8501

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 03:33:16 AM »

Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

Where is the evidence that this is made up? The whole reason that these radars, like the JORN, exist is because the surface of the earth is curved.

It shouldn't be possible to "see" over the horizon if the earth is a globe. In order to explain what these radars do, new scientific theories had to be invented.

8502

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 03:28:32 AM »

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

These are not operating on line of sight. I would suggest you read about ground waves and how signals of various wavelength propagate.

I would also pose the question why anyone would bother using a technology that takes advantage of something unnecessary such as ultra low frequency waves. A radar on the modestly high mountain above sea level would cover all required ranges.

Ground waves? Ducting?

The simplest explanation is that the photons just went in a straight line.

Why bother debating the merits of such advanced physics when you can use literal line of sight communication -- a laser pointer -- to test your theory?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to all forms of EM, which is why distant mountains may be faded in the distance by atmosphere.

8503

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 02:56:08 AM »

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Are you sure about that? These types of radios do not use photons as their carrier!

All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons.

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!

8504

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 02:47:41 AM »

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

8505

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 08, 2016, 04:41:32 PM »

The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

8506

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 08, 2016, 04:39:51 PM »

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's, that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens

8507

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Stabilising to the Milky Way shows the rotation of the earth" (gifv)

« on: June 07, 2016, 06:44:21 PM »

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

Perspective

8508

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 07, 2016, 05:41:33 PM »

fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

8509

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 07, 2016, 05:29:50 PM »

It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

How is this even relevant?

Lets see what the light house looks like from the open ocean. It is logical that a light house designer would try to avoid focusing the light directly on the people living behind it.

Here is a light house that seems to be shining directly at the camera:

8510

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 07, 2016, 04:29:05 PM »

It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

You are making it look more and more like "My local bit of earth looks flat, so the earth is flat", the guess everything else!

As I have attempted to stress, but quite unsuccessfully,

the moon does exactly the same thing as we claim the sun does - stays the same size (within exactly the variation predicted from the observer to the moon).

So I'll post it again, and again!

Now, surely you are not going to claim that "glare" magnifies the moon when is near the horizon, while magically retaining all the detail.  The following two photos wer taken recently. The camera was hand-held at 1,600 mm 35 mm equiv focal length, so may not be as sharp as they might be.

20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size  0.516° at - 1600mm

20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.511° at - 1600mm

Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. The different orientations of the moon is simply that I was facing a different direction.
In the left photo the moon is 6.3° above the horizon and the right is 71.5° above the horizon. I "calibrated" the camera by photographing a millimetre tape at a distance of 8 m using the same (1,600 mm) focal length. Note that the photos are not taken on the same night.
In the photo close to the horizon (Alt = 6.3°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1730 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.516°.
In the highest altitude photo (Alt = 71.5°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1713 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.511°.

The calculated apparent sizes for the moon (from size and allowing for the moon's known orbital ellipticity) at those times are: 0.503° for the left photo (cf 0.516°) and 0.498° for the right photo (cf 0.511°). So I'm a bit in my calibration!

The apparent size of the moon does not change size from near the horizon to near overhead other than for the quite calculable changes in distances to the moon.

I could do exactly the same thing for the sun (or YOU could and prove it for yourself), but I haven't got a solar filter and don't intended wasting my money - I am not the one guessing about possible causes - I KNOW!

I don't like shouting but sometimes it is necessary!

The apparent size (as subtended angle of the disk) of the sun and moon do not ckange any more than predicted by the "globe theory"!

It's a magnification effect, so obviously we should expect the moon to be magnified.

8511

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 06, 2016, 01:12:03 PM »

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

So headlights yes?  But not, a lighthouse...



Try again.

It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

8512

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 06, 2016, 04:26:42 AM »

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

8513

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 06, 2016, 04:11:48 AM »

In the Bi-Polar model the sun rotates around the Northern Hemiplane for 6 months out of the year and then shifts over to rotate around the Southern Hemiplane for 6 months. It gradually moves between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. This is what creates the seasons - long summer days and short winter days in the North, and vice versa for the South.

What days of the year does this shift happen? Why don't we see a sudden shift in the path of the sun through the sky?

The shifts happen twice a year around March 20 and September 23 (days which mark the first day of Spring and the first day of Fall). If you live at an appropriate latitude you can see it gradually move between the Tropic of Cancer towards the North Pole and then towards the Tropic of Capricorn towards the South Pole.

Here it is on a shift day between the two hemiplanes, on the first day of Spring:

8514

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 06, 2016, 03:38:29 AM »

In the Bi-Polar model the sun rotates around the Northern Hemiplane for 6 months out of the year and then shifts over to rotate around the Southern Hemiplane for 6 months. It gradually moves between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. This is what creates the seasons - long summer days and short winter days in the North, and vice versa for the South.

8515

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 05, 2016, 09:05:15 PM »

How small should they be?  Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.

They certainly should not be the same size down the entirety of the highway.

So you found some photos and video of headlights at a distance of, what, a half mile?  And you extrapolate from there to how the sun appears from thousands of miles away?  You must have forgotten that you don't believe that small-scale evidence is representative of large scale behavior.  Perhaps a reminder is in order (emphasis added):

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.

Replace "math" with "photo" and you've argued against your own attempt to prove sun glare from headlight evidence.

But you have suggested a method before, which you can use now (emphasis added):

Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.

All a Flat Earther need do is find a place where you can see a car headlight "at that sort of distance", photograph it, and get back to us.  The wiki has the sun at an elevation of "about 3000 miles" at local noon, and more than twice that at apparent sunset due to moving west around its path.  But I'll accept a much shorter distance: if the effect you describe is real (and if the earth is flat) you should be able to photograph headlights in Chicago from a vantage point on the east flank of the Rockies, and they should be HUGE after all that atmospheric magnification!

What I've posted is evidence for a magnification effect which contradicts perspective rules. Whether this is what is happening to the sun is not approached.

The effects I've shown directly contradict the statement of the OP: "Stuff appears smaller with distance. This is common knowledge."

8516

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Stabilising to the Milky Way shows the rotation of the earth" (gifv)

« on: June 05, 2016, 08:47:38 PM »

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

8517

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 05, 2016, 08:28:33 PM »

Headlights are configured to illuminate the ground in front of them, the sockets are angled downwards (a few degrees).

They'll obviously appear brighter at a distance when filmed like this at a higher altitude when pointing in the direction of the camera.

You can't use this for comparison, at all. It's shocking that it's actually needed to tell you that.

The inconsistent perspective effect is also seen on other types of light sources:

8518

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 05, 2016, 02:42:57 PM »

I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.

1.  This is not glare.  This is out of focus.

2.  If you notice the intensity of light coming from the farthest objects is dim and the light gets brighter as the object get closer to the camera.  To support your claim of magical magnification, if this where an actual representation of glare, the light coming from the farthest objects would have the same intensity as those closer to the camera since something is magically magnifying the light.  This can even be seen in the two objects on the right of the image which are receding from the camera, the intensity of the light diminished with distance.

Sir fantastic Rowbotham's statement is completely off base.  Light diffused by a material (any material, including the atmosphere) is not magnified.  Covering a bare bulb with a semi-opaque cover does not make the light brighter.  By the logic of his statement and those you've made in support of, the light of the moon should be noticeably (if not incredibly) brighter on a completely cloud covered night simply because clouds are the "aqueous particles" which he speaks of.

The effect of lights remaining the same size into the distance is possible in other scenes which are clearly in focus. Look at the headlights in this video. The lights in the distance are clearly much bigger than the dim pinpricks of light they should be:

8519

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Stabilising to the Milky Way shows the rotation of the earth" (gifv)

« on: June 05, 2016, 09:43:49 AM »

What's impossible about either movement?

1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.

I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.

But not all of the sky can be seen at the same time, so depending on where you look the stars can be seen to be traveling vertically into the horizon.

So you disagree with point number 2?

Let me make sure I understand your point: You are saying that this photo is not demonstrating rotation around a horizontal axis. Only a vertical axis. Is this correct?

If you look to the West you will see the sun generally set vertically into the horizon once it passes over. The same holds with the stars.

8520

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 04, 2016, 03:40:03 AM »

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.

Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.

Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.

If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.

I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?

So no evidence for the claim after all, then?