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 - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27  Next >
1
The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.

That seems at odds with the wiki, which frequently uses the word 'explain' in exactly that manner, for example:

Quote
Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction diverts/scatters the rays over a large dense medium, so it is not possible to see past a certain distance.

Aside from being obviously wrong (why can I see the top half of a distant ship, or mountain, but not the bottom, if the cause is the limited visibility?), that is clearly an attempt to explain something, in precisely the fashion that you are claiming that you do not do. Moreover, where is the verification of this? What we observe directly contradicts this hypothesis.

I would suggest that a more fundamental question for FET is not so much why there are sunsets, or why things disappear from the bottom up as they get more distant, but why there is a horizon in the first place. If the earth was flat, then we wouldn't expect a distinct, crisp horizon at a relatively short distance from the observer. The wiki is muddled on this - in one place, we have this:

Quote
Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

But then elsewhere we have this:

Quote
It is believed that the bending of light does not simulate the rate of globe earth curvature. Instead, the bending occurs more gradually over a greater distance.

But if the bendy light doesn't bend enough to 'simulate' (?) the rate of globe earth curvature, why would there be a distinct horizon behind which things appear to disappear?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of the firmament
« on: September 19, 2022, 02:09:36 PM »
Bob, all of the data I use is 99% "science approved" or from reputable institutions which I think your referring to..  Look again at the data I provided..

But you also said:

Quote
I'm aware on a flat earth the altitude of the Atmosphere would have to be higher at one pole and lower at another pole to form a dome.  I can think of a few possibilities like air pressure but more investigation is needed.  Edit:. It's possible the lower atmosphere is condensed by cold temps in the center of a flat Earth but that the higher thinner air collects in the middle and maintains a domed shape.] I'm aware on a flat earth the altitude of the Atmosphere would have to be higher at one pole and lower at another pole to form a dome.  I can think of a few possibilities like air pressure but more investigation is needed.  Edit:. It's possible the lower atmosphere is condensed by cold temps in the center of a flat Earth but that the higher thinner air collects in the middle and maintains a domed shape.

Those two statements cannot coexist. There is a mountain of data pertaining to atmospheric composition at different latitudes, and none of it comes out dome-shaped.

That link I posted was merely one of hundreds of research papers and articles covering this field. You can’t just dismiss it all and just arbitrarily determine that it must be dome-shaped.

[edited to sort out html error]

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of the firmament
« on: September 19, 2022, 10:34:27 AM »
Maybe a firmament or solid structure isn't necessary at the edges of a flat earth?  On a round earth, the layers of the atmosphere are lower in height at the Poles and higher at the Equator.  For example, the Troposphere is 4 miles high at the Poles and 12 miles high at the Equator.

The reason is that cold temperature makes liquids and gases more dense and sit closer to the ground. But if the atmosphere always seeks it level, why doesn't the higher and less dense air near the equator "spill over" into the Arctic areas?  I assume its the slow and gradual change in height, temp, and density that allows air to sit alongside itself like a load bearing Archway.

The same logic I think can apply to a flat earth.  The cold and more dense air at the edge of the disc help hold in the lesser dense air in the middle and it naturally creates a Dome.

I'm aware on a flat earth the altitude of the Atmosphere would have to be higher at one pole and lower at another pole to form a dome.  I can think of a few possibilities like air pressure but more investigation is needed.  Edit:. It's possible the lower atmosphere is condensed by cold temps in the center of a flat Earth but that the higher thinner air collects in the middle and maintains a domed shape.



Here's an explanation of Atmospheric layers on a Round Earth, but it doesn't address the height differences between the poles. 



People devote entire careers to understanding the structure of the atmosphere, and none of their work comes even close to correlating to your hypotheses. Here’s just one example:

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/5661/2019/

At some point, you have to ask yourself: ‘have I got this wrong?’, surely? Or do you invoke the conspiracy theory, and assume that everything that doesn’t conform to your view is part of that conspiracy?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 02:24:52 PM »
Maybe the words, "where two levels meet," would be satisfatory.

No, they would not be satisfactory at all. They would not because they are, firstly, wholly unsatisfactory as a definition or explanation of what the horizon is. Furthermore, they don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. What is a 'level'? What two 'levels' are we talking about, in the context of a seascape? The sea and the sky? Since when is the sky a 'level'? And if it's where they meet, why is the horizon so close, in relative terms, and what is going on beyond it? Why does it vary in distance with the elevation of the observer?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 01:22:53 PM »

Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?


Because the angular distance between the ceiling and floor will, at some point for any human, reduce below the resolving power of the viewer's eyes - typically around an arc minute for somebody with good eyesight. If, however, you then picked up some binoculars and looked down the corridor, you would then be able to discern them as two separate things again.

That is the fundamental difference between your corridor scenario and what we see in examples such as the ships half-disappeared over the horizon - if we zoom in on the ships, we don't see anything different, just a zoomed in image of the half-disappeared ship. The horizon doesn't change - it is, to go back to your example, akin to the wall at the end of the corridor. You can zoom in on it, but you can't see behind it because it is in between you what lies behind. The horizon is the same - it is in between you and what lies behind - the lower half of the ships in the example video.

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

I don't propose...looking at images I'd suggest not much (in open seas) - 1m or so? I'm not an expert on boat wakes. What's your point?

You are not going to detect any bobbing action on a ship that large from that far away, even if you are zoomed in.

The cruise ship video, in other words, is another lousy distraction inserted to deflect from an entirely different OP.

Typical tactics.

Bobbing action? Are you saying that a ship bobbing around might be responsible for the lower part of it becoming progressively more obscured with increasing distance? That makes no sense at all.

As for deflection...not at all. I think we all agree that the NG video experiment is a shoddy piece of work. I was trying to steer us onto the central issue, which is, as far as I can tell, the fact that you have fundamentally different ideas about what the horizon actually is. I'm trying to get that from you, and I'm grateful for your answers so far.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 12:12:33 PM »

The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

If it is as far as you can see, why can we see objects behind it? Why can I see the horizon, for example, in front of the lower half of a distant ship? Or the sun?

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:58:52 AM »

This is true, for two reasons.
1) Optical resolution, at some point you will no longer be able to discern an object. But so long as you have a clear line of sight to it you can zoom in with the right equipment to see it
2) Visibility. This varies from day to day, but there will be a distance at which visibility becomes an issue, in that case no amount of zooming in with optical equipment will render the object visible.

Quote
The difference between water and sky is a very tricky thing to discern most of the time.
It really isn't. Almost always there's a very clear line between them. Random picture from a recent holiday:



Is that clear enough for you? So here's the question - what causes that line? It can't be visibility, that wouldn't cause a sharp line between sea and sky. On a foggy day you don't get a sharp horizon, if the visibility is less than the distance to the horizon then it just fades out like in this picture:



And it's not optical resolution because
1) The sea is really big and
2) Zooming in doesn't reveal any more sea.

So what's with the sharp horizon line? RE's claim is that the earth is a globe and thus the sea curves away from you. That's why at some point you get a sharp line beyond which you can't see. That's also why the distance to the horizon increases with height, you can see further over the curve. What is your take on why these things occur?

Thanks - that pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Action80, again, I ask - what do you actually think the horizon is, and why is it there if the earth is flat?

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 08:20:03 AM »
[
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

A bit of a silly argument. Lituya Bay was a unique situation and, critically, was not open water, which is the situation we are discussing. The biggest wave ever was believed to have occurred off Portugal, and came in at 100 feet (visible by satellite, if any FE folks are interested!), but the biggest ever measured properly was more like 60 feet, and that was highly unusual. I went with info from this site, although Bill may well have something better:

https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth

The bottom line is that Bill is right - waves are typically very small compared to the height of large ships, so trying to invoke them somehow in explaining the obscuration of distant vessels is a pretty desperate argument.

I’ll ask again: what do you think the horizon actually is? What is causing it? If the earth is flat, why do we see a crisp line between sea and sky at a distance relatively close to us, compared to the size of the earth?

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 01:04:02 PM »
Yeah, I have watched them.
Good

The camera panning is not anything like you describe it to be for one
well, what does the camera do then? I thought that was a reasonable description - it clearly moves left and right, and horizon is visible throughout and, importantly, consistent - it doesn't change shape or angle.

you are labeling the horizon as the point where sky seems to meet surface.

well, yes, that's a pretty standard definition of the word 'horizon'. In the case of a relatively flat surface like the sea, lake or maybe a salt flat, then it is also a 'true horizon' in the sense that it isn't something like a mountain range, where there might be other objects in view were it not for the higher foreground. In a true horizon, it is the curvature of the earth, ie the viewer's sightline forming a tangent to the curve that causes the distinct line. That is modified somewhat by refraction, hence the viewable distance varying somewhat day-to-day, but the essential principle remains. You would clearly disagree with that, but your stubborn refusal to actual state what you think is happening at a true horizon is somewhat undermining your credibility.

A lot of factors go into that particular point.
Ok then - what factors, exactly?

No clue at all about surface conditions at the spot of the ship can be garnered by any observer from land.

Are you suggesting that, somehow, in the ship video we have discussed, that the sea conditions in the immediate vicinity of the ships might be so rough that half the ship is obscured from the viewer? All while not once changing the perfect horizontal line cutting across the ship? Or rocking the ship at all?

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 12:30:35 PM »

Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?

Have you actually watched the ship video? If you had you would see the camera clearly pan around the horizon as it tracks several ships, including the two it focusses on, one disappearing and one reappearing as it sails closer. If you are seriously suggesting that is something other than the horizon then I’m out of ideas and this is pointless. It’s the horizon. I don’t know what else to say. 

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 12:01:11 PM »

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 11:16:41 AM »
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 10:05:12 AM »
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 09:54:36 AM »
not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of the firmament
« on: September 13, 2022, 09:51:36 AM »
Space is freezing cold, and that would naturally form a layer of Ice along the edge of the outer atmosphere to hold it in.

Space isn't 'cold'. It isn't really anything at all, as there are essentially zero molecules there to have any kind of temperature. Without a heat source, objects floating in space will eventually give off all of their internal heat via radiation, so they will become cold, but that's not because space itself is 'cold'.

The reason the tropopause is called the tropopause is because the generally progressive reduction in temperature with height that we experience in the troposphere inverts, and the air starts to get 'warmer' again with increasing altitude, becoming very 'hot' in the exosphere. I put 'warmer' and 'hot' because the concept of warmth / temperature doesn't mean what people think it means in the very thin air up there - there is very little conduction, so it wouldn't feel hot if you had your hand in it.

If you believe in either gravity or indeed UA, as per the wiki, then you wouldn't need anything to 'hold it in' at the top as it is simply the gravity or upward acceleration that causes the air to compress. However, what goes on at the edge is, of course, a different thing altogether and, if you subscribe to FET, then you would presumably take issue, at some point, with the conventional descriptions of the atmosphere's composition, given that the upper reaches of the atmosphere are beyond the altitudes given in the wiki for the moon and stars.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 12, 2022, 09:19:17 PM »
The thing is, you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat.

If it were, any sightline to the surface, from any height above the surface, would form a right-angle triangle, and from there, school-level geometry rules apply.

If I look out from 100m elevation to a ship of height 52m, I have a downward sightline. All sightlines from 100m to zero pass through the 52m level. Conversely, a sightline from 100 through 52 must meet the surface at zero. It cannot miss it.

Any situation where I'm looking out from 100m to a ship of 52m air draught (height above waterline) and do not see water behind and beyond the top of the ship shows the seas cannot be flat.

You can go a step further. The existence of a clear, distinct horizon over what is essentially an apparently even, level surface like the sea or a desert must mean the earth isn’t flat. If the earth was flat, we would see a blurry, mushy horizon every time, rather like those we sea on hazy days, because the meteorological visibility would invariably be less than the distance to the ‘horizon’, which in the case of the flat earth would be the edge of the planet, however far away that is.

Should this be a different thread? We are veering away from the original.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 12, 2022, 08:41:09 PM »
No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

Then, as per my previous comment here, there is little point in debating the quality of the video, poor though it may be. If you don’t accept the fundamentals of the experiment, as it would seem to be the case with Mark Sargent, then it is a waste of time.

Both AATW and Tumeni make good points - interested in your thoughts on the disappearing ship video.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 12, 2022, 12:56:45 PM »
Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?

Would any number of missing stripes, of any colour, have persuaded you that the earth might, in fact, not be flat?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 09, 2022, 03:17:08 PM »
Whilst I think we all agree on the general sloppiness and inaccuracy of the experiment, isn’t the bigger point that it is somewhat irrelevant? If I’ve understood the FE position correctly, Tom, you would not accept such an experiment as being evidence for a round earth anyway, would you? One stripe or five, you would presumably argue that other factors were at work - right?

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 30, 2022, 09:25:42 PM »
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

Don’t waste your time. We’ve been here before, on lots of occasions - see the links I’ve posted. I’ve used a different example - airflow over a wing - but the principle is the same - ditto WTF’s example. He never responds.

Likewise, I’ve shown in lots of detail, with extensive links, exactly what goes in to modern ephemeris models - again, nothing in response, and then a few months later the same garbage gets spouted and the cycle continues.

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27  Next >