Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s
I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.
I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.
I wonder what their argument will be?
Atmospheric ductThese are also relevant:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg/743px-Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg)
Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct)
In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.
Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.
Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.
The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
I'll ignore your attempt at demeaning but your usual mode of attack seems to attack the messenger.Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.
Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.DIfference between where and where?
Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.
This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.
For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.It is not the temperature difference between the observers that matters but the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.[/quote]
The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.
Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.
He's talking about the people in the video using a mirror.Quote from: sandokhanThe use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.
The next opportunity I get, I'm going to try the same afternoon mirror method across a 13-mile over-ocean span between La Jolla and Encinitas, and the 20-mile span between La Jolla and Carlsbad.I'd be interested to see the results.
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0
The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:You cannot "prove Earth is flat" from a few short distance laser tests especially when conducted close to a water or ice surface.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pf2vbx9jx9pgext/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%231.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6lrrty8ttngd96/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%232.jpg?dl=1) |
The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...Am I missing something? I see no reference to the "Discovery Channel video" in that post?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.
What the frell is this?
The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:
((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw))
You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.
Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!
Another user writes:
"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'
"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
This is essentially the front runner hypothesis in my mind, at least for this one. It's not a perfect match for how things might be working with some of the laser experiments, but it's definitely a contender for what's going on here. Reflecting the sun, while a great idea, introduces some curiosities because of how bright the light is. If you watch the reflection of the light on the beach you can also see how the mirror bends as she moves it, it's not perfectly flat all the time. This could help explain the difference in brightness of the flashes, as more or less of the light is reflected to the correct area to produce whatever is happening. This is all supposition and hypothesizing though. But a lot of your points also make sense in this context. Getting a beam of light that should be just 3 ft around to strike a camera from 13 miles away? In the way it's occurring? Something more is happening here, but they don't control the usage of the mirror enough to make much more than some random guesses.I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.
Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?I viewed some raw videos and found them consistent with the final cut, no evident trickery.
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe.Not quite. The "Sinking Ship Effect" was just one of the pieces of evidence.
Pythagoras' pupils, if not the great man himself, knew that the Earth is round. Traveller's tales of ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky as one journeyed north suggested a curved Earth.
sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.
Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator).And during the Greek period there were measure of the:
However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent.I totally disagree. The variability of atmospheric conditions has been known and investigated for a long time.
More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.As noted above, such variability is to be expected. To be meaningful these observations must be repeated under different conditions and in different seasons.
In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.As I said above, "exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower" is precisely where the temperature gradient is highest.
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!...are you shitting me? Is that seriously your rebuttal?
What methodology was used to derive these error percentages? How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.
(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
What methodology was used to derive these error percentages? How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.
(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
Okay, I'll read through that thread later. The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel. Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased. That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.What methodology was used to derive these error percentages? How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.
(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.
Okay, I'll read through that thread later. The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel. Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased. That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1So what?
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.
What the frell is this?
The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:QuoteRubbish!((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw))
You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.QuoteWhat makes you think that I haven't? Those comments are meaningless twaddle.Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.Quote from: riadelarSo because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!
Another user writes:QuoteThis video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'
"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!
Look at these two screenshots:There is no possible way that making the image larger will make the container ship become visible unless you can show how a zoom lens or telesope can bend distant light.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pf2vbx9jx9pgext/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%231.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6lrrty8ttngd96/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%232.jpg?dl=1)
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.
Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE&index=151&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.
Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE&index=151&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
I see it.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/os6asz.jpg)
Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/o91xdg.jpg)
I see it.
Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small for the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.
OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.
OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
It's not sinking from view bottom-up. It's diminishing to a point. The horizon is not what hides the boat. It's lost at the horizon due to resolution. Beyond the distance of the horizon, no telephoto zooming will restore a hidden object to sight. But climbing in height will, even with reduced zoom.
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.
On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.
From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.
On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.
From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder. The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood. Take a big telescope to the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden. No amount of zooming will bring it back. This is literally that easy. If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.QuoteI am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.QuoteAre the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder. The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood. Take a big telescope to the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden. No amount of zooming will bring it back. This is literally that easy. If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.
You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.
Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.QuoteI am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.QuoteAre the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.
The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder. The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood. Take a big telescope to the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden. No amount of zooming will bring it back. This is literally that easy. If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.
You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.
Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)
So, you are telling me that atmospheric refraction is hiding just the bottom half, but not the top half? Isn't the distance from viewer to what is hidden and what is not the same? Please explain why raising your telescope to a higher elevation brings the bottom half into view. This simple demonstration destroys the refraction argument.
If I were to Facebook livestream a tankers bottom half disappearing at the shoreline through a telescope then walk up to higher elevation and the shop is fully visible again, would you believe the curvature is blocking that ship?
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
Oh look, the same video you posted before that's far too fuzzy to tell anything about it. Just the same song and dance as in the other thread. You don't engage, you just switch topics and pretend nobody else can understand what you're saying. Boring. You take care.This isn't what occurs at sunset however.The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.
Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.QuoteI am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.QuoteAre the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.
The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)
(https://i.imgur.com/lrxTnm2.jpg)
Or this way:
2)
(https://i.imgur.com/WnOyfmM.jpg)
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away. Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?
Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument. After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.Not like any sunset I've ever seen. The sunsets in my world don't have the sun disappear into dot. Every sunset I've seen has the sun as a big orb sink as if setting behind a hill.
That's the point of the investigation? Is it a flat plane or a convex surface? If it's flat, there's nothing to sink into. If it's convex, there is.
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?Again, that's the question, isn't it? If it's flat, they are. If it's convex, they're not.
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?No. Obviously, I don't. I conclude from the sinking phenomenon that the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions.
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away. Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?
Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument. After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.
Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.
BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away. Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?
Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument. After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.
Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.
BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.
This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?
Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.
No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away. Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?
Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument. After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.
Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.
BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.
This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?
No, see the following pic.
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.Not like any sunset I've ever seen. The sunsets in my world don't have the sun disappear into dot. Every sunset I've seen has the sun as a big orb sink as if setting behind a hill.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwn5c6aPmVcThat's the point of the investigation? Is it a flat plane or a convex surface? If it's flat, there's nothing to sink into. If it's convex, there is.
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits". Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
So, does it sink or not?Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?Again, that's the question, isn't it? If it's flat, they are. If it's convex, they're not.
You know I'm stumping for convexity based on the appearance of bottom-up sinking. So my answer is "no." They are not on the same horizontal plane, and the bottom-up sinking is evidence of that.Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?No. Obviously, I don't. I conclude from the sinking phenomenon that the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions.
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.
But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.
I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.
I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA. I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video. If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.
We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months. I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).
During you research please consider the following.No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
During you research please consider the following.No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.
During you research please consider the following.No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.
Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.
Are you asking me something different from what you've been asking in this topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)?
During you research please consider the following.No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.
Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.
Maybe here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.
But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.
I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.
I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA. I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video. If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.
We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months. I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).
I am new here. When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther. That was my fault.
I would like to see your results of the experiment.
During you research please consider the following.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.
But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.
I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.
I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA. I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video. If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.
We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months. I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).
I am new here. When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther. That was my fault.
I would like to see your results of the experiment.
During you research please consider the following.
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?
Would we get away from issues of refraction close to the surface of an expanse of water by simply looking over a valley, a few hundred metres above sea level, and sighting on two objects of known height?
Such as the Grand Canyon ledges? I don’t think anything over a valley with height data will be accepted by any FE. That height above sea level is taken from GPS or other RE means so any conclusions would be suspect.
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s
I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.
I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.
I wonder what their argument will be?
The following references might be useful:QuoteAtmospheric ductThese are also relevant:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg/743px-Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg)
Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct)
In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.
Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.
Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.
The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
Calculating Ray Bending (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html) This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate needed to cause ducting.
Ducts (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/duct.html) More specific discussion of ducts, with diagrams.
Marine layer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_layer) Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects. (https://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html)
Maybe someone can make something of that material.
Certainly, the light from the mirror has bloomed due to the air (surface level moisture and haze), but that wouldn't defeat surface curvature.
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Which map shows the earth is flat?Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
All maps are flat, except for globes. The map of the terrain is flat, therefore the terrain that it represents is flat.Which map shows the earth is flat?Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Many maps show the projection used, as you know.All maps are flat, except for globes. The map of the terrain is flat, therefore the terrain that it represents is flat.Which map shows the earth is flat?Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Light houses are built to put the light as high above the sea as is practical. The higher the better under the round earth paradigm. Seamen need these lighthouses for navigation. If the earth were flat then it would be better to save the money used to build a tower and just build a more powerful & bigger light. It wasn't done that way because the earth is round.The original lighthouse on Point Loma -- the beacon lighting the approaches to San Diego -- was built on the highest elevation of Cabrillo Point in 1855. During the 35 years it was in operation, it was the highest lighthouse in the US. But that proved to be it's bane, since the California coast is often visited by low ceiling marine layer and fog. In 1891, the old lighthouse was extinguished and the current lighthouse built on the lower 90' bluffs went into operation.
Here's a short clip of today's mirror test. Note that this flash is the result of using a 7" diameter round mirror.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0kzOTXSEI
Here's a short clip of today's mirror test. Note that this flash is the result of using a 7" diameter round mirror.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0kzOTXSEI
Here's a quick capture from today's test from ~22 miles away, with significant surface haze. Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2cctjye.jpg)
The diameter of that flash subtends about 0.02°, and at a range of 113,804' that makes it nearly 40'.10' tall if at the distance of that apartment tower along the line of sight. But it's more than double that distance, so it might be more like 25'Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:And one that looks about 10’ tall.
The diameter of that flash subtends about 0.02°, and at a range of 113,804' that makes it nearly 40'.10' tall if at the distance of that apartment tower along the line of sight. But it's more than double that distance, so it might be more like 25'Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:And one that looks about 10’ tall.
40' from this 7" mirror.
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/332t35j.jpg)
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?
Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.
Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
Do these figures validate a flat plane? Or are the angles less than what they should be? I propose using the utility housing on the top of the 14-story apartment building as a gauge. It's approximately 16-17' tall at a distance of 45,820' which puts that vertical 14 pixel height at about 0.02°. The tip of the pyramid and the signal mirror reflection are both lower than should be on a flat plane.
So we agree on the flat results, but not on the sphere. Not sure why, but I'll attach my spreadsheet so you can have a look...
That'll be it. :)
With refraction, I get: 0.0333°, 0.0520°, and 0.0870° - same.
Cheers Bobby, that's actually really useful for something else. :)
If you look at the video the camera and people aren't at sea level, sea level would be touching the water. It is well above the sea level as is the mirror she is not at the water either.Allow me to play the flat earth advocate since the folks who performed this demo do not participate on this forum and won't see your insult.
Please learn how to do a scientific experiment and not just some mileninal political science majors attempt at one.
I haven't cracked the code on when to expect inferior mirage or not. Some days it's absent. More often than not, it's there though. Sometimes strong like on this day. Other days weak. But looking at air temp, sea temp, time of day doesn't afford me anything predictive.
What I want to know is what is behind the inverted image of the mirage? If you could erase it, would you see more of the distant land below that line where the mirror flash became obscured? Or you see the sea rise and reveal itself to be what is obscuring the light? I think I understand the answer, but I don't know for sure. I'll just have to keep doing this, hoping for another clear day when there is no distortion by mirage.
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.In fact, when the mirror and camera were down close to the water, the flashes were strange odd shapes.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.If you notice how the mirror shines on the sand at distance, it wasn't flat. It was curved, with a focal length of 50 feet depending on how she was holding it. It was kind of a thin mirror and not too ridged.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.
Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.