The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: rabinoz on November 06, 2018, 07:24:05 AM

Title: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: rabinoz on November 06, 2018, 07:24:05 AM
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s

I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.
The following references might be useful:
Quote
Atmospheric duct
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg/743px-Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg)
Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct)

In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.

Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.

Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.

The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
These are also relevant:
         Calculating Ray Bending (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html) This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate  needed to cause ducting.
         Ducts (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/duct.html) More specific discussion of ducts,  with diagrams.
         Marine layer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_layer) Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
         Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects. (https://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html)
Maybe someone can make something of that material.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2018, 07:53:34 AM
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.

The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: rabinoz on November 06, 2018, 12:25:43 PM
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.
I'll ignore your attempt at demeaning but your usual mode of attack seems to attack the messenger.

Quote from: sandokhan
Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.
DIfference between where and where?

Quote from: sandokhan
For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.
It is not the temperature difference between the observers that matters but the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
Quote
So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.
[/quote]
So a shallow duct only needs a small temperature difference and with cold water and warm than can and does happen.

Please explain why "ducting does not apply to the case presented here."

Quote from: sandokhan
The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.

Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.



Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 06, 2018, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: sandokhan
The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.
Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.
He's talking about the people in the video using a mirror.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 06, 2018, 01:42:37 PM
I'd expect significant amount of distortion to go along with the super refraction that would be required in the case of a surface level duct, but I don't see that here:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/r29obb.jpg)

The mirror flash is in the red circle in the image above, and I do not see secondary visual evidence of enough of an inversion layer to produce a ducting effect.

Using Walter Bislin's model, there would have to have been a temperature inversion of around +0.05°F/ft temperature gradient at the surface in order to produce a curve-following "super refractive" layer.

I can't vouch for what was happening on that last afternoon on Monterey Bay, but we have been seeing a consistent, daily surface inversion in Southern California. It's what was responsible for this very interesting and cool sub-ducted "green flash". You can actually see the top of the inversion where the haze line is:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/eagy3b.jpg)
~photograph by Jim Grant, 2 Nov 2018


It also caused a Fata Morgana; a distorted image of Catalina Island that I captured in photographs from San Diego at sunset a couple of weeks ago (75-80 miles away):
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/141nkm0.jpg)
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2edcppj.jpg)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/dd0qrd.jpg)

Here, you can see the layer of haze that is trapped by the inversion.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2npoo3.jpg)

And I believe it's what is causing the power station structure in my Carlsbad viewing from La Jolla to look abnormally tall. Everything between the apparent mirage and that white line is, I believe, mirage (combined with towering/looming.)

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2zhoajs.jpg)

But in my case, it's not producing a duct. Instead, I'm getting an opaque layer that isn't providing me extended visual range beyond a geometric horizon. As noted in that link above about ducting, an inversion layer won't always producing a ducting effect, and it's not in mine. But IF it's the explanation for why that mirror reflection is being seen, I think we should be able to see the secondary evidence of where the inversion layer is, like a demarcation of distortion at the top of the layer in the background power plant.  I don't think such a layer would extend through to the top of the image. That would be extraordinarily deep for such an inversion.

The real test for flatness will be to see if that observation result is consistently achieved on different days under different weather conditions; especially clearer ones. The video author admitted visibility was poor.

The next opportunity I get, I'm going to try the same afternoon mirror method across a 13-mile over-ocean span between La Jolla and Encinitas, and the 20-mile span between La Jolla and Carlsbad.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: AATW on November 06, 2018, 05:45:56 PM
The next opportunity I get, I'm going to try the same afternoon mirror method across a 13-mile over-ocean span between La Jolla and Encinitas, and the 20-mile span between La Jolla and Carlsbad.
I'd be interested to see the results.
Some of your other pictures which only show the top of the chimney indicate there is no way you'd see a mirror at sea level.
I'm loathe to shout "fake" and run away but I agree with your post in AR that I couldn't explain this on a globe earth.
Although I note "waves" are not blocking the view here either, a common FE explanation for the sinking ship effect when it's clear magnification won't restore the hull.
Would be interested to see this experiment repeated.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 06, 2018, 06:15:59 PM
I don’t have a good explanation for the video in the OP.  I don’t have enough information to make an informed opinion.  I could say that it’s made by a FE promoter and he may be fooling with us, but I don’t have any direct evidence of that.

This is a great video worth watching, much better quality.  Pretty hard to deny what is happening here. The laser we can argue if it is level.  Just skip to 6 minutes where they bring in the helicopter. Forget the math, where does the helicopter go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2018, 07:28:30 PM
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0

The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 06, 2018, 07:51:45 PM
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, but I'd be interested in what you see there. In particular I'd like if you could try and frame a shot similar to this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/VtjSnPJ.png)

The video states this is from 3ft up. I suspect if you could frame a similar shot in better/different conditions, it's possible it might provide a clue to if anything odd was going on that day. But this is just speculation. As I said, the laser sighting experiments are the only ones that appear to consistently produce results that favor a less spherical Earth (I won't say flat, as they're still far from favoring flat over what modern science says) so I suspect there's a reason for that. But what I have no idea. Maybe recreating this experiment could provide some ideas though.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 06, 2018, 08:04:42 PM
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0

The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747

I just went through that thread. Nothing was debunked there, not the video, not FET, not RET. This video was barely even addressed if at all. More talk about the Wallace & Hampden debacle/lawsuit than anything else.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: rabinoz on November 06, 2018, 08:07:32 PM
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0
You cannot "prove Earth is flat" from a few short distance laser tests especially when conducted close to a water or ice surface.

If they "prove Earth is flat" what do these prove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

Look at these two screenshots:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pf2vbx9jx9pgext/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%231.jpg?dl=1)         (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6lrrty8ttngd96/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%232.jpg?dl=1)
[/quote]

The camera height is not given but one comment (by a flat-earther) is that it's about 33 ft (or 10 m).
This would make the (refracted) horizon about 12 km away with the nearer ship a little closer.

Quote from: sandokhan
The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747
Am I missing something? I see no reference to the "Discovery Channel video" in that post?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2018, 09:05:27 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: HorstFue on November 06, 2018, 09:29:49 PM
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.

Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a  laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2018, 09:43:21 PM
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.


What the frell is this?

The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:

((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw))

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!

Another user writes:

"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"

Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 06, 2018, 09:45:56 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.

We have no evidence in the video the mirror wasn't moved higher up the beach or the camera moved even higher.  You claim cgi for every single space image and ISS image, yet you accept everything in that OP video at face value with zero evidence it was not manipulated.  They didn't even need to use cgi at all, just move the mirror or the camera and pretend the footage is from the waters edge  to a mirror on the waters edge.  Zero Evidence. 

Discount the helicopter flying in the air yet not visible in the telescope!  That would actually need cgi.  That experiment by Discovery Channel is repeatable, why don't you go to that lake in those locations, put up a tall ladder and step up until you are visible. Or use another equally distant lake shores at the waters edge.  This should be easy since you wouldn't need the ladder or helicopter at all times be seen in a high powered telescope right?  Show the same thing day after day, prove the Earth flat! It would get you the Nobel prize surely.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 06, 2018, 09:48:49 PM
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.


What the frell is this?

The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:

((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw))

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!

Another user writes:

"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"

So your argument is that the camera was fully zoomed in and if it could just zoom a little further those missing pixels of the bottom half of the ship would come into view?   
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 06, 2018, 09:49:56 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.

(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 06, 2018, 09:50:31 PM
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.

Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a  laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.
This is essentially the front runner hypothesis in my mind, at least for this one. It's not a perfect match for how things might be working with some of the laser experiments, but it's definitely a contender for what's going on here. Reflecting the sun, while a great idea, introduces some curiosities because of how bright the light is. If you watch the reflection of the light on the beach you can also see how the mirror bends as she moves it, it's not perfectly flat all the time. This could help explain the difference in brightness of the flashes, as more or less of the light is reflected to the correct area to produce whatever is happening. This is all supposition and hypothesizing though. But a lot of your points also make sense in this context. Getting a beam of light that should be just 3 ft around to strike a camera from 13 miles away? In the way it's occurring? Something more is happening here, but they don't control the usage of the mirror enough to make much more than some random guesses.

All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: HorstFue on November 06, 2018, 10:08:52 PM
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?
I viewed some raw videos and found them consistent with the final cut, no evident trickery.
I also think, that this experiment can be repeated with similar results.
A good variation would be, to view a result, when mirror and camera are placed high enough, to rule out curvature.
Do the flashes then look similar?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 06, 2018, 10:29:37 PM
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?

I've looked into it. Haven't seen the raw footage. But I would say there is no trickery.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: juner on November 06, 2018, 11:11:23 PM
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

We are all away of rab's attitude. Refrain from addressing him like this, he will eventually get himself permanently banned if he falls back to his old ways. Stick to the arguments.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: rabinoz on November 07, 2018, 05:46:35 AM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe.
Not quite. The "Sinking Ship Effect" was just one of the pieces of evidence.
Quote
Pythagoras' pupils, if not the great man himself, knew that the Earth is round. Traveller's tales of ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky as one journeyed north suggested a curved Earth.
Quote
sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.
Quote
Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator).
And during the Greek period there were measure of the:
      distance to the moon (not vastly different from the modern value),
      distance to the sun (vastly less than the modern value, but still some 9 million kilometers away) and
      the circumference of the earth (probably close to the modern value but doubts remain.
This was just the work of the early Greeks but that was extended and more accurate measurements done by the early Arabs, Persians and Indians in the latter half of the first millennium till around 1200 AD.

Some might think it strange that the observation that the sun (moon and stars) appear to rise from behind the horizon and to set behind the horizon was not one of these pieces of evidence.
But that was never an issue. The earlier flat-earth "models" of the Babylonians and earlier Greeks already included that as something quite obvious.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent.
I totally disagree. The variability of atmospheric conditions has been known and investigated for a long time.
A light path just skimming the water (or land) surface often produces anomalous propagation when the water (or land) surface temperature differs greatly from the air temperature.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
As noted above, such variability is to be expected. To be meaningful these observations must be repeated under different conditions and in different seasons.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.
As I said above, "exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower" is precisely where the temperature gradient is highest.
If the water differs greatly from the air temperature some sort of anomalous propagation.

Bit so often flat-earthers quibble about the hidden height not matching the Globe expectations when if the earth were flat none should be hidden.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: AATW on November 07, 2018, 10:05:27 AM
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
...are you shitting me? Is that seriously your rebuttal?
So the zoom has "restored" the top of the ship but the bottom of the ship which obviously must be the same distance away as the top of the ship is behind the vanishing point?
Really?
Have you ever used a zoom? Have you ever seen a distant fuzzy blob come back entirely into view as you zoom, but it comes back into view top first?
That really isn't how things work in real life.
Small things get bigger. That's it. That's all optical zoom does. It doesn't restore things bit by bit. How would that work?
If something is going over a hill in front of you then it disappears bottom first. If only the top half of the thing is visible because of the hill then no amount of zoom will bring it back into view.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: George Jetson on November 07, 2018, 06:16:07 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.

(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 07, 2018, 06:22:25 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.

(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: George Jetson on November 07, 2018, 06:58:10 PM
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.

(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)
What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.
Okay, I'll read through that thread later.  The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel.  Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased.  That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 07, 2018, 10:07:54 PM
Okay, I'll read through that thread later.  The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel.  Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased.  That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.

I was responding to a broad statement that was made with an example as to how the statement was not entirely true and somewhat misrepresented. I was not intending to re-litigate the Turning Torso discussion here. If you would like to do so, we can over in that thread.

As for the video under discussion here, I don't currently have an explanation for it.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: rabinoz on November 07, 2018, 10:12:39 PM
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

What the frell is this?
The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:
Quote
Rubbish!
((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw))

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.
Quote
What makes you think that I haven't? Those comments are meaningless twaddle.
Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.
Quote from: riadelar
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!


Another user writes:
Quote
This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!
So what?

Because I was travelling I missed this but you need to get one thing straight!

"Zooming in" does not change the perspective in the slightest an I've seen no evidence to disprove that.
All "zooming in" or using a telescope can do is to magnify the image.
Look at these two screenshots:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pf2vbx9jx9pgext/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%231.jpg?dl=1)         (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6lrrty8ttngd96/Flat%20Earth%20Conference%20Debunked%20-%C2%A0Ship%20behind%20horizon%20%232.jpg?dl=1)
There is no possible way that making the image larger will make the container ship become visible unless you can show how a zoom lens or telesope can bend distant light.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: RonJ on November 09, 2018, 12:56:45 AM
This view is pretty typical of a container ship starting to disappear below the curvature of the earth.  After going to sea for 20 years on ships, this was a typical sight that I saw all the time.  We had a big telescope mounted to the deck (it was that big) that could zoom in and see a hemorrhoid on a gnat's ass bending over, and you still wouldn't be able to see the hull disappearing over the horizon.  For the flat earth folks reading this; Rowbotham was a landlubber and didn't understand what happens to ships when they go over the horizon.  Please wise up and start reading about Nathaniel Bowditch and he will school you about what really happens on the globe earth.  I never got lost going to sea by using Bowditch's works so you know it isn't a bunch of BS.   
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 04:49:50 PM
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE&index=151&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 09, 2018, 05:00:13 PM
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE&index=151&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 05:19:57 PM
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE&index=151&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.

Show us a screen shot of "the buoy at 34 seconds"  It's not there. You can't do it.

You can't even see the boat after he zoomed all the way out.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 09, 2018, 05:36:52 PM
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 09, 2018, 05:40:30 PM
I see it.

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/os6asz.jpg)

Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/o91xdg.jpg)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 05:49:43 PM
I see it.

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/os6asz.jpg)

Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/o91xdg.jpg)

 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the buoy?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 06:00:49 PM
I see it.

Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.


Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 09, 2018, 06:01:00 PM

 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small for the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.

It's not sinking from view bottom-up. It's diminishing to a point. The horizon is not what hides the boat. It's lost at the horizon due to resolution. Beyond the distance of the horizon, no telephoto zooming will restore a hidden object to sight. But climbing in height will, even with reduced zoom.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 06:06:06 PM

 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.

It's not sinking from view bottom-up. It's diminishing to a point. The horizon is not what hides the boat. It's lost at the horizon due to resolution. Beyond the distance of the horizon, no telephoto zooming will restore a hidden object to sight. But climbing in height will, even with reduced zoom.

OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 09, 2018, 06:09:12 PM
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 06:25:03 PM
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is not limited because it is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary by these conditions.  The video I post reveals this over a horizontal plane with a zoom lens.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 09, 2018, 06:29:25 PM
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.

The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 09, 2018, 07:16:20 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.



Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 07:37:03 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.

I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.

Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 09, 2018, 07:40:56 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 09, 2018, 07:54:47 PM
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?

Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)
(https://i.imgur.com/lrxTnm2.jpg)

Or this way:
2)
(https://i.imgur.com/WnOyfmM.jpg)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really want to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s

Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 09, 2018, 08:09:09 PM
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)

So, you are telling me that atmospheric refraction is hiding just the bottom half, but not the top half?  Isn't the distance from viewer to what is hidden and what is not the same?  Please explain why raising your telescope to a higher elevation brings the bottom half  into view.  This simple demonstration destroys the refraction argument.

If I were to Facebook livestream a tankers bottom half disappearing at the shoreline through a telescope then walk up to higher elevation and the shop is fully visible again, would you believe the curvature is  blocking that ship?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 09, 2018, 08:11:02 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s

Who knows what that video is showing...  The sun sets every day, do you see what that video is showing?  No... you dont...   
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: George Jetson on November 09, 2018, 08:29:32 PM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 08:30:34 PM
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)

So, you are telling me that atmospheric refraction is hiding just the bottom half, but not the top half?  Isn't the distance from viewer to what is hidden and what is not the same?  Please explain why raising your telescope to a higher elevation brings the bottom half  into view.  This simple demonstration destroys the refraction argument.

If I were to Facebook livestream a tankers bottom half disappearing at the shoreline through a telescope then walk up to higher elevation and the shop is fully visible again, would you believe the curvature is  blocking that ship?

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them looking down at an angle.

Again, trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really want to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 08:37:15 PM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 09, 2018, 08:49:58 PM
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15zNfRfpukk&index=153&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)
Oh look, the same video you posted before that's far too fuzzy to tell anything about it. Just the same song and dance as in the other thread. You don't engage, you just switch topics and pretend nobody else can understand what you're saying. Boring. You take care.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on November 09, 2018, 08:59:29 PM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 09:06:17 PM
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?

Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)
(https://i.imgur.com/lrxTnm2.jpg)

Or this way:
2)
(https://i.imgur.com/WnOyfmM.jpg)

Number 2
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 09, 2018, 09:21:22 PM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 10, 2018, 01:05:55 AM
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
Not like any sunset I've ever seen. The sunsets in my world don't have the sun disappear into dot. Every sunset I've seen has the sun as a big orb sink as if setting behind a hill.
Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwn5c6aPmVc


I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
That's the point of the investigation? Is it a flat plane or a convex surface? If it's flat, there's nothing to sink into. If it's convex, there is.

So, does it sink or not?

Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?
Again, that's the question, isn't it? If it's flat, they are. If it's convex, they're not.

You know I'm stumping for convexity based on the appearance of bottom-up sinking. So my answer is "no." They are not on the same horizontal plane, and the bottom-up sinking is evidence of that.

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
No.  Obviously, I don't. I conclude from the sinking phenomenon that the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions. 
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 10, 2018, 01:07:09 AM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 01:18:38 AM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?

No, see the following pic.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 10, 2018, 01:26:42 AM

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?

No, see the following pic.

Some water is murkier than other water. Some air is murkier than other air. I don't see the relevance.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 01:33:27 AM
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
Not like any sunset I've ever seen. The sunsets in my world don't have the sun disappear into dot. Every sunset I've seen has the sun as a big orb sink as if setting behind a hill.
Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwn5c6aPmVc


I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
That's the point of the investigation? Is it a flat plane or a convex surface? If it's flat, there's nothing to sink into. If it's convex, there is.

So, does it sink or not?

Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?
Again, that's the question, isn't it? If it's flat, they are. If it's convex, they're not.

You know I'm stumping for convexity based on the appearance of bottom-up sinking. So my answer is "no." They are not on the same horizontal plane, and the bottom-up sinking is evidence of that.

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
No.  Obviously, I don't. I conclude from the sinking phenomenon that the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions.

OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 10, 2018, 04:41:18 AM
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 05:53:38 AM
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 10, 2018, 06:08:39 AM
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 06:15:36 AM
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 10, 2018, 06:17:53 AM
Are you asking me something different from what you've been asking in this topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 10, 2018, 06:21:41 AM
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.

Maybe here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 06:24:15 AM
Are you asking me something different from what you've been asking in this topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0)?

Yes, and I apologize for the long sentences because of the necessary points of the question. 
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 06:27:00 AM
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.

Maybe here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958

Nope. Different issue.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on November 10, 2018, 06:34:01 AM
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Earthman on November 10, 2018, 06:36:21 AM
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's (https://goo.gl/maps/zkNF21NExrz) in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool (https://goo.gl/maps/9CGCbJhx3sm).

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?

I will abide by Bobby's wishes.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: RonJ on November 10, 2018, 05:25:14 PM
The problem with the visualization of the flow of water is the simplification of the facts that have occurred over the years.  Water doesn't really flow downhill.  Water flows in the direction of the resultant force vector of the sum of all the forces acting upon it.  I know that I just went off the 'deep end', so to speak.  I got this lesson from my college engineering courses in fluid mechanics.  You combine that with the courses in statics and dynamics and you can get a feel for just why water really behaves like it does.  Understanding water is essential for a seaman, it's what keeps you alive sometimes.  To me the fact that the rains fall, rivers flow to the seas, and that the seas can be curved around the globe have all proceeded from a comprehensive education in the characteristics of water.  That water covers the majority of the earth, flat or round.  There is no real mystery why Louisiana isn't flooded, although New Orleans needs some significant flood walls to keep the streets dry.  I know, real understanding is a high entry bar for most.  It's also irrelevant and not needed for those who live inland.  However for those who dare to educate themselves in the subject of water,  you can eventually understand why the globe earth model is the only thing that has ever worked.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Tumeni on December 06, 2018, 02:01:18 PM
Would we get away from issues of refraction close to the surface of an expanse of water by simply looking over a valley, a few hundred metres above sea level, and sighting on two objects of known height?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: JCM on December 06, 2018, 03:42:10 PM
Would we get away from issues of refraction close to the surface of an expanse of water by simply looking over a valley, a few hundred metres above sea level, and sighting on two objects of known height?

Such as the Grand Canyon ledges?  I don’t think anything over a valley with height data will be accepted by any FE.  That height above sea level is taken from GPS or other RE means so any conclusions would be suspect .  This is why places like salt flats or sea level or lake shores are good places to show curvature.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Tumeni on December 06, 2018, 04:34:13 PM
Such as the Grand Canyon ledges?  I don’t think anything over a valley with height data will be accepted by any FE.  That height above sea level is taken from GPS or other RE means so any conclusions would be suspect.

If all heights are from the same datum, doesn't that render the point moot?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 08, 2018, 12:46:54 AM
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s

I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.
The following references might be useful:
Quote
Atmospheric duct
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg/743px-Superior_mirage_of_an_island.jpg)
Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct)

In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.

Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.

Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.

The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
These are also relevant:
         Calculating Ray Bending (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html) This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate  needed to cause ducting.
         Ducts (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/duct.html) More specific discussion of ducts,  with diagrams.
         Marine layer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_layer) Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
         Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects. (https://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html)
Maybe someone can make something of that material.

I was talking with someone about this video today, and his explanation for how it could defy the obstacle of globe earth curvature was a lot like this explanation in TFES's wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

It requires heavy moisture content in the air close to the surface. I have to ponder this and maybe perform an experiment to see if a point source of light can "bloom" enough in high humidity to appear from behind an obstacle.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: George Jetson on December 16, 2018, 10:55:38 PM
So the anti-FE Youtuber "GreaterSapien" has a video claiming that this observation (Monterey Bay Mirror experiment) can be explained by "scattering of light." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHWjzolruo

I'd like to know what Bobby Shafto or any other RE thinks this explanation makes any sense.  It doesn't seem like a good explanation to me but it's the only semi-plausible RE explanation I've seen.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 16, 2018, 11:34:19 PM
I watched that and FlatEarthCantScience critiques. I have critiques of those critiques. When I'm at my computer later I'll comment.

Edit: So, quick comment. I'm impressed both FECantScience and G.Sapien give that team some credit and acknowledge the curious nature of the result. I'm not so keen on the dispersion explanation.

Certainly, the light from the mirror has bloomed due to the air (surface level moisture and haze), but that wouldn't defeat surface curvature.

I tend to suspect surface ducting. Although that feels like just the counter example of Tom always explaining apparent hidden features with "compression." Either explanation needs more than just assertion.

I think the next step is just to show it's reproducible, and at greater distances. I don't think it will be. I already see how the beach level waters' edge isn't visible across 12.9 miles between La Jolla and Encinitas. My visibility has been better too than what's in that Pacific Grove to Moss Landing video. I just don't see how a mirror flash can be visible under normal refractive conditions. Dispersion shouldn't make it visible if obstructed.

I'm going to be doing a set of "experiments" like this, first above any obstructions just to validate what it looks like at 13-20 miles. And then take it over water across 13, then 15 then 20 miles. If it can be done consistently...
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: edby on December 17, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Just to note the other thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11579.msg176434#msg176434 on the drone footage. This clearly proves that some distant objects aren't visible from the shoreline, but become visible as the drone rises. Now there's a Flat Earth explanation for that (perspective, light curvature whatever) but clearly that explanation is inconsistent with the one offered here, which is that all distant objects are visible from the shoreline, and that light is not curved. (i.e. if all distant objects are equally visible from the shoreline, and if the earth is flat, then light cannot be curved).
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 18, 2018, 08:11:49 AM

Certainly, the light from the mirror has bloomed due to the air (surface level moisture and haze), but that wouldn't defeat surface curvature.

Or can it?

See demo starting at the 6:40 mark of this follow-up video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28P7GRejE8I

I still think lumping critique of this Monterey Bay experiment under the category of "flat earth can't science" is unfair, and this critique even gives the experimenters propers for their effort. I do think the apparent success of their experiment could give one pause about the shape of the earth, but as argued in the video above, simply busting the curvature calculator doesn't logically mean the earth is flat.

Now, if it's regularly repeatable and over ever-increasing distances, then a flat earth becomes more supportable. I just don't think it's going to happen. I'm not getting any of that super-refractive looming or "superior mirage" as they are calling it (but I disagree with that assessment) in my planned over-water observation points. So I predict I won't have the kind of success in Socal waters that they had over the Bay. And I also intend on going further than 13 miles. The real proof will be the 20 mile span from La Jolla to Carlsbad.

But the video above provides the closest thing I've found to a globe earth explanation for how that could happen. If they take the experiment to the Salton Sea, it should do away with some of the environmental issues (swell, sea spray, strong temperature inversion) that may have been at play in the Monterey observation.

Speaking of which, if the weather permits, my son and I are going to test out a signal mirror from two 800' spots 11.5 miles apart, just so I can see what an unobstructed reflected mirror light looks like (though I'm using a circular mirror of about 8" diameter and not the full-length mirror the flat earth researcher group used. I'm also curious to see if the FRS radios I have will cross that distance since I'd like to use them for coordinating in the surface-level over water test. I'll share a picture of the reflected light to see just how much the reflection blooms.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 18, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Here's a short clip of today's mirror test. Note that this flash is the result of using a 7" diameter round mirror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0kzOTXSEI
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on December 19, 2018, 07:11:30 AM
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.

In the US Navy Signalman Manual Earth’s curvature is mentioned several times in the manual. Specifically here:

"Geographic range: The maximum distance a light can be seen under conditions of perfect visibility, limited only by the curvature of Earth. It is expressed in nautical miles for the height of the observer's eye at sea level.”

http://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/signalman.pdf

I found this cool calculator specific to ‘Geographic Range’ for light (signaling)

Signalman Geographic Range Calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/directnautrange.html

Might come in handy.

There’s also a ton in the manual about lookout procedures, ranging, vessel/plane identification, navigation on a globe, there’s even a whole chapter on various hull types of differing ships. Eg.: "HULL DOWN: Said of a vessel when, because of distance and curvature of Earth, only the superstructure is visible.”

There's also "The American Practical Navigator/Chapter 4” from the Navy. It includes tons of info about light identification, ranges, luminosity, etc. Pretty interesting stuff:

"A light’s geographic range depends upon the height of both the light and the observer. The sum of the observer’s distance to the visible horizon (based on his height of eye) plus the light’s distance to the horizon (based on its height) is its geographic range. See Figure 407c. This illustration uses a light 150 feet above the water. Table 12, Distance of the Horizon, yields a value of 14.3 nautical miles for a height of 150 feet. Within this range, the light, if powerful enough and atmospheric conditions permit, is visible regardless of the height of eye of the observer. Beyond 14.3 nautical miles, the geographic range depends upon the observer’s height of eye. Thus, by the Distance of the Horizon table mentioned above, an observer with height of eye of 5 feet can see the light on his horizon if he is 2.6 miles beyond the horizon of the light. The geographic range of the light is therefore 16.9 miles. For a height of 30 feet the distance is 14.3 + 6.4 = 20.7 miles. If the height of eye is 70 feet, the geographic range is 14.3 + 9.8 = 24.1 miles. A height of eye of 15 feet is often assumed when tabulating lights’ geographic ranges."

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/APN2002-figure407c.png)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Practical_Navigator/Chapter_4
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: edby on December 19, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.
Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: inquisitive on December 19, 2018, 10:36:00 AM
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.
Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Which map shows the earth is flat?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: edby on December 19, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.
Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Which map shows the earth is flat?
All maps are flat, except for globes. The map of the terrain is flat, therefore the terrain that it represents is flat.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: inquisitive on December 19, 2018, 02:53:43 PM
Been thinking this topic is very much like what Navy Signalmen are trained to do, so I started looking into it.
Presumably they do a lot of what they are trained to do, so how is it they didn't notice that the training did not match the reality, i.e. the reality that the earth is flat? That's what puzzles me.
Which map shows the earth is flat?
All maps are flat, except for globes. The map of the terrain is flat, therefore the terrain that it represents is flat.
Many maps show the projection used, as you know.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: RonJ on December 19, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Light houses are built to put the light as high above the sea as is practical.  The higher the better under the round earth paradigm.  Seamen need these lighthouses for navigation.  If the earth were flat then it would be better to save the money used to build a tower and just build a more powerful & bigger light.  It wasn't done that way because the earth is round.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 19, 2018, 06:59:24 PM
Light houses are built to put the light as high above the sea as is practical.  The higher the better under the round earth paradigm.  Seamen need these lighthouses for navigation.  If the earth were flat then it would be better to save the money used to build a tower and just build a more powerful & bigger light.  It wasn't done that way because the earth is round.
The original lighthouse on Point Loma -- the beacon lighting the approaches to San Diego -- was built on the highest elevation of Cabrillo Point in 1855. During the 35 years it was in operation, it was the highest lighthouse in the US. But that proved to be it's bane, since the California coast is often visited by low ceiling marine layer and fog. In 1891, the old lighthouse was extinguished and the current lighthouse built on the lower 90' bluffs went into operation.

RonJ's point is valid though in that higher elevations are sought for communication antennas, lookouts, beacons and such to extend the line of sight otherwise limited by the (alleged) curvature of the earth. Heck, the mission of the aircraft I flew in for the Navy was predicated on the limitations of radar horizon facing surface-based long range surveillance radar systems. You can only put a radar antenna so high on a ship, but put one on an aircraft that can patrol at 20-30K ft and you increase the battle group's  detection distance exponentially. Limitations of surface radar range are not due perspective, or "compression" or optical opacity due to air density or waves. The radar horizon is akin to the visual horizon, in which line of sight (or radar propagation) is obscured by curvature of a globe surface. And that's the reason why distance to the horizon (visual or radar) changes with altitude.  That's the hallmark of a convex surface. That's how you "see" curvature.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: RonJ on December 19, 2018, 07:27:38 PM
That's why the seamen used to carry land birds aboard their ship.  A lot of times you get a clue that land may be nearby when you spot a bunch of clouds that often appear above a land mass but are not above the open ocean. If the old time sailors thought that land was nearby both by seeing the clouds and by their primitive navigational methods they would release some land birds.  Those birds would naturally fly off the ship and would climb up in altitude for a better 'birds eye view'.  When the bird sees land then they would make a 'bee line' in that direction and give the sailors aboard the ship a good indication of the direction.  A crows nest on the mast of the ship was also manned when the approach to shore was expected.  The seamen in the crows nest could be counted on to be the first to see a good indication of the shore line.  These procedures all work because the earth is a globe and even the old sailors knew it. 

Don't think that these are just legends that are untrue.  I've personally witnessed what land birds do on modern day ships.  Usually when our ship would be at the dock doing cargo operations we would have many land birds hanging out & flying around on deck.  After leaving the dock and heading out towards our next port most of the birds would leave the ship and fly back towards shore. Sometimes there would be a few birds that would stay too long.  I've watched them take off, climb up, and then head off in the direction of land that we couldn't see with our own eyes at the level of the bridge.  We knew where land was because of our accurate maps and GPS.  Sometimes the birds would stay even longer.  They would leave the ship, climb to an altitude, fly in circles, not spot the land, and return to the ship.  Usually they would die after a day or two from lack of food & water.  Finding dead land birds on the deck of a ship is not an unusual thing.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 19, 2018, 09:25:34 PM
Here's a short clip of today's mirror test. Note that this flash is the result of using a 7" diameter round mirror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0kzOTXSEI

Here's a quick capture from today's test from ~22 miles away, with significant surface haze. Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2cctjye.jpg)

Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on December 19, 2018, 09:29:02 PM
Here's a short clip of today's mirror test. Note that this flash is the result of using a 7" diameter round mirror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0kzOTXSEI

Here's a quick capture from today's test from ~22 miles away, with significant surface haze. Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2cctjye.jpg)

And one that looks about 10’ tall.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 19, 2018, 10:08:58 PM
10' tall if at the distance of that apartment tower along the line of sight. But it's more than double that distance, so it might be more like 25'

The objective of this was to test out the use of a signal mirror for sighting between coastal points. It wasn't the point of this to analyze the shape of the earth, but given that there are a couple of identifiable landmarks along the line of sight, I invite anyone to work out the geometry and see if these elevations work out to support a flat plane or if they "dip" with distance.

I was at Cabrillo National Monument overlook (https://goo.gl/maps/reAjGcr9B3A2) at an elevation of 365' + 5' tripod for a total of 370' MSL

The 14-storey Sorrento Tower (https://goo.gl/maps/54TgpRL7yWT2) is ~8.7 miles away with a top height of 440'

The Pyramid (https://goo.gl/maps/FB4SGrdJZwm) on Miramar is ~15.16 miles away with a height of 574'

My signal mirror assistant was ~21.6 miles (113,804 ft) away at Hilltop Community Park (https://goo.gl/maps/YkoN3WAVxS72) at an elevation of 804' holding the mirror at eye level of 6' for a total of 810' MSL

Edit to add this graphic. Base of triangles is 370' "eye level" elevation. Values of vertical rise are elevations above that.

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/9ibrrr.jpg)

Do these figures validate a flat plane? Or are the angles less than what they should be? I propose using the utility housing on the top of the 14-story apartment building as a gauge. It's approximately 16-17' tall at a distance of 45,820' which puts that vertical 14 pixel height at about 0.02°. The tip of the pyramid and the signal mirror reflection are both lower than should be on a flat plane.

Is there a flaw in the maths or measurements? If not, why would there be "dip" in the angles?
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 20, 2018, 05:01:50 PM
Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:
And one that looks about 10’ tall.
10' tall if at the distance of that apartment tower along the line of sight. But it's more than double that distance, so it might be more like 25'
The diameter of that flash subtends about 0.02°, and at a range of 113,804' that makes it nearly 40'.

40' from this 7" mirror.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/332t35j.jpg)


Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 20, 2018, 05:54:59 PM
Next step is to take this signal mirror to the beach and try to reproduce the result that in the OP video. The simple test is to first establish positive sighting by having my mirror assistant signal me from 70' parking lot overlook at Swami's (Encinitas) while I observe from the 25' view spot at La Jolla's Childrens' Pool, which is 12.9 miles away. I can see the top of the bluffs with a telescopic lens of my camera so it should be no problem.

Then, I'll have him descend down the stairs facing the cliff, stopping at intervals to confirm the flash is still visible and in line of sight. I've never been able to see below the roof of the life guard shack at the bottom of the stairs when viewing from that La Jolla perch 25' above the beach, so it will be interesting to see where (or if) the signal flash disappears. I'll have him go all the way to the water's edge there at Swami's.

Next, he'll climb the stairs back to a point where we should have visible contact, which I think should be at the landing of the life guard platform. And then I will move to the beach with camera (and/or telescope) and see if visible contact is retained or loss. Depending on the result, I'll have him either climb the stairs until signal sight is restored, or descend down to the beach to see if it can be seen at the water line across that span.

This is a rather simple procedure, and I may even YouTube stream the event so anyone here can watch. Planning on the first clear day during the week between Christmas and New Years. I'll want the sun to be behind me (in La Jolla), so anticipate it being 1200-1400 PST which will also be on falling tide toward the end of the week.

Not sure I want to complicate things, but if time and conditions permit, I might put my water level device on a tripod at the end of the sea wall protecting the Children's Pool area and line up the camera/telescope at a 15' view spot from the other side, in line with Swami's. Then have my signalman signal from the 15' level of the life guard tower.  That should be visible, but will it be level?

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/20g0g9k.jpg)

Regardless of the results, I may try to perform this a few times, just to see if varying atmospheric conditions alter the results.

I also hope to do this experiment across the span of La Jolla and the beach in Carlsbad in the sight line of the NRG power station, which is a distance of about 20 miles.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on December 20, 2018, 09:06:03 PM
Amazing how a 7" diameter mirror still produces a detectable light flash:
And one that looks about 10’ tall.
10' tall if at the distance of that apartment tower along the line of sight. But it's more than double that distance, so it might be more like 25'
The diameter of that flash subtends about 0.02°, and at a range of 113,804' that makes it nearly 40'.

40' from this 7" mirror.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/332t35j.jpg)

Just a total approximation. The reflection from your mirror is around 5.7 times the size of the 7" mirror. The folks in the video were using what looks like your standard closet door wardrobe mirror, usually 16" x 48". So at 21.6 miles, perhaps the reflection from the wardrobe mirror would be roughly 5.7 times it's size, something like 91" x 273", or 7.5' x 22'. Which kind of makes it as big as a car, something someone mentioned in a counter video. I don't know how that translates back down to the 13 mile distance in question. But interesting nonetheless that the reflection is so much larger than the physical reflector. Probally the reason why Signalmen use the light to do their job at sea.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 20, 2018, 11:14:26 PM
The mirror is reflecting the sun, so if the sun were really emanating from the direction of the mirror, I'd expect it to flare just as it would if looking directly. The angular size of the mirror at these terrestrial distances is just a small fraction of the 0.55° diameter of the sun, so it's only able to reflect a portion. However, even that small portion is bright enough to "flare" beyond the 7" mirror boundaries.

I have another larger circular mirror I will turn into a signal mirror (with reflective tape and a sighting hole) and hope to try that too to compare. I imagine it will produce an even larger flare. The rectangular mirror the F.R.E.E. group used would be larger still, but I don't think it's necessary. The objective is to make positive identification of the location of the signaler. If using an ever-larger mirror is required, then that must mean something is happening optically that is distinguishable from the earth being flat. I also don't want to be toting that large of a mirror around, and I also want a mirror that I can positively target and not just wiggle around.

If the size of the mirror turns out to matter, then that can be part of the analysis.

I'm not sure how much the intervening atmosphere contributes to the bloom in size of the light. One of the globe earth responding videos suggested that the moisture in the air near the surface of the water helped make the light appear above the physical curved horizon, as if the aerosols along the light path were retransmitting the light. I don't know if I buy that, but they do have an interesting demonstration of how a light source hidden behind a cylinder has it's light become visible when aerosol particulates are created in the intervening space. I linked to that video earlier in this thread, but I really don't think that's what's happening in the Monterey video. We're not just seeing a diffused light but you can make out the actual rectangular shape of the mirror.

My feeling is that it's a strongly refractive mass of air close to the surface, almost like a surface duct. I'm in the uncomfortable spot of maybe taking Tom's "compression" explanation and using it to explain how, maybe, 20-30 feet from the water surface up is being compressed into a thin band, not producing a mirage (superior mirage) but to cause a looming effect. The air near the surface of the water would have to be quite dense, meaning it would be quite cooler than the rarer air just tens or maybe a hundred feet above. I don't know what the sea and air temp were that day or what the humidity/dew point was, so it's hard to tell. All I can do is speculate.

Which is why I think it's important to see if their results are repeatable. And not just once, but on different days. And maybe at different locations. I mentioned before hoping to participate in their return to the Salton Sea in February where they plan on using this technique there, and over greater distances. I think with both globe and flat earthers working together, the exercise will be less likely to be conducted in a way to confirm a bias. We'll both be able to balance each others tendencies to try to produce results we might want.

I've rambled off the point, so getting back to the mirror type/size, for this first round, I intend to stick with my mirror configuration for both the 12.9 mile and then the 20+ mile tests. And I will be paying close attention to and recording sea and air temperature and other meteorological conditions, including the ozone/air quality indices since this pesky "haze" is unpredictable and may be a difference factor between my results and those from Monterey.

I'm still hoping for an opportunity to get to Monterey myself sometime after the New Year, though my focus then will be on the Bishop Experiment recreation. However, this mirror technique might come in handy for that too. I just would need to enlist a volunteer to drive around to Santa Cruz. I may not have the time for that and will just have to rely on visual identification of Santa Cruz shoreline landmarks.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Tumeni on December 21, 2018, 12:11:59 PM
How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

By drawing a line, do you mean like this, drawing line c under the arc s?

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

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Circularsegment.svg/257px-Circularsegment.svg.png)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 22, 2018, 09:42:16 AM

Do these figures validate a flat plane? Or are the angles less than what they should be? I propose using the utility housing on the top of the 14-story apartment building as a gauge. It's approximately 16-17' tall at a distance of 45,820' which puts that vertical 14 pixel height at about 0.02°. The tip of the pyramid and the signal mirror reflection are both lower than should be on a flat plane.

I'll finish this tangential observation with the calculation to see if applying curvature can reconcile the discrepancy in vertical angles between those landmarks.

As illustrated in the diagram above, if the earth was flat, the vertical angle between the apartment tower and the pyramid would be 0.14°-0.09°=0.05° and the vertical angle between the pyramid and the signal flash would be 0.22°-0.14°=0.08°.

But in analyzing the photo and gauging angles by the apartment tower we can see they're not. The former angle is 0.02° and the latter 0.04°.

(http://i63.tinypic.com/33nvlhv.jpg)

Solve for a curved earth and applying the curvature "drop" figures, the angles are depressed by the following amounts:

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2qwirh0.jpg)

Vertical angle between Pyramid and Apartment Tower is 0.05°-0.03°=0.02°
Vertical angle between the Signal Flash and the Pyramid is 0.09°-0.05°=0.04°


(https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-22-2018/1iHoKW.gif)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Max_Almond on December 23, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Handily, I've already got a spreadsheet that does these calculations from my mountain ranges tests (http://www.metabunk.org/using-mountain-ranges-to-predict-the-shape-of-the-earth.t8800) so I was able to enter them and do a check pretty quickly. Results of viewing angles from observer:

To Sorrento Tower: flat 0.087°, sphere 0.0243°
To pyramid: flat 0.146°, sphere 0.0363°
To mirror: flat 0.221°, sphere 0.0647°

So we agree on the flat results, but not on the sphere. Not sure why.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 23, 2018, 07:44:26 AM
So we agree on the flat results, but not on the sphere. Not sure why, but I'll attach my spreadsheet so you can have a look...

Looks to me like your spreadsheet doesn't factor atmospheric refraction.  If you apply a standard adjustment of 7/6*r for the radius value, or 4619 miles instead of 3958, looks to me like you get outputs closer to mine.

If you are applying refraction already, I didn't find it; but if so I don't know why the difference then.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Max_Almond on December 23, 2018, 09:36:07 AM
That'll be it. :)

With refraction, I get: 0.0333°, 0.0520°, and 0.0870° - same.

Cheers Bobby, that's actually really useful for something else. :)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 23, 2018, 05:29:37 PM
That'll be it. :)

With refraction, I get: 0.0333°, 0.0520°, and 0.0870° - same.

Cheers Bobby, that's actually really useful for something else. :)

Great. And for comparison, here is how those two geometries might compare visually:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/34yzhog.jpg)

I've tried to work this out in other views of distant landmarks before too, like my viewing of Mt Helix and Viejas from Cabrillo Point, JTolens' IR pictures of Mount Jacinto from Malibu, some views of Hawk Hill in the background of Brighton as viewed from Worthing...the vertical angles are always depressed. I didn't go looking for it here since I was just trying to experiment with using the mirror, but it works out again.

It's a little more involved than trying to assess a horizon being at eye level, and a little harder to show than images portraying "sunken ship effect," but it's the same concept.

I'm not a surveyor, of course, and these angles still have large angles of incidence meaning refraction by the air is still a factor. But so far as I've found, the analysis of vertical angles consistently favors globe topology vice flat.

But onto the next step. Next opportunity with good enough visibility, I'll be attempting to duplicate the F.R.E.E. group's mirror reflection sighting across the span from La Jolla to Encinitas (about 12 miles),  to Leucadia (about 15 miles) and to Carlsbad (20 miles).
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Spherical1970 on December 24, 2018, 01:35:44 AM
Let me know when you can see it at the same level, meaning lower the camera a half foot off the ground and record it.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Spherical1970 on December 24, 2018, 01:49:04 AM
Here try this one it's easier and dont video it because I dont want you to be embarrassed publicly about believing the earth is flat.
Get to altimeters goto the shore in Malibu and Catalina in line of sight with each other.
Then using the altimeters place the mirror and a laser at the same height not off the ground from each other but via the same height the two altimeters read the same and see if you can get a reflection.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Spherical1970 on December 24, 2018, 01:57:33 AM
If you look at the video the camera and people aren't at sea level, sea level would be touching the water. It is well above the sea level as is the mirror she is not at the water either.
Please learn how to do a scientific experiment and not just some mileninal political science majors attempt at one.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 24, 2018, 02:18:49 AM
If you look at the video the camera and people aren't at sea level, sea level would be touching the water. It is well above the sea level as is the mirror she is not at the water either.
Please learn how to do a scientific experiment and not just some mileninal political science majors attempt at one.
Allow me to play the flat earth advocate since the folks who performed this demo do not participate on this forum and won't see your insult.

The heights at which the mirror and the camera were positioned don't need to be at 0' above the level of the water. Even if both were 5' above the water's surface (which is what I think is a reasonable estimate), the light path from the mirror should not have been detectable by the camera lens. With standard refraction, there should still have been 63-69 ft hidden behind the globe earth horizon, meaning any camera height less than that should not detect the mirror flash. With moderate levels of refraction, that hidden value drops to 44-62 ft, which is still more than a camera placed at 5' above the water surface on the far shore should be able to capture. Bump to the refraction up to  very strong levels, and that still leaves 26-43' hidden behind the curve of the earth.

A surface-level shallow-height temperature inversion could form a light-trapping duct that could possible cause the light to follow the curve of a globe earth, but there aren't the secondary visual artifacts that such a condition was present. So even in strong looming conditions, I'd still expect the camera to need to be at least around 20' high to have successfully detected that mirror reflection, even if under the most advantageous of atmospheric conditions, if we are to trust that the earth is a globe of radius 3959 miles.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: AATW on December 27, 2018, 10:45:39 PM
Some good analysis here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHWjzolruo

Not entirely sure I understand the explanation for the flashes but the point about the lower part of the building being hidden is pretty solid
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 29, 2018, 11:53:30 PM
1st look at trying to replicate OP video experiment.

Will be assembling footage, but this was the lowest elevation we could successfully  get today.

Distance 12.9 miles.

Camera at ~25' in La Jolla

(http://i68.tinypic.com/5cnkt2.jpg)

Mirror at ~20-25' in Encinitas


(http://i68.tinypic.com/ou1lcx.jpg)

Right at the "fold" line of inferior mirage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10g0-NUaceg

More later.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: stack on December 31, 2018, 08:54:03 AM
According to Bilsin's the mirror should be 6' below the fold, hidden. The mirror is what, 7" in diameter? Looks like feet, maybe yards. So much distortion. Yellow marks where the mirror is/1 frame of flash, red what I think is the distorted landmark.

(https://i.imgur.com/b6AkMm2.jpg)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 31, 2018, 07:32:59 PM
The inferior mirage "fold" is not a distinct line. Not saying that's what you said, but just pointing out that it IS distorting. It stretches, and you see that in the image.

The reflected light in that particular frame grab is from a 7" diameter circular mirror. We also used a larger one (16" diameter I think?) and a smaller one: a 3"x5" mil std survival mirror. All 3 were visible when flashed from 70', but we just went with the 7" one for the rest of test down the stairs to the beach.

I think the flash to the observer is always going to be larger than the mirror itself, mirage or no mirage. The beam will spread and it's basically the brightness of the sun so it'll flare. That low an angle across the surface of water, and I image moisture and aerosols will contributing to the blooming of the light.

I haven't cracked the code on when to expect inferior mirage or not. Some days it's absent. More often than not, it's there though. Sometimes strong like on this day. Other days weak. But looking at air temp, sea temp, time of day doesn't afford me anything predictive.

What I want to know is what is behind the inverted image of the mirage? If you could erase it, would you see more of the distant land below that line where the mirror flash became obscured? Or you see the sea rise and reveal itself to be what is obscuring the light? I think I understand the answer, but I don't know for sure. I'll just have to keep doing this, hoping for another clear day when there is no distortion by mirage.
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 08, 2019, 04:15:55 PM

I haven't cracked the code on when to expect inferior mirage or not. Some days it's absent. More often than not, it's there though. Sometimes strong like on this day. Other days weak. But looking at air temp, sea temp, time of day doesn't afford me anything predictive.

What I want to know is what is behind the inverted image of the mirage? If you could erase it, would you see more of the distant land below that line where the mirror flash became obscured? Or you see the sea rise and reveal itself to be what is obscuring the light? I think I understand the answer, but I don't know for sure. I'll just have to keep doing this, hoping for another clear day when there is no distortion by mirage.

Not what I expected.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2a8hhxz.jpg)

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/9qlg10.jpg)

Red-outlined arrow is where the lowest point the mirror could be seen during mirage conditions. The (near) absence of inferior mirage reveals about 5-7' more of the stairs and maybe the tip of the guard tower roof.  This is a screen capture from a video I shot yesterday evening about 30-45 minutes before sunset. Tide was just turning on a -0.6 low.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/znts8z.jpg)
Title: Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
Post by: TomFoolery on February 22, 2019, 02:34:28 AM
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
In fact, when the mirror and camera were down close to the water, the flashes were strange odd shapes.
There are 3 shapes we could expect:
A point: Perspective and distance could make it look like a point.
A circle: An out of focus point.
A rectangle: The shape of the mirror.
(And when they went up above the water, it did seem to take on a more regular shape)
But down by the water, the shape was often like melted swiss cheese or flying pizza slice.
But it is clear that there was vast distortion near the water, and why shouldn't there be? Look at any vanishing ship and you can see right near the water things are all weird.
Quote
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
If you notice how the mirror shines on the sand at distance, it wasn't flat. It was curved, with a focal length of 50 feet depending on how she was holding it. It was kind of a thin mirror and not too ridged.
This would have caused significant beam spread which would make it a lot easier to get a flash to the camera.
Quote
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.

Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a  laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.