[Tumeni]

Tom, do you think there's any Inferior Mirage at play in this instance?



Tried to discuss here, but you walked.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14416.0

[iamcpc]

Tom, do you think there's any Inferior Mirage at play in this instance?



https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14416.0

based on your logic that what if we observe A the shape of the earth is a sphere and if we observe B the shape of the earth is flat:




The video below shows that the shape of the earth must be changing on a regular basis:





I personally don't believe that the shape of the earth is changing on a regular basis. So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

[stack]

I personally don't believe that the shape of the earth is changing on a regular basis. So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

Not all viewing conditions are 'chaotic'.

[iamcpc]

I personally don't believe that the shape of the earth is changing on a regular basis. So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

Not all viewing conditions are 'chaotic'.

All observations made in chaos (the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE) by definition are chaotic.
This claim is supported by many pictures and observations made by Bobby Shafto. There were situations where observations have been made at the same time, same temperature, same atmospheric pressure, same humidity, same altitude, same location, same season and had completely different results. Why? Chaotic atmospheric and optical conditions. Maybe The pollen count in the air during observation A was totally different than the pollen count in the air during observation B.  Maybe the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was unusually high for one of the observations? Maybe the light passed through an area with very very high concentrations of water molecules?


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic

Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"



Chaos:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE

[stack]

I personally don't believe that the shape of the earth is changing on a regular basis. So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

Not all viewing conditions are 'chaotic'.

All observations made in chaos (the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE) by definition are chaotic.
This claim is supported by many pictures and observations made by Bobby Shafto. There were situations where observations have been made at the same time, same temperature, same atmospheric pressure, same humidity, same altitude, same location, same season and had completely different results. Why? Chaotic atmospheric and optical conditions. Maybe The pollen count in the air during observation A was totally different than the pollen count in the air during observation B.  Maybe the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was unusually high for one of the observations? Maybe the light passed through an area with very very high concentrations of water molecules?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic

Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"

Chaos:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE

So what you are saying is that all direct observations of evidence for curvature or lack thereof when viewed within earth's atmosphere are erroneous? So we throw out all ships over horizons, sunsets and sunrises as well as all of Rowbotham's 'Earth Not a Globe' lighthouse/canal observations, etc? In essence, none of these types of observations mean anything because inherently the atmosphere is chaotic. If so, it does kind of simplify things.

[iamcpc]

So what you are saying is that all direct observations of evidence for curvature or lack thereof when viewed within earth's atmosphere are erroneous?

No. I'm saying that it's unfair to say 100% proof that the earth is round when it might, in reality, be 100% proof of chaotic optical conditions.

It might be a situation where it's 80% optics and 20% curve.
It might be a situation where it's 80% curve and 20% optics.

To claim that this is "PROOF" of curvature without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved  is erroneous.

So we throw out all ships over horizons, sunsets and sunrises as well as all of Rowbotham's 'Earth Not a Globe' lighthouse/canal observations, etc? In essence, none of these types of observations mean anything because inherently the atmosphere is chaotic. If so, it does kind of simplify things.

It's not that they are thrown out. It's that they can't be accounted as evidence supporting ANY shape of the earth without first accounting for very chaotic and very random optical and atmospheric conditions.

In the time lapse video i had shown distant objects went from disappearing over a horizon just to appear 15 minutes later when the optical and atmospheric conditions changed.

 Many people say that distant objects disappearing behind the horizon = round earth

what do they say about  distant objects disappearing behind the horizon then reappearing and then disappearing and then reappearing without going any further or closer to the observer?






it's like saying if two arrows face to the right the earth is a cube. Look I have a picture of two arrows facing right the earth is a cube!


Wait a minute, if you account for refraction, the arrows are really facing left.

[stack]

So what you are saying is that all direct observations of evidence for curvature or lack thereof when viewed within earth's atmosphere are erroneous?

No. I'm saying that it's unfair to say 100% proof that the earth is round when it might, in reality, be 100% proof of chaotic optical conditions.

It might be a situation where it's 80% optics and 20% curve.
It might be a situation where it's 80% curve and 20% optics.

To claim that this is "PROOF" of curvature without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved  is erroneous.

How would you go about addressing the chaos?

So we throw out all ships over horizons, sunsets and sunrises as well as all of Rowbotham's 'Earth Not a Globe' lighthouse/canal observations, etc? In essence, none of these types of observations mean anything because inherently the atmosphere is chaotic. If so, it does kind of simplify things.

It's not that they are thrown out. It's that they can't be accounted as evidence supporting ANY shape of the earth without first accounting for very chaotic and very random optical and atmospheric conditions.

In the time lapse video i had shown distant objects went from disappearing over a horizon just to appear 15 minutes later when the optical and atmospheric conditions changed.

 Many people say that distant objects disappearing behind the horizon = round earth

what do they say about  distant objects disappearing behind the horizon then reappearing and then disappearing and then reappearing without going any further or closer to the observer?

They say the distant object turned back toward them and came back over the horizon. Or in the skunk bay vid, there was some miraging going on for sure. Then there are cases where there is atmospheric chaos and the ship still disappears over the horizon and is not seen again. In the case of a sunset disappearing over the horizon, it doesn't come back toward me 15 minutes later. It shows up at my back about 12 hours later, atmospheric chaos or not.

it's like saying if two arrows face to the right the earth is a cube. Look I have a picture of two arrows facing right the earth is a cube!

Wait a minute, if you account for refraction, the arrows are really facing left.

Humans typically aren't looking at the world through a glass of water. If we did, that would wreak havoc on driving:

[Tumeni]

based on your logic that what if we observe A the shape of the earth is a sphere and if we observe B the shape of the earth is flat:

So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

Sorry, but both sentences here are un-punctuated gibberish.

[Tumeni]

There were situations where observations have been made at the same time, same temperature, same atmospheric pressure, same humidity, same altitude, same location, same season and had completely different results.

What about the situations where consistent results are achieved from day to day, though?

[Tumeni]

To claim that this is "PROOF" of curvature without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved  is erroneous.

Nobody claimed that, though.

The only claim in the video I posted at the outset is that the observation is impossible on a Flat Earth.

Another YouTuber attempted to disprove this by repeating the exercise on a different day, in different conditions, in the reverse direction, and ended up confirming the video above. The video author above has been back on at least two different occasions with the same result.

[Tom Bishop]

We talked about this video already. The author is arguing that the observations match up somewhere near what Standard Refraction predicts, not what RET predicts. Now you need to show that RE Standard Refraction is valid.

iampc is correct. There are optical effects occurring. You are arguing without basis that light is curving in the way you need it to, for your model, as opposed to any other; which is fallacious in the extreme.

We have an equation for one theory, but it needs another equation to match with reality in some sort of standard manner. Those equations will therefore need to be demonstrated for validity.

[Tumeni]

We talked about this video already.

Yes, and you abandoned the thread.

The author is arguing that the observations match up somewhere near what Standard Refraction predicts, not what RET predicts.

As I pointed out before, he only mentions refraction because his critics wrongly apply it to their debunk. So he corrects them. Look at the whole transcript, not just your cherry-pick

Now you need to show that RE Standard Refraction is valid.

Why? I'm not asserting any effect due to any kind of refraction, standard or not. I'm looking at the observation on its own, and asserting it's not a possibility on a Flat Earth.

I'm asking YOU if you think there's an Inferior Mirage involved. If you do, tell us WHY you think that.

iampc is correct. There are optical effects occurring.

What are these effects? Please list them.

You are arguing without basis that light is curving in the way you need it to, for your model, as opposed to any other; which is fallacious in the extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything other than a straight sightline between two objects, and the continuation of such sightline to a third, higher object. You're the one to first mention curving light, not me. I'm not arguing anything based on the commentary on the video, I'm only concerned with the observation itself. 

We have an equation for one theory, but it needs another equation to match with reality in some sort of standard manner. Those equations will therefore need to be demonstrated for validity.

What needs to be demonstrated?

[Tumeni]

We talked about this video already. The author is arguing that the observations match up somewhere near what Standard Refraction predicts, not what RET predicts.

No, he is not.

Refraction is only mentioned in his rebuttal of other critics, who did not apply it correctly. Refraction forms no part of the core commentary;

(Intro & Welcome)

I want to talk once again about this observation that I first published a couple of weeks ago; this single photograph that completely destroys the whole notion that the earth can be flat. The observation was made from a hill called Traprain Law in East Lothian, and I want to go over briefly why it destroys the Flat Earth idea, and then to deal with some of the comments and arguments that have been made by flat-earthers in an effort to explain it.

So; my camera was at a height of 210 meters on a hill called Traprain Law in East Lothian, just below the summit of that hill which is confirmed by a an OS trig point to be 221 meters. I was about 11-12 meters below the summit of that hill, the bridge tower in this picture is at 210 meters. I say the bridge tower, there are several I'm referring to - this bridge tower here nearest to the center of the shot, this is the central tower of the Queensferry Crossing bridge; here is the North Tower of that bridge, and the South Tower of that bridge; the central tower is 210 meters, the north and south towers are 202 meters. There is also a suspension bridge the South Tower here, North Tower here, and you can see the suspension cable running between the two, and these are a hundred and fifty-six meters above sea level at the top, and then there is the rail bridge, the old Victorian rail bridge which is in closest to the camera in the foreground.

Now the hills in the background of the observation … are greater than five hundred meters tall, and there are four hills over five hundred meters that have been identified on the far left of shot here. I haven't identified individual Peaks because they're more of a kind of Ridge, don't  have particular Peaks on them, but these  are around five hundred meters and the hill in between the North Tower and the central tower is called Cairnoch Hill and is four hundred and thirteen meters above sea level. Now anyone who understands perspective, anybody who understands about angular size will realize that nothing that is more than 210 meters above sea level nothing more than 210 metres above sea level can appear above a line drawn across the screen level with the top of this tower this is a simple rule of perspective and so the fact that we have Cairnoch Hill here, 413 meters above sea level and we have some hills over here 500 meters above sea level that are level with the top of this tower, or below the top of this tower is impossible to do if the earth is flat. It's impossible to take this image if the earth is flat. Furthermore, what we see here can be shown to match globe earth predictions exactly, both in this image and in a more zoomed-out version of the same scene. 

When I posted my original video I challenged flat-earthers to explain this observation using flat earth geometry explain how this is possible on a flat earth I also gave them the opportunity to do that by a video or live on my channel or if they wanted to in the comments section - comment section is not ideal but I wanted them to be able to use that facility and maybe to post links to videos explaining how this observation might be possible on a flat earth a few people have tried to do so some have said it's simply perspective well unfortunately perspective is the very reason that this is impossible on a flat earth so let's quickly go over that again. Here is a side-on view of the observation in diagrammatic form a different scale vertically and horizontally - meters vertically and kilometers horizontally and we see that looking from 210 meters across the top of a tower at 210 meters this line of sight runs parallel to the surface of the earth - anything taller than 210 meters will be above that line in our line of sight; it will appear above this structure in the photograph - anything shorter than 210 meters will be below this line, and will be below the top of the object because … image in our photograph because the angle from which the light has to travel to reach the camera is upwards or downwards if it's a taller object anything that's exactly the same height as this on a flat earth should appear at exactly the same height as the bridge Tower.

We can confirm this using a simple demonstration using soda cans … this is a simple fact about perspective and is the reason why I set the observation up and the way that I did on a globe earth things are very different on a curved surface because of the curvature; our line of sight is not parallel to the surface and therefore objects in the distance may appear … a 500 meter object can appear below the  height of a 200 meter object it's closer to the camera, so this is the observation and we can draw a line across the screen level with the top of the tower you'll see that the north and south towers are slightly shorter confirming what we know about their heights and we see that Cairnoch Hill at 430 meters above sea level is significantly below the line and these hills at 500m or thereabouts above sea level level with or maybe in places just above the line that's impossible if the earth is flat. Now, the people claiming perspective is the answer or that I don't understand perspective are wrong I understand perspective quite well enough to see that this image is impossible to take on a flat earth ….

however let's look at their analysis and see what it showed  ... so what they got was this; they placed a ruler with zero on the ruler at the base of bridgetower and they then
manipulated the size of the ruler perfectly legitimately so that the reading on the ruler for the top of the bridgetower matched the angular size so theirs was a ... as I said
they've used the wrong angular size for bridgetower ...

As far as I'm aware they haven't shown that it does match

... we see just how much the observation disagrees with what is expected on a flat earth - if the earth was flat, the tops of these five hills should be where the white lines are, so not only does the observation match the globe earth, well not only is it impossible for the hills the hilltops to be in the location that they are on the image on a flat earth due to the laws of perspective and how perspective actually
works in the real world, but the Flat Earth predictions are wildly different to what we observe in reality.

As I said at the start this one photograph destroys the Flat Earth idea any flat earther who watches this video and still thinks that the earth can be flat is simply denying reality.

This photograph is not unique. there are many many photographs many many reasons why the earth cannot be flat this is just one but it is one that is present something  very simple very easy to observe and very easy to understand if the earth was flat these hills should be where these white lines are and they're not so the earth cannot be flat it's very very simple we can still have a debate and a discussion about whether the earth really is spherical or not there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the earth is spherical but there is no evidence that the earth is flat none at all every photograph taken on the earth that includes objects in the distance like buildings and hills and so on if you could analyze that photograph accurately you would find that it does not match Flat Earth predictions every photograph disproves Flat Earth this one  just does it in a simple way and one that's not to unpleased to the eye so if any flat earther thinks I've got something wrong here if any flat earther thinks they can explain this observation on a flat earth please be my guest but please do me the courtesy of actually telling me that you're doing it.

[iamcpc]

based on your logic that what if we observe A the shape of the earth is a sphere and if we observe B the shape of the earth is flat:

So what claim to prove that the earth is round all FE models can claim to prove that there is refraction and optical phenomenon based on chaotic viewing conditions.

Sorry, but both sentences here are un-punctuated gibberish.

my bad. I had a meeting starting in a few minutes that i forgot about so I didn't have time to proof read.

You failed to respond to the core point of my post.

Round earth Logic:
A distant object disappearing over the Horizon = Round earth

Flat earth logic
A distant object disappearing over the horizon = Optical phenomenon

I presented you a time lapse video in which a distant object disappeared and reappeared from behind the horizion many times over the span of several hours.  What is the round earth logic behind that? Based on that time lapse video the FE logic seems more sound to me personally.

There were situations where observations have been made at the same time, same temperature, same atmospheric pressure, same humidity, same altitude, same location, same season and had completely different results.

What about the situations where consistent results are achieved from day to day, though?

If we string together a few days or even weeks where the optical conditions remain stable there still could  be a situation, 15 minutes later, where the optical conditions change and the observation changes dramatically.

To claim that this is "PROOF" of curvature without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved  is erroneous.

Nobody claimed that, though.

The only claim in the video I posted at the outset is that the observation is impossible on a Flat Earth.

I say proof the earth is round you say impossible (or disprove) flat earth. Same difference. Many people have claimed that an object disappearing over the horizon either:
A. Disproves the flat earth
B. Proves the round earth

To claim either of these things without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved is erroneous

iampc is correct. There are optical effects occurring.

What are these effects? Please list them.

I don't have a degree in optical sciences and engineering so I don't know all the things that can happen in these different situations. Here is a list of optical phenomena:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_phenomena
"Common optical phenomena are often due to the interaction of light from the sun or moon with the atmosphere, clouds, water, dust, and other particulates."


Refraction is one which I know can happen


Furthermore the wiki article explains that there are some optical phenomena which have yet to be conclusively explained and, more than likely, there are some that have yet to even be discovered. We are failing miserably to account for ANY optical phenomena.

[Tumeni]

You failed to respond to the core point of my post.

Round earth Logic:
A distant object disappearing over the Horizon = Round earth

Flat earth logic
A distant object disappearing over the horizon = Optical phenomenon

...except the observation I cited at the beginning of the thread does not involve a disappearance over a horizon.

I presented you a time lapse video in which a distant object disappeared and reappeared from behind the horizion many times over the span of several hours.  What is the round earth logic behind that?

Given that you haven't specified which object, how far away it is, and how high the camera is, all that this appears to present is a situation where temperature variants near to the surface cause mirage effects, refraction and the like. Tidal effects would appear to be involved, too.

This is why the observation I cited is the interesting one - it's 200m+ above the level of the river at the centre of the river valley being looked over, the river is a good few km away, and most of the observation is over land.

No near-surface optical effects. No?

If we string together a few days or even weeks where the optical conditions remain stable there still could  be a situation, 15 minutes later, where the optical conditions change and the observation changes dramatically.

So what? Surely you base any conclusion on the majority of consistent observations, rather than throwing the whole series out due to one off day ....?

I say proof the earth is round you say impossible (or disprove) flat earth. Same difference. Many people have claimed that an object disappearing over the horizon either:
A. Disproves the flat earth
B. Proves the round earth

To claim either of these things without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved is erroneous

Except, once again, the observation I cite does not involve any object disappearing over a horizon. I'm happy to address optical conditions, if you could provide any indication as to which could be involved in this particular situation, or identify any which you see in the video.

Given that the video author has repeated the observation more than once, and someone else repeated it in the opposite direction, all on different days, with consistent results, I would suggest that pretty much wraps it up.

I'm within striking distance of the observation location, I could go repeat it myself, but given all the scepticism from FE-ers on the YouTube comments, regarding "height/distance not proven", "camera tilt not accounted for", etc., I asked if the FE-ers would outline their specific methods for proving all this BEFORE I go climbing that 221 metre hill. Not one did, not a single one.