonstration of the situation for sure.

I would just add though that in the situations where the wave  height is greater than the observer height, standing at the normal water's edge would cost you your life :). Cant stand in the swash zone without getting dragged out into the lake by the back-currents (damn those steongly oscillatory flows in the littoral zone!) An observer looking across the lake during storms would need to stand back, and even on the most low relief beach zones, standing back means gaining appreciable observer height as you climb up former beach ridges and semi-active dunes. This is amplified along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan which has numerous active done fields along beach zones, and high, actively eroding bluffs in many other areas.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Longtitube on February 16, 2021, 04:31:26 PM
Make sure when you quote wave heights of 4-8 feet that the height is correctly quoted - does that height measure from water level to wave crest or is it from trough to crest? The second case means the wave height is half that of the first case. AATW’s diagrams don’t illustrate wave behaviour correctly, the troughs don’t all follow the same depth of water unless a shorebreak is being illustrated and the observer is in danger of being swept away.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: stack on February 16, 2021, 04:39:35 PM
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:

(https://i.ibb.co/kBbkqss/waves-b.jpg)

If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.

(https://i.ibb.co/nDmsNSt/waves.jpg)

Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.
under (https://i.ibb.co/cJ53JBf/waves-d.jpg)

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0817-asktom-20140817-column.html#:~:text=At%20any%20given%20wind%20speed,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Quote
Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.

A nice demonstration of the situation for sure.

I would just add though that in the situations where the wave  height is greater than the observer height, standing at the normal water's edge would cost you your life :). Cant stand in the swash zone without getting dragged out into the lake by the back-currents (damn those steongly oscillatory flows in the littoral zone!) An observer looking across the lake during storms would need to stand back, and even on the most low relief beach zones, standing back means gaining appreciable observer height as you climb up former beach ridges and semi-active dunes. This is amplified along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan which has numerous active done fields along beach zones, and high, actively eroding bluffs in many other areas.

I'd be interested to know how wave heights might cover off on these. I couldn't figure out the observer height for each of them, but I'm assuming 6' or greater. And yeah, when looking into these, there is a lot of high-ground on the Eastern side.

(https://i.imgur.com/PeOrehe.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: Longtitube on February 17, 2021, 01:05:12 PM
Stack, I would just like to point out we have gone from talking about viewing Chicago from various places around Lake Michigan to photos of Ontario on Lake Ontario viewed from various places: was that your intention? As for observer height, the photo from Grimsby Beach includes a sailboat and almost all its mast is below the horizon - that should give you an idea how high above water the camera was.

I wonder if the original question about stars will ever be answered?
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: SteelyBob on February 17, 2021, 03:34:20 PM
I wonder if the original question about stars will ever be answered?

I very much doubt that it will be. Tom simply referred to the EA section of the wiki, which is just hopelessly short of being a coherent theory. It doesn't explain why the stars appear to move as one body, rotating around the respective celestial poles, for example - if there was some property of light that caused it to be bent in one plane only, as EA requires, then the star 'picture' we see would distort as the rotation occurred. But it doesn't do that - the only distortion we observe is that caused by refraction, which tends to only really be noticeable very close to the horizon. Oddly, despite arguing strongly for the ability of the atmosphere to distort, Action80 is simultaneously arguing that it isn't possible for light to be refracted around a very small angle of the earth's curvature, as well as some very odd comments about shimmer that I don't think anyone has really decoded.

The other obvious problem is the southern celestial pole and its constant southerly bearing regardless of longitude - that makes no sense on the monopole FE map, and the other FE maps designed to cater for that require ridiculous twists of distance that defy even a basic understanding of geography, and indeed history.

We then got sidetracked into lakes and waves, which is where, it seems, a great deal of FE conversations end up. It's utterly mystifying - there is no photo, video or situation I've ever seen that can't be explained by RE geometry and refraction, and many 'FE proof' videos contain footage that clearly would not be possible if the earth was flat, such as any distant object with a lower portion obscured by the horizon. As AllAroundTheWrold rightly points out, unless you are right down amongst the waves, it's impossible for a wave to obscure an object that is taller than the wave itself, so entire ship's hulls, or large portions of tall buildings, for example, aren't just being obscured by waves on a flat earth - there must be something else going on, which of course is the fact that earth's surface is curved.
Title: Re: Question about the stars.
Post by: stack on February 17, 2021, 09:52:10 PM
Stack, I would just like to point out we have gone from talking about viewing Chicago from various places around Lake Michigan to photos of Ontario on Lake Ontario viewed from various places: was that your intention?

I was responding to "wave height" as some people claim to being the reason why the bottoms of stuff is obscured at a distance. See posts previous to mine - the discussion seemed to morph into "lights at a distance" a couple of pages ago. And whether Chicago or Toronto skylines it doesn't really matter. Just examples.

As for observer height, the photo from Grimsby Beach includes a sailboat and almost all its mast is below the horizon - that should give you an idea how high above water the camera was.

It definitely gives you an idea. But without me having a way to definitively state what the observer height is I'm loathe to speculate other than saying, "6 feet or greater". And the actual observer height doesn't really matter in the example. The visual kind of speaks for itself.

I wonder if the original question about stars will ever be answered?

Probably not.