81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 06:21:55 PM »

Are you guys really discussing mass difference of an oblate spheroid with 3980 miles radius and the average ocean dept of only 1.7 mile? 
Even without water, it is only 1/2341 (0.000427)... an orange fruit skin has 26x more irregularities. 45mm radius, 0.5mm dept, 1/90, 2341/90 = 26.   

An average rock (quartz) density goes from 2.0 to 2.6g/cm3, meaning worst case of 2.6 denser than water. It means the 1.7 mile average dept filled with water could be converted to the equivalent of (1.7 * (1-(1/2.6)) = 1.7 * 0.61 = 1.05 mile without water, what squeezes the ratio to 1.05 / 3980 = (1/3804) 0.000263, the orange skin = 42x has more pronounced irregularities.

Gravity acceleration measured by (Nasa Grace and European Goce) satellites results don't follow exactly the land/ocean topography, there are other factors involved, like metals in rocky formation, etc.   

Just the oblate difference from Polar to Equatorial radius give us 14 miles, that is almost 14 times more pronounced than the conversion rock to water in oceans.  It means the oblate kills any discussion about ocean dept and missing rocky mass. This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.

82

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Solar Eclipse Umbra and Penumbra sizes

« on: May 29, 2019, 05:54:20 PM »

Yes, you are correct.  The Moon makes like a pivot (fulcrum) in a lever, its shadow moves opposite from the Sun.
But you always need to think as observing this from the Sun's point of view, eliminates a lot of confusion about Sun and Moon movement along to Earth's movement.



Observing from the Sun, you have only the Moon moving eastward, so the shadow will also go eastward.
Earth's rotating or not will only change the shadow position on a physical spot (city) over Earth, along the time, shadow always moves eastward

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle and Length of a pole's shadow

« on: May 29, 2019, 05:27:29 PM »

Still waiting the numbers from Tom Bishop.

84

Flat Earth Theory / FE Wiki - Foucault Pendulum

« on: May 28, 2019, 04:03:29 PM »

On the link posted by the Wiki, about Airy's dismissing the Foucault Pendulum actually working, there is a continuation text below (emphasis mine), I think it must be part of the wiki as well.

Powell and Airy attempted to disabuse the public of doubts concerning the Foucault pendulum. On 9 May, Powell, a leading British popularizer of science, gave an address on the Foucault pendulum at a public demonstration of the experiment at the Royal Institution.
Listing the repetitions conducted by scientists in Britain and Europe, he noted that the "accordance of many of the results at different places within fair limits of error"
confirmed the validity of the experiment. Powell cautioned, nevertheless, that the "sources of error are numerous and not easy to be effectually guarded against." He reasoned that "these causes of error" affected "many of the public repetitions" whose results did not conform to theory.
Powell also noted that Airy had confirmed the experiment.
On 9 May, Airy had presented his results to the Royal Astronomical Society. Two months later, Airy observed in an address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science that the Foucault pendulum had "excited very great attention both in France and England" by "visibly proving, if proof were necessary," the earth's rotation.

Although now "certain" that "Foucault's theory is correct," Airy warned that "careful adjustments" were necessary.
"For want of these the experiment has sometimes failed."

Some free oscillation (non powered) pendulum experiments:



Search Youtube for large pendulums on museums and other places over several cities, Paris, Valencia, Houston, Portland, Norway, Chicago, Fermilab, San Francisco, Austin, St Andrews, Franklin's Institute...   It works so well, everybody wants one in theirs tall hall.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon according to FE Wiki

« on: May 28, 2019, 03:25:01 PM »

If I understand the diagram showing the Moon phases according to FE Wiki, the new Moon should always appear in the sky 'underneath' the Sun. 

This is another great subject to discuss with diagrams and illustrations.

See, there are two FE ideas about Moon phases, one use a gigantic 30km in diameter obscure anti-moon object that nobody saw, the second is very similar to the real thing, the Sun illuminating the Moon but we see in angle and only part of it illuminated.  This second also eliminate the idea about the Moon has own light, being transparent, being a disc, etc.

The problem with the underlined above, is the FE distance of Sun/Moon and the observer, it is too short, less than 6000km.  Suppose the Sun/Moon position is at longitude X, and two observers, one 5 hours to East, another 5 hours to West, each would see a complete different illuminated Moon covering.  One would be more illuminated area, the other will see less illuminated area.  The distance from Sun to Moon will not change the different view much.  This only works well if the Sun/Moon would be very far away, so the angular position of the observer on Earth will be visible and angular insignificant to notice any difference.

This simple observation can be done by several people at some specific time all over the world where they can see the non full moon.   The Moon on the pictures could be measured; diameter and illuminated area/angle.  If there any difference as viewed from different places over the Earth, then the observes's angles could be calculated and confirming the Sun/Moon altitude over the FE.

The only way for FErs to have the same illuminated area view from different and far places, is for the Moon not to be spherical, but a flat disc facing down, parallel to Earth, but them, other large problems would arise, as; how people don't see the Moon as an elipse from an angle, and worse; how part of the Moon is not illuminated by the Sun on its phases, again, having its own light? obscure object blocking part of the disc view?

The RE heliocentric system is so easy, fool proof and works always. 

86

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Solar Eclipse Umbra and Penumbra sizes

« on: May 28, 2019, 02:13:42 PM »

That's a really interesting topic, also because eclipses are so fascinating.

Considering (B) ..., The killing factor here is that on this situation the only way to have Penumbra is when the same size Sun is far away from the Moon, it can be calculated, measured, simulated on any optical lab or kitchen table.   Grab your flashlight, put it face down over a paper, using the flashlight face draw a circle with a pencil, cut this disc of paper (lets call it "blocker"), now projects the flashlight light beam 90° against the wall and use the blocker to block the light, change distances Flashlight-Wall, Flashlight-Blocker and see what happens.  No matter the distance from the wall, the blocker shadow diameter will be almost constant.   Now cut another blocker half the diameter of the first one and repeat the experience, you will notice the conical shadow projected on the wall, if the flashlight and the smaller blocker is away from the wall, there will be no casting shadow visible defined, as (A).   With the blocker same size of flashlight, the Umbra never changes size, and it changes in real life, this option (B) is eliminated.

Here I'm wondering if FEs would trust the 120kms measure. However, from another thread here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14812.0), it's apparent they acknowledge that the eclipse shadow movement paradoxically goes from East to West. I sketched a diagram for your B case, and in FE you must have the Moon and the Sun quite close to each other in order to get that paradox. Conversely, if the Moon and the Sun are equally sized, but far from each other, you'd get a shadow going from West to East. Can you comment on that? 

Secondly, is it me or the East to West paradox would also cause a very elliptical penumbra? (Always in this B case) Much more elliptical than what happens in reality?

As basic mechanics and optics, if the Sun moves East-->West faster than the Moon below, the projected shadow would always moves the opposite direction, no matter what, West-->East, this works like a lever with the Moon as the pivot, top goes to one direction, bottom goes to another.   About the sizes of the Umbra, that is a physical measurement anyone can do, just set a bunch of friends all over a place where the next total Solar eclipse will happen, to report where they physical are (lat/long) and a picture at some specific exact time, based on that it will be very easy to state what is the diameter (or area) where the total eclipse (umbra) can be seem at the same time. The 120km was not only scientific calculated, but witnessed, registered and verified many times.

Beliefs walks when Facts talks.

In my life I've seen many people saying "I don't believe on this".  See, belief is for spiritual and religion, for science there are tests, measurement, repetition, proof.
Some people say "I don't believe men went to the Moon", I always answer, "why would you need to believe?", do you (general population) ever personally saw an emperor penguin? a white polar bear? an Australian dingo? a golden monkey from Amazon? a Zebra? a coral snake? an Indian Elephant? black scorpion? do you ever went to Venice? Louvre museum? Fuji mountain? Iceland? Rio?, traveled by Concord? jump by parachute? based on your own mind, do you believe they exist or you do know they exist? what makes such difference in your mind?  Do you ever saw and touched your own heart? do you know you have one or you do believe on it?   There are so many things in the world that we know for a fact (or not) without only believing.   Did you ever punched a policeman in the face? do you believe he would react and arrest you, or you know that for sure? 

Do you ever put your hand over the fire to burn it to a unbelievable pain? do you believe it will burn or you do know that for sure?  How do you know that, if you never did it before?  There is a close relationship between belief and faith.  I don't have faith or belief in science, I don't need to, I don't need to count 2+2 to confirm the 4, I know it.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Wiki - Optics

« on: May 26, 2019, 11:49:45 PM »

I can make anything in any transparent medium look larger or smaller, deformed, twisted, bent, inverted, etc, viewed by another transparent medium.
It all depends on the shape of the border between both or all mediums, and the angle of incidence of the photons.

The lack of scientific knowledge about optics in general population, indeed not difficult, leads most of the population to create and believe in popular belief, not exactly facts.  The popular belief is based mostly on "what you see is what you get", this kind of reason lead to several magic tricks, where optical illusion is used plenty.

Optics is a scientific field most unknown and "distorted" in the popular knowledge, even being really easy to grasp and understand.
I believe the great responsible for that is how little it is explored in school, at home and at 99% of the regular jobs.

Several online training optical labs and exercises help to start to understand how things really works:

https://www.newpathonline.com/free-curriculum-resources/virtual_lab/Mirrors_and_Lenses/10/8,9,10,11,12,13,14/1911
https://ricktu288.github.io/ray-optics/simulator/

Very good:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/bending-light/latest/bending-light_en.html

A pack of simulations:
https://ophysics.com/l.html

This is a very numeric and adjustable, for advanced optics students:
https://arachnoid.com/OpticalRayTracer/

A very simple optics test to find out how much you know:
https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=light-practice-test--

This is very good to start to understand optical concepts:
https://www.miniphysics.com/ss-ray-diagrams-for-converging-lens.html

One of the first "wow" about understanding light, image refraction and reflection, is when you compare light with radio frequencies.  On the old AM radio you tune one station and you have a voice, sound, song, etc, it is almost complete, whole, you can be listening to it for hours without losing any bit of information, considering the reception is good and your own language.  On light image, it is like tuning to a thousand different frequency radio stations at the same time, each one transmitting a part of that image, if you see (hear) just one transmission it will be very difficult to grasp about the total final image.  It will be like seen a monkey just observing the violet band of light its body reflects, you will not understand it.  You need more frequencies, more stations, only by seen (hearing) several stations at the same time you will start to grasp the final image.

A simple example of few "radio stations" carrying different part of the final image, based on CMYK filters:


This is why optics field become very important in the late 20th century, when the industry and scientific development realize they could understand better the composition of matter by just tuning few selected of those "radio stations", and observing certain frequencies of light instead of everything at once. Chromatography became popular in the scientific area.  You can burn a piece of anything and observe the gases resulting on the flame and identify almost 100% its chemical composition. You can analyse all signals "transmitted by those hundreds of radios" from the light reflected by a planet and identify most of the gases on its atmosphere.

There are much more under this rug than discussing about a straw inside a cup with water, or the light bent over the ocean moisture denser medium, and the first impression you have, without understanding it deeply.   

And that, it is just studying plain fixed density and optical refraction index of materials, like water, glass, crystals, etc, but now there are materials with gradient index of refraction, creating a total new field of study and work, light can bend in a variable way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient-index_optics

Think about this:  You go to a brain neurosurgeon and explain to him about a certain recent headache.  You try to tell him what you think it is, about the skull bone, nerves, veins and arteries, muscles and try to make your medical knowledge become important to him.  The surgeon will keep listening to you, will make a magnetic resonance imagine recording and evaluation, then will prescribe a single aspirin to help dissolve a tinny cloth you have in a non important artery. As a matter of fact, the cloth dissolves by itself and you never had the headache anymore.  Obviously you think your knowledge and talk helped a lot the doctor decision, without your info he would not be able to find and fix your problem.  Do you really think your very superficial and popular distorted knowledge of the human anatomy and works will dramatically change the 30 years of experience and hundreds of surgeries, thousands of analyzed MRIs of such doctor and his team?
 

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 26, 2019, 03:40:34 PM »

I need to admit, there are several similarities on both texts, the use of same words and figurative expressions.   I also question about being flat on the ground on stomach, with a good telescope of 500x magnification? Telescope body was touching the ground?  I would not dare for the world to approximate my "good" optics from beach salty sand spray, even over a towel.  People don't do that even with photo cameras.  Tiny salty sand particles in suspension will stick to the lens, it needs special washing solution afterwards to remove it without scratching the lens coating, irreparable damage.  Of course, an astonishing finding like that is like front facing a hovering alien spaceship, when you knew it was there, took a telescope to see the aliens better, but simply forgot photo camera to take some evidencial pictures.   If I would experience such features, I would become millionaire for taking only 10 good focused sharp pictures, each with a different eyepiece to prove the sequential objective lens optical resolution, camera date/time on pictures and a GPS compass to prove my position.  Anyone would admit, a picture from domestic telescope showing kids playing with frisbee across a 48km patch of water would worth a fantastic reputation and at least good money.  Not even talking about the water spray, waves, evaporation, moisture in the air.  Of course, a picture is better than a million words. 

I recalculate here, to get into the optical resolution and visibly discriminate a very tiny person from a light pole 48km away, you need to "bring" that person close to 200m at naked eye, this means a minimum magnification of 240x, using a smaller possible eyepiece of 9mm it will require an objective with focal distance of 2160mm, being refractor telescope, it will have a body length of more than 90 inches (2.3m), with a minimum aperture of 150mm (6"), 1 arcsecond resolution, focal ratio f/14, that would be a really heavy and bulky tube.  The best powerful refractor Celestron produced recently was the Advanced VX6", just the tube is 8.3kg (19 lbs), computerized, $1500+, even so the objective focal distance (1200mm) is too short for this endeavor, it will need a 5mm eyepiece, trust me, you didn't have that.  I know dozens of astronomers with green expensive optical equipment, only few have an eyepiece like that, last weekend my neighbor Barney bought a 4.7mm TeleVue Ethos SX, cost more than $600.  This eyepiece with low focal point are only used in deep space observation, something that I guess Tom is not really interested.  The most common eyepieces delivered along with regular telescopes are 24, 25 or 40mm, even with the VX6 it means an image magnification of 50, 48 and 30x.  The 24mm would bring the kids playing frisbee to 960m (2880ft or 6/10 of a mile) at naked eye, think about it, can you discriminate a frisbee at 6/10 of a mile away? that is around 9 city blocks away.  Really, a picture taken directly at the ocular would be fantastic.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 25, 2019, 07:59:47 PM »

>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

How come SH can be hotter in FE, if the land area the Sun must cover during its same 24h is much wider than the NH, where the radiation concentration  per km² would be higher?

Total FE area = r²xPI = 20000²xPI = 1256636000 km²
NH area = r²xPI = 10000²xPI = 314159000 km²
SH area = TotalArea - NHArea = 1256636000 - 314159000 = 942477000 km²

Total FE Area = 1.256 E+9
NH Area  = 3.141 E+8
SH Area  = 9.424 E+9

FE SH area is in fact 30 times larger than NH
How come SH can become hotter than NH, or even the same?

For FE SH temperature to be the same as FE NH, the FE Sun would need to be 30 times hotter in January.   If you are referring to perihelion, when Earth is closer to the Sun in January, it is not very significative, as a matter of fact, the atmosphere temperature is opposed, it even helps FE with 4°C...    when global temperature is even lower in January.  So, the FE solar temperature is not logical, not true to the real thing.



For the ones that didn't get it yet, if you pass your hand very close over a candle flame it may burn, or not, it only depends on how fast your hand moves.  In the FE January, the Sun needs to cover 30 times more km² per second than it covers the Northern Hemisphere in July, so it moves faster, radiating less energy per km² to the land on January than on July when it moves slower.  Even needing to cover 30 times more land, the land temperature is almost the same on both hemispheres.

Lets calculate:
FE say on July the Sun is circling Earth every (lets round to) 24 hours, right over the Tropic of Cancer, at 23°26' North.
FE say on January the Sun is circling Earth during the same period of time, over the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23°26' South.

Considering FE disc to have 180° from North Pole to Ice Wall:
Tropic of Cancer is at 23°.26' (23.4333°) North from Equator, means 66.566° from North Pole.
Tropic of Capricorn is at 23.4333° South of Equator, means 113.433° from North Pole.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Cancer on July will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 66.566/180, 20000 km x 66.566 / 180 = 7396km
Tropic of Cancer circumference = 7396 x 2 x 3.14159 = 46471 km.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Capricorn on January will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 113.433 /180, 20000 km x 113.433 / 180 = 12603km
Tropic of Capricorn circumference = 12603 x 2 x 3.14159 = 79191 km

Now;
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Cancer is 46471 km / 24h = 1936.3 km/h
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Capricorn is 79191 km / 24h = 3299.6 km/h

The speed difference is 3299.6 / 1936.3 = 1.7x
(I will not even question what makes the Sun accelerate or break speed and change circling diameter)

Means, the FE Sun runs 1.7x faster over the Tropic of Capricorn than over the Tropic of Cancer.
It simply means that the Northern Hemisphere solar speed would spread 70% more radiation per second than to Southern Hemisphere.
This is not true in the real world, the NH is NOT 70% hotter than SH.
Also, the above calculations should take in consideration just radiation per second, not radiation per squared area of land.

On the top of this post, I considered squared area land, and came to 30x less radiation per km² in the South than in the North.
What it is again, not true in the real world. 

The actually measured solar radiation energy in average, between tropics to be 1kW/m². Based on the 70% difference of solar radiation per km² on FE, if measured 1kW/m² in Rio de Janeiro (what is real), then a person living on Central Florida would receive 1.7kW/m², that is not true, it will be cooking everything on land.

Other important thing, consider the sun speeding 1.7 faster on the Tropic of Capricorn, it means people on the Southern Hemisphere would notice the Sun moving 70% faster on January sky, shadows on ground moving 70% faster, etc.  This is also not true.

Based on FE perspective, vanish point and "can not see far due atmosphere not being transparent", the Sun would disappear from southern sky on January 70% faster than on July on North.   If on the North we can see the Sun during 12 hours on July, then on the South we will see the Sun only for 3.6 hours on January, what is also not true.

There is a lot of "Not True" on the text above.
Thanks for bringing this subject to my attention.
This is one more item FE must address and explain on Wiki, will be very difficult if not impossible.

Below a comprehensive FE map about tropics circumferences and Sun's speed over them


Below a FE horizontal view in two situations, Figure1 and Figure 2 are proportional to FE diameter, Sun's altitude, tropics diameter.

Figure 1 is the Sun circling over Tropic of Cancer (July), smaller diameter. 
Figure2 is the Sun circling Tropic of Capricorn (January), larger diameter.   
Both observers, living under such tropic can see the Sun raise from the horizon and set at the horizon.

Based on FE mechanics, the Sun at 4800km of altitude never really gets to touch the horizon, but FE explains the observer actually see the Sun setting and disappearing below the horizon due perspective, vanishing point and atmosphere not being transparent, and also possible use of atmospheric refraction, not allowing to see far. 

Based on this FE statements the Figure1 allows to understand the observer can only see the Sun on sky within an angle of only 113°, below that it will be under the horizon. But Figure2 with the Sun at the same altitude, the angle is much larger, 139° for the same effect to take place.  The only possible FE explanation is that on the southern hemisphere you can see farther, perspective and vanishing point works differently, and the atmosphere is more transparent, with less refraction.

The other complication is about the visible time of the Sun during the day.  Both observers can see the sun more than, but lets assume only 12 hours on both tropics, Cancer on July, Capricorn on January.  Now lets divide the angular view of the sun in the sky during 12 hours.   For the observer of Tropic of Cancer, the Sun travels 113/12 = 9.41° per hour in average, but we know that is not true, so it must be 9.41°/h from 10am to 2pm  and fantastically speed up at raise and set to reach the apparent position close to horizon.   For the observer on the Tropic of Capricorn, will be 139/12 = 11.6°/h, with also non linear angular speed during the day.

Interesting fact that on RE we can actually measure a very linear and steady solar angular speed of 15°/h all the way from raise to set, and the solar visibility on both tropics are the same, not different visibility angles (both are 180°), not different atmospheric visibility.

I wonder if FE could produce and post explanations on Wiki, using at least images better than mines, with scientific facts, numbers, angles.

Just to clarify, the observers on Figure1 and 2 are not on the North Pole, they are somewhere over its tropic circle.   The three suns over the observer represent the sun at 6am, noon and 6pm.



Also, we can actually predict on RE, exactly when the Sun will raise and set, within seconds, due its extreme easy mechanics of a round Earth and heliocentric system. 

The FE explanations about the sunrise and sunset rely on atmospheric conditions of visibility and refraction.  All of this can change by temperature, moisture, cold/warm wind and climatic conditions that can change at any time, would dramatically change the position of the FE sun on the horizon, not being possible to predict with precision when it would happens.

I also would like to hear from FE how those sunrise and sunset can be precisely predicted under so much optical challenging situations. 
This whole post is completely relative to Tom's statement that SH is hotter, I proved mathematically above FE SH is 30x cooler per km², not hotter.

I sincerely expect someday for some FEr to answer those questions, since I feel I am writing to a brick wall.   

 

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Wiki - Optics

« on: May 25, 2019, 04:59:49 PM »

Tom, when I said thick plate glass, it might confused you.
You are using the example (as below) of the bear behind a tick plate glass filled with water, and the bear is inside this medium.
This is a perfect example of "shape", like a lens.
Any angular difference from 90° from the lens of the camera, the plate glass and the position of the bear inside the pool (image incident rays of light), will change the flat shape of the object.
That is how a glass prism works, it needs the rays of light to be out of 90° angle in order for the high frequency wavelengths to bend sharper than the long wavelengths.  If all the photons hit the difference density medium without any angle, no bending will happens.

On the image below, see how the violet light (higher frequency wavelength) bends more pronounced.  Higher density promotes higher refractive index.


Lens magnification works the same, different angle of incidence in a different medium density, cause rays of light to bend to different directions, it can produce magnification, reduction, color separation, etc.  Again, it is not density that change apparent size of an object, it is the angle.


A flashlight face on (90°) to the window glass will not have its light rays bent in anyway, it will enter and exit the glass (denser medium) without any refraction, the only thing that will happen is a little delay (in time) for the photons to get out of the glass.

If you bend the flashlight in certain angle to go across the window, then a certain light rays bending will happen, since the rays of light are hitting the different density medium in an angle.

Let me explain why this happen:

When face on (90°) all the wave oscillations hit the glass at the same time, even with different phases of the different wavelength.  All the waves have a propagation time delayed, light speed still the same, but it has more difficult to propagate in a straight line, so photons start to colide inside the denser medium and change path, like zig-zagging in wavelength distances.  The photons momentum and the alignment of the waves when hitting the medium does not allow them to change direction in a large scale, so they bounce and take a longer path to do the same straight path they had outside the glass before entering it.  This longer path, same speed, means longer time to exit the medium.  But as they entered the glass perpendicular, they will exit perpendicular in the same angle, no refraction happens.

When entering the glass in an angle, lets imagine 45° for easy understanding, the shorter path of the light wave will hit the glass first. That side of the photons will break travel speed by starting to bounce inside the denser medium before the other side of the wave that still outside the glass by the angle of penetration.   The pronunciation of this "speed brake of photons travel time" depends on two variables, a) the frequency (and energy) of the penetrating photons, and b) the density difference (delta) between both mediums the photons is crossing from and to.   If going from air to glass in an angle, all the photons will bend direction towards the side that hit the glass first. If going from glass to air, the bending is exactly the opposite, photons speed up travel time at the side of the wave that hits air first.  High frequency waves, meaning green to blue and violet will bend more pronounced than orange to red.



This is exactly what happens with any glass lens, the form and shape of how the light enter and exit can produce all kinds of refraction. Knowing this, we produce lenses for our specific needs.

On the below pictures, if the observer and his camera moves right straight to 90° angle from the plate glass AND the bear, no light bending would happen, the bear will be visible as natural, no changes in image, size or position.

See, when I say "shape" it means mostly angles.  Density is just the raw material, the instrument is the angle in how it is used.

On the picture below, by the position (refraction) of the bear image, I can say the observer and his camera was to the right of the 90° alignment to the glass, as if its right eye was closer to the glass.  The photons of the bear image that hit the camera, came through water and glass, when they change medium, glass --> air, the right side of the waves (in the picture) exit first, they accelerate the photons travel speed and bend dramatically to their left (right of the picture), hitting the camera. As the image is composed by the width of the bear, the left side photons from the bear (in the picture) would change medium with a less pronounced angle, they are around 80cm or more to the left in the glass, so the angle they move into the air is different from the ones at the right.  The angle of acceleration will be depending on such angle of medium crossing, it will be less pronounced.  It works exactly as a magnifying glass, the bear may appears out of position and magnified.   Here, the shape of the angles between observer, glass and bear, produces this effect.

Saying that a denser medium will magnify an object is wrong, if depends basically on the shape and angles.

By last... if you are inside that water you see no changes in the image at all, since your eyes (or camera) will make part of that medium.  We, inside the bottom part of the Earth's atmosphere are deeply immersed into the denser air medium.  The only effect we can see from the Sun when closer to horizon, is the reducing of the colors of faster wavelength, blues and violets (are bent first and disappear from us), this is why we see it more redish.  But no change in size at all.   The same "color refracting effect" can be observed on the bear below, note the more refracted image is more blueish,



Observe the second image, the left side of the bear (tail) produces more refraction on the glass-->air than its head, this is based on the pronounced angle from the camera to the glass, than head.  Note that there is a refraction magnification that increases linearly to his tail, what proves my text above.  It is not only the density, it is the angle of incidence.  The bear's head, glass and camera have a better alignment to 90° than its tail.



On this image below, because the half bottom part of the glass is not round, but faceted acting like a convex lens, you can even see the straw thinner, all due angles of crossing different mediums.



Optical refraction is a vast and very interesting area of study, since you can in fact test, exercise and see results on a simple kitchen table or better prepared laboratory.  It is a rewarding study, the beauty of light rays and its physical properties fascinates all students.  Low cost tools can teach you wonders.  In all the school laboratory exercises, optics is the one that more attract students. In fact, it is a great area of work in the industry, great compensation for good professionals.

A low cost portable instrument known as "refractometer" measures the concentration (%) of solids in liquids, just using the ambient light refracted in the crystals, for example used to measure the percentage of sugar in soft drinks and other lab analysis.  Just put few drops of the liquid under the plastic lid and see two different colors bands on the viewer, showing the percentage of solids.

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Wiki - Optics

« on: May 24, 2019, 09:15:13 PM »

I didn't write the passage. But:



In the straw refraction pictures the straw magnifies. The rays start from a high density environment (water) and move into a low density environment (air). Presumably if the opposite occurred, light moving into higher densities, the straw would shrink.

Sorry Tom, the object appears deformed by the shape of the denser medium, not only water, but the glass. 
In optics study, it is the shape of the different medium density that refracts the photons, not only the density itself.
You can have a very tick glass at your window, if it is a flat plate, no deformation would be noticed on the external image for an internal observer.
You are using the shape of the glass to induce the thought of size change just based on density, not true.
There are plenty of scientific optical explanation about this on the internet, that you can replicate at home, if you want or need, I can point some to you.

92

Flat Earth Theory / FE Wiki - Optics

« on: May 24, 2019, 08:28:23 PM »

"Horizon Limits with Refraction and Opacity
Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction. As light travels through a denser medium, the object will appear to be smaller because light is refracted towards the normal. Furthermore, air is not transparent so it is not possible to see past a certain distance."

I am particular interested in someone that created such text above, to explain to me the science behind such (underlined) statement.
I can push an image photons through a denser medium, for instance a glass lens, and make the object appear bigger. Your wiki statement is incorrect.
Also, what is the meaning of "because the light is refracted towards the normal"? what is "normal"?
To finish, what is the "certain distance" in kilometers that it is impossible to see through because air is not transparent?
Where all this information came from? it is the wild guessing of somebody or it is multiple times science lab tested, duplicated, recorded and published?
Please provide source evidence.

93

Flat Earth Theory / FE Wiki - Travelling East

« on: May 24, 2019, 08:10:02 PM »

On FE Wiki:
"As it happens, on a Round Earth you do not travel perfectly straight when traveling East or West either. Consider this thought experiment:
You are on a Round Earth standing 10 feet away from the North Pole. You are then directed to travel East and are instructed to continue to do so. What happens to your path? You end up traveling in a circle, and not in a straight line that you previously thought you would.
The exact same thing happens regardless of where are you on the Flat Earth. Your path will not be straight without you having to constantly change the direction you are traveling in reference to a compass."

Except of course, if you are over the equatorial line. 
On RE you don't make any turn, you just walk straight to East. 
On FE you NEED to continuously make a left turn of 0.0057°/km (0°00'20"63/km) walking East.
That is a big difference.  So, the wiki is not correct and it is a misleading.

Also, even if you walk in a very straight line on RE, and even starting form the North Pole to ANY DIRECTION, you will end up in the same place you started after make a round trip around the globe. On FE you WILL end up hitting the ice wall, no matter where you start and the direction you take.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 24, 2019, 06:14:07 PM »

Reer, that is the thing.
"Cows are made of milk", now lets try to justify this statement as much as we can, and ignore the unanswerable.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 24, 2019, 05:32:33 PM »

Based on lots of controversy, discussion and unreliability caused by light bending over different media density (over patches of water), ships disappearing over the horizon and such, what creates more questions than answers, I created a much more reliable experiment what I would recommend to append to Tom Bishop Experiment.  It is much more clear and concise, much less variables and doubts.

This suggestion is based on what much strongly changes from the RE to FE, the equatorial line circumference.  On RE the circumference plane is perpendicular to North Pole, it literally divides the North to South hemisphere, hypothetically you could walk straight over this RE equatorial line without making any turn left or right and end up in the same location after a very long walk.  On FE this equatorial line circumference plane is a horizontal circle on the ground, it is a flat surface, to walk over this line you need to keep turning left in a very long circle if walking eastward.  It is a completely different shape and that is what basically defines RE or FE.

It is very easy to check and verify if it is one or another, without any confusion or mishap, it shows clearly the results with a simple pole shadow line angle in reference to North Pole, as proposed on the exercise I posted on https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14748.0 , specifically asking Tom Bishop to answer, he just sent me to read Equinox on Wiki, as if would answer my questions, obviously it does not. 

Again, I kindly ask Tom Bishop to answer, as a FE representative with significance in this forum, with a straight and direct answer about the angles from the exercise. It is indeed a simple geometry calculation, and will finish this for once and for all.  Also, if he wants, he could append this exercise to his own experience on wiki, or, create a Spherical Exercise on FE wiki, I would appreciate very much.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 24, 2019, 02:48:35 PM »

Aristotle (not Aristotile in English) and so many others used the tools they have available at the time.
Whenever technology advances we have better tools to help us to understand and live over this planet.
We first navigate by the stars, then we found the use for magnetic compass, now computerized maps and GPS.
We don't fight technology advances, we never more need to seek wood into the backyard to make a coffee, we just press a button.
We don't need to set the saddle over a horse in order to be able to deliver a letter, we press "SEND" on the browser.

Our actual tools to make the same Aristotle experiment are a little bit more advanced, like satellites and very precise atomic clocks.
For refusing such tools, one should also refuse all other new tools, like Internet, cell phone, computers, a/c, cars, fridge, freezer, coffee maker, electricity, medicine.
You can always choose to go back to the cave world.

97

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 24, 2019, 02:21:24 PM »

Ok, I'm getting it too what Tom doesn't get. If we imagine to watch Earth from the North in Space, and imagine it as an immovable round planet, the Sun would circle around it in 24 hours, but the Moon would be slower, doing it in 23 hours and 10 minutes (they'd be both travelling incredily fast in Space). During an Eclipse, the shadow on Earth would be caused by a faster Sun, making its direction going from East to West.

And of course, this is not what happens (23:10h is faster than 24h, not slower).
Even in FE, the Moon does not make a full turn in 23 hours and 10 minutes, it will be slower (as you said), will take 24 hours and 51 minutes.
But this has nothing to do with the movement of the eclipse shadow time and direction over Earth.

Like I post before, on RE the Earth could be stopped, the eclipse shadow would move eastward at 1002 m/s, moon orbital speed.
Even in FE, the Sun and Moon moves westward (east->west), as the sun moves faster, the moon shadow moves west->east.
It is really difficult to understand why this topic took 8 pages already.

Some people are confusing what they can understand, with simple orbital mechanical optical facts.

I use to say to my students, by simple proven fact water is a liquid, you can lucubrate, discuss, theorize, make papers, try to disprove, water calmly will continue to be a liquid.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 23, 2019, 09:38:24 PM »

You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent. The experiment was conducted from several different spots in that area.

Tom, I have several telescopes, Celestron CPC800 and 1100, Meade LightSwitch and LX200.  To achieve 500x magnification with humanly visible optical resolution, you need a huge aperture, never produced on a refracting unit for popular use.  It would need to have a more than 10 inches of refracting glass as objective, you will not be able to carry it handy.    Also, the smaller eyepiece you can see anything from 12 years ago technology is no less than 6mm.  To have a 500x magnification such refractive telescope must have an objetive with a focal length of 3000mm (3 meters long), the whole telescope with the focuser would be longer than 3200mm. Celestron never produced such best. 

You may had a 50~70mm objective refracting unit, handly transportable, 800 to 1000m long, but it needs a nice mount (tripod), you can not use it on the floor. Somebody may stick a label with "500x" on it, but no cigar for that. That unit can give you a maximum of 200x magnification in the limit of optical resolution.  Optical resolution formula is d/1.22Lm, where d is aperture and Lm is the green light wavelength, often used on astronomy calculations. Regular 15mm~24mm objectives (popular for that telescope) can give you a somehow visible image with 40x~60x magnification.  With that magnification, a 2m tall image at 38km distance can be seen with an aparent size of around 0.02°, what is 1/20 of the size of the Moon.  It will be like watching the details of lunar crater Langrenus by naked eye, or a person as seen by naked eye 633 meters away (38000/60).  I need to admit, based on naked eye observation I can not even tell if there is a person 6 city blocks away, not even a car. 

A 22cm ball (or freesbe) has an apparent size of 1 arcsecond at 46.5km away, that is 1/1800 the size of the Moon.  My CPC1100's aperture is able to discriminate 0.5 arcsecond, so it in fact start to lose optical discrimination of a freesbe at 90km away, image fuses with surrounding photons. It means you can not recognize it as a freesbe, the wavelength of the image is higher than the size of the object, you just can actually see a different brighness fuzzy thing, nothing else.  Considering a person has similar size head, you can not even say if that fuzzy dot on top of a very tinny little stick is a person's body or a lamp pole, and that with my CPC1100  (11" mirror, schmidt cassegrain, 2800mm focal length, 85lb of weight, resolution 0.5 arcseconds, $3k) without any extra features.  Over many kilometers of water, moisture a lot, waves spraying it becomes really difficult.

Next time take pictures, from the telescope, from the scene, from the scene through the telescope with different eyepieces so you can have a progressive image magnifications.

There is an easy experiments, not even need image or photos, it uses three lasers, two powerful (minimum 1W units) red and one green lasers.  I wonder why nobody made it before.  Mount them side by side over a wooden base, green in the middle, with screw for vertical alignment.  Shot them at night over dry land against a building wall few miles away, as far as possible.  A person close to the buildings cell phone the one with the lasers, and tell him to adjust the screws for the three lasers to be aligned, no matter if they are angled or horizontal, just aligned, green as better is possible in the middle of reds.  Then go to the beach and shoot them over the 48km patch of water against a big building on the other side.  Using a cell phone tell the person with the lasers to very slowly tilt down the front of the lasers base until the spots disappears down at the receiving side, then slowly tilt it up until they appear, so you can measure the minimum altitude the lasers hit the building wall. Then, measure or estimate, how big is the difference of alignment between the green and red spots.   There will be a difference of alignment, the green laser will be lower than the reds. Red light refracts different from green on a moisture oceanic air.  By measuring the misalignment of the beams, meaning diference of refraction from red to green wavelength, we can calculate how much refraction it is actually happening in general, air density, etc.  So we can insert this variable on the minimum height of the receiving beams on the building side and calculate the correct numbers.  Another blue laser could be used together, since blue bends even more. We can not just assume the light travels straight over a patch of moisture air, it will bend down as if going through a very low density glass. This is specially pronounced over lakes, ocean, etc.  It also happens over land with less effect, the thermal difference from the ground and the air creates this cushion of moisture and warm turbulent air, it creates havoc for visible sight.  Sharpshooters know that and compensate for plain dirt terrain, moist, water, jungle, dry, rocky, sometimes even the color of the land changes everything, dark color retain more warmth and create uplift air flow.  It is very difficult to hit a 20cm target with a bullet at 1500m away, even with a supersonic projectile, they need to know and compensate for everything. That is not only compensation for the bullet travelling, it is also visual compensation on the scope, light refracts easily.

99

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:59:48 PM »

What I was trying to get at is that the moon's orbit around the earth is completely independent of the earth's rotation.  That is, if we were to magically stop the rotation of the earth, the sun would appear to stand still in the sky, but the moon would still cross the sky at a rate of about .5 degree per hour.

Exactly, what I post previously.  Earth's rotation has nothing to do with the Moon's conical shadow projection path and eastward direction over Earth during an eclipse.  Earth's rotation only changes where (observers) physically the umbra hits and exposure time.

100

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Why crepuscular rays aren't proof for the position of the Sun.

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:55:27 PM »

The further the straight lines originate from you, the more parallel they should appear to each other.

Sorry, that is not a true statement.

Photons are projected from the Sun in all directions, each form a straight line. The ones projected at 30° from each other will not appear parallel, even being the Sun very far away.  I am stating here the "observer view aperture", not distance.

I can have a small 0.2" LED projecting photons at 2cm of distance, entering a micron slit between two separated sets of two blades and obtaining extremely parallel photons. This is a very common optical lab setup for filtering narrow parallel frequency bands, in some chromatography experiments.
   
The "parallel rays" appearance depends greatly on the observer view aperture, distance from the source is a secondary variable and can even be discarded.