Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
fascinating. How is this relevant?
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.
It is possible, but it is not reality:Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.
This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.
If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?
How is this even relevant?
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.
It is possible, but it is not reality:Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.
This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.
You are making it look more and more like "My local bit of earth looks flat, so the earth is flat", the guess everything else!
As I have attempted to stress, but quite unsuccessfully,the moon does exactly the same thing as we claim the sun does - stays the same size (within exactly the variation predicted from the observer to the moon).So I'll post it again, and again!
Now, surely you are not going to claim that "glare" magnifies the moon when is near the horizon, while magically retaining all the detail. The following two photos wer taken recently. The camera was hand-held at 1,600 mm 35 mm equiv focal length, so may not be as sharp as they might be.Note that in both photos the moon's detail is quite apparent. The different orientations of the moon is simply that I was facing a different direction.
20160524 19:36 - Moon at Alt 6.3°, Azm 107.7°, size 0.516° at - 1600mm
20160519 22:08 - Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°, size 0.511° at - 1600mm
In the left photo the moon is 6.3° above the horizon and the right is 71.5° above the horizon. I "calibrated" the camera by photographing a millimetre tape at a distance of 8 m using the same (1,600 mm) focal length. Note that the photos are not taken on the same night.
In the photo close to the horizon (Alt = 6.3°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1730 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.516°.
In the highest altitude photo (Alt = 71.5°) the diameter of the moon on the original image is 1713 pixels, which gives an apparent size of 0.511°.
The calculated apparent sizes for the moon (from size and allowing for the moon's known orbital ellipticity) at those times are: 0.503° for the left photo (cf 0.516°) and 0.498° for the right photo (cf 0.511°). So I'm a bit in my calibration!The apparent size of the moon does not change size from near the horizon to near overhead other than for the quite calculable changes in distances to the moon.
I could do exactly the same thing for the sun (or YOU could and prove it for yourself), but I haven't got a solar filter and don't intended wasting my money - I am not the one guessing about possible causes - I KNOW!
I don't like shouting but sometimes it is necessary!
The apparent size (as subtended angle of the disk) of the sun and moon do not ckange any more than predicted by the "globe theory"!
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBTFunny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.
As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light? Why does it not magnify everything?
Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.
As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.
So headlights yes? But not, a lighthouse...
Try again.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT
Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.
As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light? Why does it not magnify everything?
Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.
In the Bi-Polar model the sun rotates around the Northern Hemiplane for 6 months out of the year and then shifts over to rotate around the Southern Hemiplane for 6 months. It gradually moves between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. This is what creates the seasons - long summer days and short winter days in the North, and vice versa for the South.
What days of the year does this shift happen? Why don't we see a sudden shift in the path of the sun through the sky?
How small should they be? Your analysis seems woefully incomplete.
So you found some photos and video of headlights at a distance of, what, a half mile? And you extrapolate from there to how the sun appears from thousands of miles away? You must have forgotten that you don't believe that small-scale evidence is representative of large scale behavior. Perhaps a reminder is in order (emphasis added):The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.Replace "math" with "photo" and you've argued against your own attempt to prove sun glare from headlight evidence.
But you have suggested a method before, which you can use now (emphasis added):Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.All a Flat Earther need do is find a place where you can see a car headlight "at that sort of distance", photograph it, and get back to us. The wiki has the sun at an elevation of "about 3000 miles" at local noon, and more than twice that at apparent sunset due to moving west around its path. But I'll accept a much shorter distance: if the effect you describe is real (and if the earth is flat) you should be able to photograph headlights in Chicago from a vantage point on the east flank of the Rockies, and they should be HUGE after all that atmospheric magnification!
1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
Headlights are configured to illuminate the ground in front of them, the sockets are angled downwards (a few degrees).
They'll obviously appear brighter at a distance when filmed like this at a higher altitude when pointing in the direction of the camera.
You can't use this for comparison, at all. It's shocking that it's actually needed to tell you that.
I have never in my life seen glare magically magnify an object (and the details on its surface), and make it appear the exact same size and shape no matter how far away it is.
1. This is not glare. This is out of focus.
2. If you notice the intensity of light coming from the farthest objects is dim and the light gets brighter as the object get closer to the camera. To support your claim of magical magnification, if this where an actual representation of glare, the light coming from the farthest objects would have the same intensity as those closer to the camera since something is magically magnifying the light. This can even be seen in the two objects on the right of the image which are receding from the camera, the intensity of the light diminished with distance.
Sir fantastic Rowbotham's statement is completely off base. Light diffused by a material (any material, including the atmosphere) is not magnified. Covering a bare bulb with a semi-opaque cover does not make the light brighter. By the logic of his statement and those you've made in support of, the light of the moon should be noticeably (if not incredibly) brighter on a completely cloud covered night simply because clouds are the "aqueous particles" which he speaks of.
What's impossible about either movement?
1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.
I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.
But not all of the sky can be seen at the same time, so depending on where you look the stars can be seen to be traveling vertically into the horizon.
So you disagree with point number 2?
Let me make sure I understand your point: You are saying that this photo is not demonstrating rotation around a horizontal axis. Only a vertical axis. Is this correct?
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.
Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.QuoteIf you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.
I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?
The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.
That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.
What's impossible about either movement?
1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.
I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.
How about some evidence?
A simple bing search would come up with several pictures of stars touching the horizon.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=star+rotation&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPM
There is no reason for why a star cannot travel both horizontally or vertically in the sky.
You are still completely missing the point. Do you understand what an axis of rotation is? Do you understand the difference between roll and yaw?
How about some evidence?
