Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 ... 80 81 [82] 83 84 ... 135  Next >
1621
We talked about this video already. The author is arguing that the observations match up somewhere near what Standard Refraction predicts, not what RET predicts.

No, he is not.

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

Quote
(Intro & Welcome)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


1622
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The three-body problem wiki article
« on: April 25, 2019, 09:13:24 AM »
If the three bodies concerned are the Sun, Earth and Moon, then wouldn't that make it exceedingly difficult to navigate a craft to and from the Earth, if the "equations" were wrong?

However, Israel managed it recently, China and Saudi Arabia not long before that, and in the past, USA, Russia, Japan and India have all managed it.

1623
We talked about this video already.

Yes, and you abandoned the thread.


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

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

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

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

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


iampc is correct. There are optical effects occurring.


What are these effects? Please list them.

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


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

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

What needs to be demonstrated?

1624
To claim that this is "PROOF" of curvature without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved  is erroneous.

Nobody claimed that, though.

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

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

1625
There were situations where observations have been made at the same time, same temperature, same atmospheric pressure, same humidity, same altitude, same location, same season and had completely different results.

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

1626
based on your logic that what if we observe A the shape of the earth is a sphere and if we observe B the shape of the earth is flat:

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

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

1627
Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth - No Boat Went Over The Horizon
« on: April 24, 2019, 03:31:57 PM »
Extended discussion thread

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14548.0

Tom, please comment there

1628
Tom, do you think there's any Inferior Mirage at play in this instance?



Tried to discuss here, but you walked.

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

1629
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The three-body problem wiki article
« on: April 24, 2019, 03:27:05 PM »
If the three body problem is unsolved then there is no working model.

Why?

Surely not " ... because I  (you) say so" ?

1630
Flat Earth Investigations / What Investigations are ongoing?
« on: April 22, 2019, 05:42:37 PM »
Title of sub-forum is Flat Earth Investigations.

What investigations are ongoing?
Who is doing the investigating?
What methods are they employing?

??

1631
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reverse psychology
« on: April 22, 2019, 02:38:15 PM »
It opens questions: if the world is 3390+ mile radius and the flatness doesn’t match the “supposed” stats.

How was the flatness measured against the supposed stats to determine a mismatch?

Why should I believe the diameter is 3390 miles?

Because the circumference has been measured numerous times (see my mod-removed post), and derivation of diameter from circumference is basic school-level trig, and not open to dispute.

According to the measurements our world is larger than what they say.

Which measurements?

1632
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How to Upload Images?
« on: April 21, 2019, 03:12:59 PM »
OR

Having uploaded pic to imgur, click on your user avatar at top right and select "Images"

Single-click on the one you want to upload, and you should get a selection of link options;



I click on 'copy' for the BBCode option, and paste it directly into the reply box (no clicking on the image icon)

1633
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How to Upload Images?
« on: April 20, 2019, 07:53:55 AM »
Have the image hosted elsewhere (imgur, etc)

Click the "Insert Image" box above the reply box, and paste URL of image in.

If available, use the BBCode supplied by the host site (imgur does this) and paste that URL in without using Insert Image

1634
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 19, 2019, 10:33:50 AM »
Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.

How do you arrive at that label for Musk?

Customers pay his car company for electric cars. Do they get electric cars? They do, same as customers of Ford, GM, etc get fuel-driven cars when they pay for them

SpaceX has a documented history of launching commercial satellites for paying customers. Do you dispute that the customers get a deployed satellite at the end of the day?

1635
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature or round edge?
« on: April 18, 2019, 12:45:25 PM »
My theory is that if you go way up in the air, you recreate the same angle and then some people misunderstanding the round edge as a curvature.

If that were the case, then all one would need to is head toward it, and the degree of curve would change as you got nearer, and you would eventually reach the edge, surely? But nobody ever does. Any if anyone in a plane over (say) Atlantic or Pacific heads out to sea, the horizon, if they stay at constant height, never gets nearer.

1636
I examined Tom's isolated quote from the YouTube transcript at Reply #9;

In context, the video author is responding to critics, and pointing out that their analysis did not account for refraction. He then proceeds to take account of it for them;


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

One other YouTuber, called Phuket Word, made an attempt to explain this in terms of the tilt of my camera. He claimed that if I tilted the camera down or up, this hill and this bridge tower, the relative positions to each other in the image would change - the hill would come up above the tower and drop down below the tower as the camera is tilted up and down.  I posted a video showing that this is not true.  I have the still image from a video (I have several videos) that showed that it doesn't matter whether the camera  is tilted slightly up and down whether the bridge Tower appears near the top of the photograph or the video near the bottom to the left to the right in the top corner bottom corner it doesn't matter where it is how much the camera is tilted makes no difference at all the observation remains exactly the same.  Cairnoch Hill is always well below the height of the bridge tower. So that objection has been thoroughly dismissed with the actual evidence from reality As far as I'm aware PW has accepted that he was wrong about this and is, I think, hiding from the problem that this photograph presents for his Flat Earth belief.

Another group of people have had a go on, sort of on a video, they made a present presentation on Nathan Oakley's so-called debate  channel. Now, Nathan's debate channel is, of course, nothing of the sort - it's a place where flat-earthers congregate and tell each other lies about the shape of the earth, and then attack any globe earther who comes on and tries to hit them with some real proper facts and information. But they did have a go at explaining my observation, and how it could be possible on a flat earth so let's have a look at what they did. They use the wider angle, or more zoomed out version of the image - this one - and this includes some identifiable Peaks although Earl’s Seat and Dunbrach are really just part of this Ridge here and so’s (hill) part of this… kind of just looks like a line of hills all the same height - but they're all different distances from the camera. (hill name) is a particular peak here, and Meikle Bin and Dunbrach all peaks in this area and these are identified from peak finder. What they've done is - they've calculated what the angular size of those hills and the bridge tower should be, according to a flat earth, and according to a globe earth, and then they've asked the question  - do the sizes of those hills in the picture match the angular sizes that are predicted by globe earth and a Flat Earth model? I'll just bring that line down, so you can see we're looking at exactly the same kind of observation here, the previous picture just showed it more zoomed in.  So here is their spreadsheet, and not surprisingly, it contains some mistakes, and it contains a methodological error. if you like.

By and large I like the idea; I think that the way that they've approached this is it's quite good and I almost wish I'd done it in my original, myself in my original video, but they made a mistake in allocating a distance for the bridge - the bridge is not 45 kilometers from the camera, it's 46 and a half kilometers - and that will affect the angular size that they get for that bridge, so this figure that they've used for the bridge angular size is not correct.

Since that's a reference point for all the other angular sizes that they measure in their analysis, then everything is incorrect. Furthermore they've taken the target hidden height away from the total height of the hills, so on a globe earth part of the hills - each of these hills  - will be hidden beyond the curvature of the earth, and so it's perfectly reasonable to subtract the target hidden amount from the total amount and then to calculate the angular size - the problem is they've made no allowance for atmospheric refraction.

Tom's isolated quote   (atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied phenomenon and will always occur to a greater or lesser extent on a spherical earth, because light traveling initially in a straight line towards the camera from an object will get closer to the surface of the earth as it moves to the camera and then again get further away from the surface of the earth as it approaches the camera. Certainly in the case of this observation that's what will be happening. Therefore light is traveling through different densities of air, and as we know, different densities of a medium have different refractive indices, and therefore will cause the light to bend slightly to refract. So atmospheric refraction should be taken into account here and that will affect this “relative ball heights” as they call it, the relative height of these hills on a globe earth, and that will affect the angular sizes. So they've not used the correct angular sizes for any of their observations or any of their analysis)

However, let’s look at the analysis and what it shows.”  "



            He then discusses their analysis, then says, at 20.35


“Let's see what happens if we use figures that include atmospheric refraction and include the correct height for the bridge. Here is my version of their method....“



1637
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's misinformation
« on: April 16, 2019, 08:44:12 PM »
I don't think anyone here thinks they're "actors"... liars yes, but even scientists can lie.

Take for example, Nasa.

Proof of these lies, please... merely saying they CAN lie is not proof of a lie.

1638
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's misinformation
« on: April 16, 2019, 07:55:20 PM »
Here in the UK, there was an hour-long documentary the other night about the process of getting this black hole picture. Many of the folks involved in the project were interviewed on camera. Haven't watched it all yet, but...

I can hear the conspiracy theorists' rallying cry right now - "They could all be actors"

Yes, they could, but we could easily look a couple up, and see if there's a full and convincing back story of their previous science projects. Could this be falsified? Yes, but if it were, it would fall apart at the seams if, for instance, a University student at an establishment where they were claimed to have studied piped up and said - "He wasn't in my year!".   

If they are actors, then Hollywood needs to sign them up fast, because they're remarkably accomplished at it. 

1639
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's misinformation
« on: April 16, 2019, 02:19:31 PM »
It is isn't a photo.

It is an image (so apt, considering the root is closely related to IMAGINATION!!!)

For the purposes of clarity, could you define what you see as the difference (photo vs. image)?

1640
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Quite not...indeed, you are the one struggling with the idea there are issues with air, commencing at ground level, serving to obscure (even to the point of invisibility) objects.

It isn't obscuring them if you can whip out a telescope and see them. If you cannot see them with the naked eye, but you can with the telescope, they are not obscured.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 80 81 [82] 83 84 ... 135  Next >