[Tumeni]

I am not making up an RE claim.

You wrote..."There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves."

That specifically means that the lights are at appropriate levels for a globe shaped earth (RE).

As such, that would mean bendy light.

No, you're making up your own version of what I'm saying, and arguing against that, not against what I actually said.

[totallackey]

I am not making up an RE claim.

You wrote..."There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves."

That specifically means that the lights are at appropriate levels for a globe shaped earth (RE).

As such, that would mean bendy light.

No, you're making up your own version of what I'm saying, and arguing against that, not against what I actually said.

I just quoted your post, word for word.

How does that constitute "making up my own version"?

[Tumeni]

I just quoted your post, word for word.

How does that constitute "making up my own version"?

By what you wrote, AFTER you quoted me.

[totallackey]

I just quoted your post, word for word.

How does that constitute "making up my own version"?

By what you wrote, AFTER you quoted me.

Alright.

If you do not mean that refraction is lifting the light 29 feet above the horizon, what do you mean?

[Tom Bishop]

I think he's claiming that the lights are being enlarged and projected onto the atmosphere above the curvature of the earth, and we are seeing the tops of those projections peeking above the curve, all coincidentally aligned.

ie.



It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that. In the diagram the length and size of the red light side view is larger than the yellow light, for example.

The projections would need to be projected to unique distances into the air, in accord with the drop of the Earth and distance from the observer, to get the tops of the projections to align.

[Tumeni]

I think he's claiming that the lights are being enlarged and projected onto the atmosphere above the curvature of the earth, and we are seeing the tops of those projections peeking above the curve, all coincidentally aligned.

IMG

It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that. The projections would need to be projected to unique distances into the air, in accord with the drop of the Earth and distance from the observer, to get the tops of the projections to align.

That's pretty much it. EDIT - except the lights themselves are not being "enlarged"; the emissions of light from them are.

Without clarity in the video, the maker lacks the proof that he has a direct sightline to the lights.

In a similar fashion, you and I can see sunlight for a while after sunset, or for a while before sunrise. This is called twilight, and the duration of this can and has been calculated (see timeanddate.com) and predicted, based on the geometrical relationship of the bodies concerned.

You could do the same for the example in the video, to determine the geometric relationship that applies. You're halfway there with the diagram. Don't dismiss the geometry as "coincidence" - determine it for yourself.

[AATW]

It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that.

Is that like the coincidence that makes the sun the exact same angular size, even when viewed through a filter, at all times despite in your model it being a vastly different distances when overhead or at sunset.
It’s interesting that you don’t have a problem with coincidences which make your model work...

I did mention this before but it’s noticeable that the two most distant lights keep blinking on off when in reality the lights shine constantly. Why do you think you can only see those lights intermittently? What is blocking the lights when you can’t see them?

[CJO]

I'm just curious has any of u FEs including Tom Bishop ever actually conducted this experiment on ur own.   Again FEs using someone else's data to argue a point.  My experiment.  Went to the top of the arch could not see more than 30 miles until horizon.  Why curve of earth not air density and quality.

[Tumeni]

I think he's claiming that the lights are being enlarged and projected onto the atmosphere above the curvature of the earth, and we are seeing the tops of those projections peeking above the curve, all coincidentally aligned.

ie. PIC

It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that. In the diagram the length and size of the red light side view is larger than the yellow light, for example.

The projections would need to be projected to unique distances into the air, in accord with the drop of the Earth and distance from the observer, to get the tops of the projections to align.

It's not coincidence, it's a limit of visibility due to the geometry of the situation.

Go to a place where there's a hill over which a road has been built, and examine the behaviour of approaching car headlights. The limit is the road, which you cannot see through. The lights are beyond the crest of the hill, but you still see the emissions, AT THE LEVEL OF THE ROAD. The only "coincidence" is that the road is level across its width, so the low point of the light you see is at road level for all the lights. You still see light ABOVE the road level. The emissions do not stop in space at the level of the limit of visibility.

[totallackey]

I think he's claiming that the lights are being enlarged and projected onto the atmosphere above the curvature of the earth, and we are seeing the tops of those projections peeking above the curve, all coincidentally aligned.

ie. PIC

It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that. In the diagram the length and size of the red light side view is larger than the yellow light, for example.

The projections would need to be projected to unique distances into the air, in accord with the drop of the Earth and distance from the observer, to get the tops of the projections to align.

It's not coincidence, it's a limit of visibility due to the geometry of the situation.

Go to a place where there's a hill over which a road has been built, and examine the behaviour of approaching car headlights. The limit is the road, which you cannot see through. The lights are beyond the crest of the hill, but you still see the emissions, AT THE LEVEL OF THE ROAD. The only "coincidence" is that the road is level across its width, so the low point of the light you see is at road level for all the lights. You still see light ABOVE the road level. The emissions do not stop in space at the level of the limit of visibility.

Is it "at the level of the road," like you wrote first?

Or is it, "ABOVE," the road, like you wrote second?

[Tumeni]

I think he's claiming that the lights are being enlarged and projected onto the atmosphere above the curvature of the earth, and we are seeing the tops of those projections peeking above the curve, all coincidentally aligned.

ie. PIC

It strikes me that with whatever mechanism you choose to argue it is still a coincidence that the tops of those projections would be aligned in a plane like that. In the diagram the length and size of the red light side view is larger than the yellow light, for example.

The projections would need to be projected to unique distances into the air, in accord with the drop of the Earth and distance from the observer, to get the tops of the projections to align.

It's not coincidence, it's a limit of visibility due to the geometry of the situation.

Go to a place where there's a hill over which a road has been built, and examine the behaviour of approaching car headlights. The limit is the road, which you cannot see through. The lights are beyond the crest of the hill, but you still see the emissions, AT THE LEVEL OF THE ROAD. The only "coincidence" is that the road is level across its width, so the low point of the light you see is at road level for all the lights. You still see light ABOVE the road level. The emissions do not stop in space at the level of the limit of visibility.

Is it "at the level of the road," like you wrote first?

Or is it, "ABOVE," the road, like you wrote second?

I think my post is clear. Shall I draw you a picture?