*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« on: September 18, 2018, 01:18:18 AM »
Video author: Dr. John D.
Title: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing with a Nikon P510



A mirrored version of this was posted on the Flat Earth Media board, but I'd like to talk about it.

This slide in particular:



Light is not refracted downward? Over the sea? At night? This isn't right.

Even with a stable air mass, with standard temperature gradient, an atmoSPHERE will refract light downward. That's typical and to be expected. It's not a peculiar occurrence that requires "specialized" environmental conditions.

Maybe in an atmoPLANE that would be true. But he's talking about "according to the Sphere/Globe earth model," and in that model a standard lapse rate in temperature/pressure/humidity WILL refract light downward.

In fact, evidence to answer Dr. John's of "photographic proof" is present within his own imagery.



Note the "compression" of the lower floors of the building in the foreground of Sussex Heights. That's indicative of a greater refractive index at the lower angles than at the higher elevation. 



*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2018, 06:48:45 PM »
Light is not refracted downward? Over the sea? At night? This isn't right.

Would the author's claim mean that mirages, for example, never occur at night, over the sea? For the record, not that it matters, sunset in Brighton on June 3rd was at 9:06 PM.



*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2018, 12:37:31 AM »
Would the author's claim mean that mirages, for example, never occur at night, over the sea?
I don't know. He may be thinking mirages are due to 'specialized conditions' which he doesn't rule out at night, over the sea.

But if we do live on a sphere, and the atmo- is spherical too, conforming to the earth, then it doesn't stop refracting light just because it's evening or night, over water. The standard, "non-specialized" path of light in the troposphere is curved DOWNWARD. Only in "specialized conditions' does it NOT bend toward the normal (perpendicular to the gravity/increasing density vector).

It's an odd statement for a PhD specializing in light-related discipline to make.

But the photographic proof he asked for is right there in his own imagery. The lower floors of that building in Brighton are compressed more than the upper floors. That's due to the lower elevation angles having a higher refractive index than the angles at higher elevations. Two examples, for instance:



« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 12:23:23 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2018, 10:02:28 PM »
I'm going back through the video to see if there's some modeling to be done around the landmarks, specifically the i360 tower and the Sussex Heights building.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2018, 03:29:32 PM »
I'm going back through the video to see if there's some modeling to be done around the landmarks, specifically the i360 tower and the Sussex Heights building.
I was going to do this too, using the Holiday Inn Brighton - Seafront in the foreground as an angular gauge since it's 168' height is almost entirely in view.

But in doing so just now, I notice Dr. J also makes a tidal height error, equating chart datum (lowest astronomical tide) with ordnance datum (mean sea level). The difference between those at the Brighton coast  is LAT is 3.4m lower than MSL, which means his viewing height was 2.03m below MSL, not 1.37m above it. Fixing that error, assuming all the rest is correct, and the traffic light was 15.6m above his viewing height, not 12.23m.

This and his rejection of the impact of standard atmospheric refraction are the reasons why his analysis is in error.

But anyway, I wanted to see if the angular height of the Whitehawk Hill transmitter antenna in the background (about 1.7 miles beyond the Holiday Inn) is correct for a flat earth, or if it's declined as would be the case if the earth is convex.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 03:31:06 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2018, 02:20:50 AM »


Whitehawk Hill antenna mast should appear at the upper red line if earth surface is flat.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Brighton Seafront from Worthing
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2018, 02:53:54 AM »
Oh, and that space between Kings Road and the apparent surface of the water is 8 pixels. But Kings Road stands at 30-36' MSL, or 36-42' above the level of Dr. J's camera.

How can that vertical distance be squished into 8 pixels while the full 168' of the Brighton Holiday Inn Seafront stretch over 206 pixels?

That oddity when combined with the lower than expected (if the earth is presumed to be flat) angular level of the Whitehawk Hill tower mast are clues that maybe the earth isn't flat after all.