The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on August 12, 2018, 04:22:54 PM
-
Tom Bishop posted another interesting video of an investigator using IR photography to view and analyze long range viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_vYtSlMpVA
FE Photographer believes he's captured no-curve imagery. But has he?
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/kbpr9c.jpg)
Camera elevation: 17 feet (Bayview Park on Padilla Bay)
Distance: 19.5 miles (to Clark Island, San Juan Islands)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/520239.jpg)
Should Clark Island be hidden if the earth is a globe?
-
FE Photographer believes he's captured no-curve imagery. But has he?
I say no, he hasn't. And here's why.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2czeo0o.jpg)
This is representative of the channel marker FE Photographer makes a point of showing us is along the line of sight, 6.45 miles down range. And it is fully visible in the IR image, along a sight line that intersects Clark Island at a distance of 19.59 miles.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/4rw6is.jpg)
I judge that buoy to sit about 12' above the waterline, based on personal knowledge of the typical size and the gull sitting on the base in the photo. Maybe it's 10'. I can do that math for that too, but for now I'm going with 12'.
A height of 12' at a distance of 6.45 miles results in an vertical angle of 0.02°.
At a distance of 19.5 miles, 0.02° represents 35 feet.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/fwoe1e.jpg)
FE Photographer cites the highest elevation of Clark Island as 95' which would be at the knoll in-line with the channel marker sight line. Tree vegetation on the island would add height to the land, which he figures at a 'generous' +100'.
Why, then, if the earth is truly flat, is the top of the treeline cresting at only 70'. If the earth is flat, and the island is 95' and trees adding, at best, 100' to the island profile, why isn't the IR image seeing the tops of the trees at 195'? Or even 145' if the trees are even half the height he generously allows?
At the 3:06 mark of the video, he claims to point out rocky shore line features:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2rzx8if.jpg)
Yet, the rocky eastward-facing bluffs on that side of the island rise steeply 20-40' as depicted in the topographical chart and seen in these images:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2vrx6ox.jpg)
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/29aw2kp.jpg)
He correctly assumes that the dark sections of the IR image would be rocks, but his image doesn't depict the vertical displacement of rocky bluffs that should be 1x or 2x that of the buoy in the foreground.
And here's a picture of the tree canopy along that hump. 100' is not merely "generous."
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/jsokt3.jpg)
95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?
FE Photography used this Earth Curve Calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial) to figure that 141' would be the hidden height on a globe earth, which would leave but the top of the trees visible "at best:"
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/11jvrxw.jpg)
Why does he draw the line there? The buoy has given us a vertical gauge to let us deduce that we're seeing 35-50' of almost all vegetation.
Not only that, but that earth curve calculator doesn't take refraction into account. If we do, using a standard index of refraction, we get 110-115' that would be hidden. Not 140'.
It sure seems to me his IR images captured exactly what one would expect on a globe of the claimed radius of earth, and you don't even need all that much refraction to account for what was captured. On the other hand, to call it a picture of a flat earth you have to imagine you're seeing a rocky shoreline and you have to come up with an explanation for why the angular dimension of the buoy is not in proportion to the island's elevation. For what we're seeing of the island, to be 150-195' on a flat earth, that buoy in the foreground would have to be 50-60' tall.
It's not, and that IR imagery doesn't depict a flat earth.
-
Random question RE IR photography... How far could the IR camera this guy has theoretically "see"?
Could you, for example, see France from Boston?
Or, see Everest from basically anywhere, like on top of the Empire State building or something?
-
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.
-
For what we're seeing of the island, to be 150-195' on a flat earth, that buoy in the foreground would have to be 50-60' tall.
I think I have justification to believe the channel marker actually sits 15-16' above the water. Which would change the vertical scale at the distance of Clark Island (in the graphic above) to be about 50' increments vice 35.'
The adjusted height matches better the lateral dimension of the island from the line of sight perspective in the IR image, and it helps 'flatten' the earth a little. Not enough to call the earth flat, but enough to force globe earth calculation to invoke refraction.
-
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.
That's a shame. If it could that could have put an end to all this and, as a RETer, my beliefs would finally be proven right or wrong without a doubt to anyone.
-
95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?
Plugging in the distance 19.5mi and observer height 17ft into a RE plain circle (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ft6cv7dtk0) accounting for standard refraction as agreed in other topic, it gives following:
(https://image.ibb.co/mcCrt9/Capture.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dAf0mU)
Black dotted is line of sight just visible over top of circle at 8.8km, observer right, target left, 34m hidden (111 ft)
Zoommed in target:
(https://image.ibb.co/c7A0mU/Capture3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b5RHY9)
Even further zoomed in observer:
(https://image.ibb.co/gkkY6U/Capture4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/eLtxY9)
What do you think?
-
http://oi68.tinypic.com/fwoe1e.jpg
FE Photographer cites the highest elevation of Clark Island as 95' which would be at the knoll in-line with the channel marker sight line. Tree vegetation on the island would add height to the land, which he figures at a 'generous' +100'.
Why, then, if the earth is truly flat, is the top of the treeline cresting at only 70'. If the earth is flat, and the island is 95' and trees adding, at best, 100' to the island profile, why isn't the IR image seeing the tops of the trees at 195'?
I believe that your premise is flawed. He said that the highest elevation of the island was 95 feet, not the entire island. The peak doesn't even necessarily have tall trees, or even any trees at all, on it.
Furthermore, we do not seem to be seeing the entire island in those shots.
95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?
Again, the highest elevation is 95 feet, and that peak doesn't necessarily have trees on the top.
If the highest elevation on earth is Mount Everest, does it follow that all of earth is at the altitude of Mount Everest? That is what you are assuming here.
-
And here's a picture of the tree canopy along that hump. 100' is not merely "generous."
http://oi67.tinypic.com/jsokt3.jpg
Where is that from on the island? What makes you think it is on the peak? Not all of the trees are huge there.
(https://parks.state.wa.us/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=9979)
-
I believe that your premise is flawed. He said that the highest elevation of the island was 95 feet, not the entire island. The peak doesn't even necessarily have trees on it.
Since I don't claim the entire island has an elevation of 95', and I don't claim the video claims the entire island rises to 95', and nowhere do I base any assessment on the premise that the entire island is 95' in elevation, you must be misunderstanding the case I made.
The highest point of the island, though, does have trees on it, and that's the area of the island on which I've provided focus, mainly on the sight line that coincides with the green channel marker and where it intersects the island, which happens to be an oblique angle from the rocky bluff north of the eastern sandy beach/mooring cove and up across the knoll that is the highest point on the island.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/4rw6is.jpg)
This is where that sight line makes landfall (either on the far right or just out of frame on the right):
(https://parks.state.wa.us/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=9982)
And here's a different angle of that point looking north from the eastern beach/cove
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/29aw2kp.jpg])
This is the eastern view of the island with landfall and "peak" marked, and there are trees. I marked where buoy sight line intercepts the island with a yellow arrow and the red arrow is the high elevation area:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/518uu1.jpg)
The white in the IR image is vegetation: trees
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2rzx8if.jpg)
"Rocky shoreline" shows up as black.
Where's the line of black that shows the 20-40' bluffs we can see in that color photo from the kayak running from the east side cove up to the north end of the island? It's gone.
-
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
(https://i.imgur.com/8vR8a58.jpg)
Link source (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Clark+Island/@48.7008402,-122.7644573,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNcRNEIPgVrxGeGemF-waePgA7fTikp9aRPbpTv!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNcRNEIPgVrxGeGemF-waePgA7fTikp9aRPbpTv%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4160!8i3120!4m5!3m4!1s0x54859a8a3fecf2db:0x542311479176cb5a!8m2!3d48.7008402!4d-122.7644573)
Here it is flipped because the boat was on the opposite side of the island.
(https://i.imgur.com/8YmHntX.jpg)
with the IR telescopic version:
(https://i.imgur.com/obJ8Frx.jpg)
Comparing the same side to the island in the video in the op, only very little of the island seems to be missing to me.
-
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
You're showing me an image of the western side of the island which you acknowledge is the opposite side from that the video image presented, and you're saying that it looks pretty similar?
Why would you do that? What point does that serve?
-
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
You're showing me an image of the western side of the island which you acknowledge is the opposite side from that the video image presented, and you're saying that it looks pretty similar?
Why would you do that? What point does that serve?
It's the same island, just taken closer up and on the opposite side of the photographer. I flipped it horizontally in my second image. Images two and three have the same side on the right hand side of the island. The trees are close to the shoreline, just like the telescopic versions. Very little of the island is missing. If we compare to the gauge you made here:
(https://i.imgur.com/lyAq9Ch.png)
Presuming that the gauge above is correct... we can see that only about 30 feet was missing from the close up view.
Telescopic IR View:
(https://i.imgur.com/obJ8Frx.jpg)
Close Up View, Flipped Horizontally:
(https://i.imgur.com/8YmHntX.jpg)
Compare the dip in the tree line on the right hand side of the island. Can you see that only very little of the island is missing, only about 30 feet or so, according to your gauge?
However, according to the earth curve calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=19.5&h0=17&unit=imperial), at 19.5 miles and 17 feet in elevation, under the Round Earth model, 139.2627 feet should be missing.
-
You flip the island, which hides the need to address why the rocky bluffs are not visible in the IR image.
You use my gauge scaled to the other side of the island, from a different angle aspect and distance to guesstimate how much of the island is missing from an image taken nearer and from the opposite side and think that's analytical somehow or reasonable?
And when you assess the convex earth calculation, you don't allow for refraction, taking the atmosphere-less geometric worst-case figure.
Doing all that to make the best case for a flat earth, and you still can't account for 30' of island. Waves?
Doing it correctly, there is 70-100' of elevation missing, which (as with the San Jacinto imagery) aligns more closely with a refracted earth curve calculation than flat earth.
-
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.
I think you provide strong evidence to support this. What was the humidity when these pictures were taken? We have previously observed that things like humidity had created a curve effect or taken an existing curve effect and amplified it.
-
Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34 in this video for a few minutes at the 1:44:58 mark and listen to the narrator. There is a timelapse of what happens over the water's surface. I've embedded it with the time spot:
https://youtu.be/ipDfJwkmkj8?t=1h44m58s
-
Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34...
I've seen that. I've got the original video bookmarked and follow SkunkBayWeather on Twitter. It's not an experiment. It's time lapse video that SkunkBayWeather captured.
Is that somehow supporting a case that a globe earth calculation should NOT take into account refraction as you did when they provided a prediction of what should or shouldn't be visible if the earth is convex?
What's the point? Are you claiming that refraction and atmospheric effects on optics are what could be responsible for hiding part of Clark Island's vertical elevation in that IR image?
-
Narration from the segment:
The atmosphere can cause distant objects to stretch, to compress, to mirror, and to be obscured by a false horizon line. You can see it all. Unfortunately, what you don't see is see objects arcing over curvature due to refraction. Unfortunately, dishonest globe propagandists use distortion as proof of curvature when clearly it is not.
I have repeated this demand on many occasions to the globe faithful: Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill, which then arcs over a hill only to refraction. To date, not one globe supporter has produced the arcing over the hill proof and the flat earth proofs keep rolling in.
He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.
Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos:
(https://i.imgur.com/3usPNuI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GPRdhSW.png)
The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"
This would be the usual remark. However, this does not hold. Look at where the horizon/water line is located the revealed version:
(https://i.imgur.com/KqiVBBE.png)
In the revealed version the horizon is behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.
We can watch more time-lapse videos, if you wish, to see whether these concepts hold as bodies are revealed and hidden.
-
"Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-pXWRn_wfk
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3usPNuI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KqiVBBE.png)
In the revealed version the horizon behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.
- In the revealed version the horizon behind the island...
What makes you claim that this is a horizon, I see another shoreline, and even if this is the horizon, see 2 - ...and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air...
What make you claim, that refraction is so selective to only affect the peninsula? I see also that the background is affected, especially the lower mountain ridge behind the peninsula definitely appears higher than before - and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds
Another baseless claim. - phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula
So actually the lower image in no way is only a distortion of the first image. There are clearly more details/features on the shore of the peninsula in the second image, which are not visible in the first image
-
He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.
Standard refraction is not "mirage." Distortion is not a defining characteristic of the presence of refraction.
I'm not talking about mirage. The extension of visual or radar range due to refraction is not "mirage."
-
Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos..The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"
That's not the general Round Earther explanation for what's seen in those shots. The horizon isn't in play in explaining the optical phenomena of those shots. Those Skunk Bay distortions are due to inversions and ducting and other departures from non-standard atmospheric conditions. The Skunk Bay time lapse video is a distraction; an attempt to erect a strawman so that you can dismiss standard refraction with an erroneous claim about what "Round Earther's" claim.
All the while, you avoid explaining where the missing 40-50' of Clark Island is, just like you avoided the missing 7000' of San Jacinto. You want (need) the geometric calculation of what should be hidden on a curved earth to be the pass/fail for earth convexity because you think that failing leaves you to claim the earth flat by default.
Sorry, but no. You're not getting away with that.
-
All the while, you avoid explaining where the missing 40-50' of Clark Island is, just like you avoided the missing 7000' of San Jacinto.
The video and images I have shown clearly shows evidence that refraction distorts, stretches, and compresses near the horizon. There is already something which can distort the horizon between the object and the observer, which we saw evidence of in the video. Where is the evidence for what you are proposing?
There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into mid air. There is no evidence that refraction can bring anything up from behind a curve or hill. Your Clark Island needs to be floating over a hundred feet in the air and your San Jacinto needs floating over a thousand feet in the air, all creating crisp images without any distortion at all.
Surely if this large scale projecting of bodies in the air were so common place we would often see large bodies floating in mid air. On the occasion when we do see something floating in mid air due to refraction, it's always a wavy mess.
None of the images we have seen "jibe" with a Round Earth model. You always need some kind of odd and perfect refraction excuse: "I know that none of what we see supports a Round Earth... but refraction!" That position is coming off as quite ridiculous.
-
Refraction isn’t odd. It’s an everyday phenomenon.
-
The video and images I have shown clearly shows evidence refraction distortsand obscures near the horizon.
It can. Yes. All sorts of effects on visibility can be seen as the temperature and humidity change rate with altitude as the air or water heats or cools. You aren't breaking news there. I see it every day looking out over the Pacific, watching the Coronado Islands start off "normal" in the cooler mornings and then seem to grow, loom, stoop, mirror or even appear to float due to inversions in the temperature lapse rate that departs from "standard."
Those aren't "standard refraction" effects, Tom. Standard refraction is based on a steady rate of temperature and air density increasing with altitude. And as light passes through this standard layer over a curved surface, it encounters that less dense air of higher elevations as the earth and its atmosphere slope away. Thus, in accordance with refraction, light "bends" back toward the earth. This is not anomalous. It's a function of a "standard" density change in atmosphere and curve. That's why it's a rule-of-thumb factor and never is presumed to be an actual predictor of current or local conditions. "Standard" refraction has the net effect of making the earth's radius seem to be 7/6x larger, or a little "flatter" if you will.
Standard refraction is independent of local, changing atmospheric conditions. Local conditions will -- and do -- alter things, sometimes dramatically as with Fata Morgana or mirages and other distortions. But standard refraction isn't distorting. You're under the mistaken impression that when standard refraction is cited, it's talking about the kind of distorting phenomena you see in the Skunk Bay video. It's not. Get that out of your head. The principles for why light is 'bending' due to atmospheric conditions may be the same, but the conditions and effects are not.
There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into the air.
There's evidence everyday. Not of "projecting large bodies into the air" (which is a weird way to depict it) but of things being visible over the horizon that wouldn't be visible were it not for the atmosphere. Refraction, for instance, doesn't make all of Mt San Jacinto visible from Malibu. It just makes a little more of it visible than what would otherwise be geometrically visible sans atmosphere. You just reject the evidence. Geometrically, we should only be able to see 1455' of San Jacinto. But we agree we can see more. Why? because the earth is flat? No. If the earth was flat, we'd be able to see 8000 or so feet of San Jacinto. But we don't. We only see about 2500' of it. That's evidence that light is being refracted. It's not a mirage.
Same with the Clark Island viewed from 20 miles away. Atmospheric refraction isn't making the island visible down to the water. It's just adding a little extra vertical visibility, as if the earth was 7/6x larger and the horizon just a little bit further away than in no-atmosphere, geometric terms. If it's not that and the earth is really flat, then not enough of the island is visible.
There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into the air. There is no evidence that refraction can bring anything up from behind a curve or hill.
Refraction is what brought and added 1000' of San Jacinto into view over the Ladera/Baldwin Hills that otherwise wouldn't have been visible without it. I provided you the evidence. You just won't accept it. (You refuse to believe it, while also remaining silent on why, if the earth is flat, we can only see 2500' of San Jacinto.)
The same is happening here with Clark Island. I'm explaining why, on a curved earth with atmosphere we can get an extra few tens of feet of visibility of the island beyond what is geometrically calculated. You just can't accept it. Instead, you argue a strawman to reject standard refraction in a globe model, while never offering an explanation for why we're missing the lower few tens of feet of island visibility if the earth is flat. You need for a geometric calculation to be a pass/fail criteria for a globe earth and leave flat earth as the default conclusion if that fails.
Your Clark Island needs to be floating over a hundred feet in the air and your San Jacinto needs floating over a thousand feet in the air, all creating crisp images without any distortion at all.
No. Not even close to picturing or interpreting what is happening with refraction.
None of the images we have seen "jibe" with a Round Earth model. You always need some kind of odd refraction excuse. What you are claiming is quite ridiculous.
Something's ridiculous here, alright. It might be revealing why you have such difficult applying these concepts while being entirely unaware of the difficulty. If you think applying a refraction factor to a horizon/visibility calculation means the object should appear to be floating or distorted, then taking a time out and going back to RET atmospheric optics basics is really in order.
You know, on that moon tilt topic that got Appaullingly in trouble, he was scolded for not getting "FET" right and alleging things that were supposedly not true about the FET model(s). It caused some of you consternation. Consider that the shoe is on the other foot and you are attributing an interpretation of standard refraction on a globe model in a way that is not true in the model. You can do what you want, of course, and believe it, insisting and convinced that you've got it right; but if you expect to have a dialogue on the subject or to make a persuasive argument, you can't make things up about your opponents' position.
I think if the earth is flat, I should be seeing the full height of those rocky bluffs on Clark Island. Is that wrong? Am I imposing an incorrect assumption on FET like you are about refraction? If so, please elucidate. All I've seen so far is that you think we are somehow seeing the full height of the island. I explained why that's not true, but surely we're not seeing the full elevation we should be of San Jacinto. What's the explanation for that in the FET model?
Instead of, or in addition to arguing with rounder earther's how their round earth model is supposed to work but doesn't, spend a little time on how the flat earth model works to explain what we see in these San Jacinto and Clark Island images. I keep asking, and I'm going to keep asking, because flat earth isn't the default if you think you've proved globe earth wrong. Why is 40-50' of Clark Island hidden if the earth is flat? Why is 7000-8000' of San Jacinto hidden if the earth is flat? You've made the case for why an atmosphere-less globe earth can't be true. And you'll get no argument from me about that. But a globe earth has an atmosphere and that atmosphere plays a part. And my atmospheric "magic wand" gets me closer to what we observe than anything I've heard from you from the perspective of flat earth. What are flat earth "magic wands" for that missing land? Perspective? Convergence zone? Waves?
-
When Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied this over a period of three decades he said that the only consistent Flat Earth water convexity tests took place on standing bodies of water such as canals and lakes, which is why the main experiments in the book take place on the Old Bedford Canal.
The sinking ship effect would actually occur on standing water and on the sea, with the difference being that the Sinking Ship Effect is reversible with a telescope on standing bodies of water, and the Sinking Ship Effect on the sea is at times not reversible.
On standing bodies of water the Sinking Ship Effect is caused by limits to angular resolution. On the sea, the Sinking Ship Effect is caused both by angular resolution limits and also the waves of the sea (either by the swells themselves or tidal effects).
See:
- Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
- Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm)
As per Earth Not a Globe, the experiments should most properly take place on standing bodies of water to get consistent effects.
In the Mountain Experiment most of the experiment is done over land, not water, let alone standing water.
The island experiment was conducted on the Straight of Georgia, which is an outlet to the sea. It may be an area affected by tidal effects.
The fact that those experiments might not conform exactly to a Flat Earth on those environments is unsurprising, and is, in fact, what our literature already predicts.
-
Those aren't "standard refraction" effects, Tom. Standard refraction is based on a steady rate of temperature and air density increasing with altitude. And as light passes through this standard layer over a curved surface, it encounters that less dense air of higher elevations as the earth and its atmosphere slope away. Thus, in accordance with refraction, light "bends" back toward the earth. This is not anomalous. It's a function of a "standard" density change in atmosphere and curve. That's why it's a rule-of-thumb factor and never is presumed to be an actual predictor of current or local conditions. "Standard" refraction has the net effect of making the earth's radius seem to be 7/6x larger, or a little "flatter" if you will.
I do not believe that "Standard Refraction" is an explanation for this viewing of the island on the Round Earth model. The MetaBunk Earth Curve Calculator has a section for "Standard Refraction" which uses the 7/6*r figure.
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Distance: 19.5 Miles
Height: 17 Feet
Results ignoring refraction
Horizon = 5.05 Miles (26659.33 Feet)
Bulge = 63.39 Feet (760.69 Inches)
Drop = 253.57 Feet (3042.79 Inches)
Hidden= 139.25 Feet (1671.04 Inches)
Horizon Dip = 0.073 Degrees, (0.0013 Radians)
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
Refracted Horizon = 5.45 Miles (28795.37 Feet)
Refracted Drop= 217.34 Feet (2608.1 Inches)
Refracted Hidden= 112.77 Feet (1353.25 Inches)
Refracted Dip = 0.068 Degrees, (0.0012 Radians)
Not really much different. That was not 112.77 feet that was hidden of the island. I pose that "Standard Refraction" does not explain what you are seeking to explain.
-
Even "Standard Refraction" is not an explanation for this viewing of the island...The island should still be hidden.
95' island elevation with 100' trees minus 112' hidden = 83' visible
80' island elevations with 75' trees minus 112' hidden = 43' visible
(https://i.imgur.com/lyAq9Ch.png)
Flat earth is not an explanation for viewing of the island...None of the island should be hidden.
-
When Samuel Birley Rowbotham...
As per Earth Not a Globe, the experiments should most properly take place on standing bodies of water to get consistent effects.
In the Mountain Experiment most of the experiment is done over land, not water, let alone standing water.
The island experiment was conducted on the Straight of Georgia, which is an outlet to the sea. It may be an area affected by tidal effects.
The fact that those experiments might not conform exactly to a Flat Earth on those environments is unsurprising, and is, in fact, what our literature already predicts.
You introduced both videos to make a case for a flat earth. I show how they do not do so and so now you make the special pleading why they might fail to do so.
-
Let's take this approach.
I'm going to cease defending the standard globe earth model here, just for the sake of argument. Wipe the slate. Pretend I'm not beholden to a convex earth or a flat earth. From analyzing that IR image, can we determine if the earth is flat or convex?
What we know (or at least aren't disagreeing above):
The distance from photographer to island high point is 19.5 miles.
Height of island high point is 95'.
Height of camera is 17'.
Distance to buoy along the sight line from photographer to island high point is 6.45 miles.
What we must estimate (can we find a range to agree upon?):
The height of trees on the island high point is about 100' maximum and about X minimum (you pick a value for X, Tom, Make it reasonable, and I'll go with it.)
The height of the buoy is about 12'. (If you object, give me another value and if it's reasonable, I'll go with it.)
What I will concede (only for the sake of this argument):
There is no effect due to atmospheric refraction.
To be resolved:
Does this image of Clark Island reveal a convex surface or a flat plane?
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/kbpr9c.jpg)
My flat/convex agnostic question: why can't we see the lower 10', 20' or maybe even 40' of the island? What's the reason for that missing part of the island?
-
Why can't we see the lower 10', 20' or maybe even 40' of the island? What's the reason for that missing part of the island?
How about:
"There is no part of island missing. The island, as seen in the Skunk Bay time lapse video, has been squashed vertically due to looking at a very shallow angle through the dense atmosphere. The lower elevations are just distorted to the point of 'disappearing.'"
-
When Samuel Birley Rowbotham...
As per Earth Not a Globe, the experiments should most properly take place on standing bodies of water to get consistent effects.
In the Mountain Experiment most of the experiment is done over land, not water, let alone standing water.
The island experiment was conducted on the Straight of Georgia, which is an outlet to the sea. It may be an area affected by tidal effects.
The fact that those experiments might not conform exactly to a Flat Earth on those environments is unsurprising, and is, in fact, what our literature already predicts.
You introduced both videos to make a case for a flat earth. I show how they do not do so and so now you make the special pleading why they might fail to do so.
It's not special pleading at all. The matter has been studied and demonstrated. Sometimes the sinking ship effect is seen, at other times bodies are fully visible or only partially seen. The fact that it changes is demonstration that there is something changing that is blocking it.
From the Perspective at Sea chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) of Earth Not a Globe:
On the Nab-light ship:
In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who had attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have
p. 218
been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.
On Eddystone Lighthouse:
It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.
A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.
"OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."
p. 219
At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.
That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.
The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But how modified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.
p. 220
motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.
At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationary parallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig85.jpg)
Fig. 85.
Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interference from any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes
p. 221
less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.
Sometimes the lighthouse is seen, at other times it isn't. One may speculate on the cause of the Sinking Ship effect, but the fact is that the "sinking ship effect" is inconsistent.
The inconsistent sinking ship effect is already codified and demonstrated in our literature. It is what is expected to be seen. It is exactly the reason why Roabotham suggests that the experiment be conducted on standing bodies of water.
Has the Round Earth permanent refraction idea that projects solid images of bodies into the air been demonstrated?
-
Sometimes the lighthouse is seen, at other times it isn't. The "sinking ship effect" is inconsistent.
How has your refraction idea been demonstrated?
By the sun still being visible even after it's astronomically below the horizon.
By more of San Jacinto being visible from Malibu bluffs than a no-atmosphere earth curve calculator predicts.
By more of Clark Island being visible from Bayview Park than a no-atmosphere earth curve calculator predicts.
The "sinking ship" effect is due to convexity. The distance at which it happens is inconsistent because the atmosphere conditions are not consistent.
Now, if you can lie on your belly at Lover's Point and see people cavorting at the surfline in Santa Cruz, then that would likely be beyond what any "magic wand" refraction condition could explain. Extreme ducting perhaps, but that's not the kind of standard refraction I'm talking about and it would cause optical distortions. So, if you could document that observation with more than vague anecdote, then you'd have a strong case debunking atmospheric refraction causing a convex earth to appear slightly less convex.
But here's the kicker. Just being less convex doesn't make it flat. You don't get away with showing that a no-atmosphere curve calculator doesn't match with observation and then get to declare the earth flat as a conclusion. Apply a flat earth calculator to the observation and see what you get. Why the discrepancy? Where's the bottom 50' of Clark Island? Where is the lower 7000' of San Jacinto? That video of the Super Dome from across Lake Pontchartrain? Where's the rest of the structure below the white dome? Where's the lower section of the CN Tower looking over Lake Superior? Why does the skyline of Chicago sink rather than fade into the haze across Lake Michigan?
You want to reject atmospheric refraction as being but a "magic wand." Fine. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to abandon the "magic wand" of refraction. But you still haven't defended why the earth is flat vice simply appearing slightly less convex than the earth curve calculators predict. Seeing more of something than what a curve calculator predicts doesn't automatically conclude the earth is flat.
Oh, and as for your special pleading, is Plymouth Sound a standing body of water? Is Monterey Bay? How about the stretch from Malibu over land to San Jacinto? Rosario Straights? Lake Ontario. Lake Michigan? Salton Sea? All have been used to make a case for a flat earth. Why, if they don't qualify as "standing bodies of water?"
-
Flat earth is not an explanation for viewing of the island...None of the island should be hidden.
Bobby you have posted pictures where an island was not obscured and another picture from the same height and distance where part of the island was obscured.
Things like barometric pressure, humidity, temperature can cause the view of things to be obscured.
Independently of the shape of the earth you have admitted that things like barometric pressure, humidity, and temperature can cause the view of things to appear to be obscured by the horizon.
There are other things which can amplify/reduce this "hidden by the horizon" effect. Two pictures could have the same height, distance, temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity. They could have been taken at the same day and one could still show part of the island obscured by the horizon because the PPM of nitrogen in the atmosphere was different.
-
Bobby you have posted pictures where an island was not obscured and another picture from the same height and distance where part of the island was obscured.
When did I do that?
-
Sometimes the lighthouse is seen, at other times it isn't. The "sinking ship effect" is inconsistent.
How has your refraction idea been demonstrated?
By the sun still being visible even after it's astronomically below the horizon.
I believe you are talking about this:
(https://www.hko.gov.hk/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)
Ignoring that this is really just an attempted explanation of why the sun isn't where it should be in RET, and an admission that the RET sun is wrong isn't really a demonstration that refraction is happening, the situation is far different. The light is traveling from vacuum to atmosphere.
The effects we are talking about happen at sea level. Temperatures across sea level are not constant, and will vary. We should be able to see some kind of distortion in the effects that project images of large bodies into the air. There must be some sort of evidence for it, surely?
You want to reject atmospheric refraction as being but a "magic wand." Fine. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to abandon the "magic wand" of refraction. But you still haven't defended why the earth is flat vice simply appearing slightly less convex than the earth curve calculators predict. Seeing more of something than what a curve calculator predicts doesn't automatically conclude the earth is flat.
Oh, and as for your special pleading, is Plymouth Sound a standing body of water? Is Monterey Bay? How about the stretch from Malibu over land to San Jacinto? Rosario Straights? Lake Ontario. Lake Michigan? Salton Sea? All have been used to make a case for a flat earth. Why, if they don't qualify as "standing bodies of water?"
Sure, we don't have to talk about refraction.
We didn't film those experiments or select the locations. But they tend to show things contrary to RET. You conveniently ignored the other experiments from the infrared proofs thread in the Media Forum that did show no hidden areas.
Even Rowbotham makes the case that when the bodies are partially obscured, with more seen than what the RET predicts, that it is still a refutation against the model. These videos provide a compilation of evidence to consider, and should be shared. If you found some hidden bodies that perfectly match the globe, you are free to share them.
The sinking ship effect was one of the original points of evidence for the concept of a Round Earth. If it doesn't really reflect a Round Earth, and changes over time, then it is not really a definite proof that the earth is round, as it has been used as for centuries.
The collected evidence of inconsistency or non-existence detracts from the strength of the model. Even with some of the partially sunken scenes, the theory must still imagine that bodies are seamlessly projected into the air by refraction; and so such scenes should be collected and analyzed. Evidence that supports that refraction should manifest in some way, certainly, as should evidence of ground distortion or obfuscation.
-
How has your refraction idea been demonstrated?
By the sun still being visible even after it's astronomically below the horizon.
I believe you are talking about this:
(https://www.hko.gov.hk/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)
Not quite. Maybe. Not sure what that is depicting.
Seems like an oversimplified graphic that could be misleading if it's trying to visualize the example I gave. I don't know the context of that graphic, but the sun's not below the horizon. It also depicts a much greater degree of displacement between apparent and astronomical suns than what standard atmospheric refraction can cause, and then only near the horizon and not at high angle of incidence like that.
Refraction like the kind I'm referring to occurs at shallow angles entering the earth's atmosphere and it maxes out at around half a degree displacement. It's also independent of varying, localized deviations from standard atmospheric lapse rate; deviations like the sort that causes distorting effects like mirages, stooping, looming, etc. Those are different, and if existing manifest in addition to standard atmospheric refraction. Standard atmospheric refraction exists just by virtue of the fact that the atmosphere exists. Even without any local distorting factors that maybe be present, the sun when half a degree below the horizon will appear at the horizon because we have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere curves around a spherical earth.
I'll modify the graphic. It's still a simplified visualization, but at least now it's in the context of sunrise/sunset and more closely depicts what's going on in my offered example provided in response to your request for how standard atmospheric refraction is demonstrated in an observable real world phenomenon.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/ibhpuv.jpg)
-
Ignoring that this is really just an attempted explanation of why the sun isn't where it should be in RET, and an admission that the RET sun is wrong isn't really a demonstration that refraction is happening...
Thanks for ignoring those two positions because they are both wrong. Even if you don't believe a round earth to be the truth, you should still be able to understand that IF true, the atmosphere can't be ignored. RET would be wrong if it didn't account for the atmosphere in predicting the displacement of the sun. It's not a post hoc salvaging explanation.
Does atmospheric refraction not get accounted for in a flat earth model? Maybe not. On a round earth it has the effect of flattening the perceived curvature of earth. But a flat earth is already flat. It can't flatten. So does that mean atmospheric refraction would produce a slight appearance of concavity? I don't know. Hadn't thought about that before. But though an atmoSPHERE magnifies the degree if light bending a bit, an atmoPLANE would cause light refraction too, just to a lesser degree.
-
...the situation is far different. The light is traveling from vacuum to atmosphere.
The effects we are talking about happen at sea level. Temperatures across sea level are not constant, and will vary. We should be able to see some kind of distortion in the effects that project images of large bodies into the air.
You are conflating standard atmospheric refraction with deviations from the standard caused by varying local atmospheric conditions. Standard refraction is based on a uniform atmosphere that isn't assuming things like inversions or steeper or shallower lapse rates, surface or elevated ducting...all the sorts of varying conditions that cause a variety of distorting effects: stooping, looming, superior mirages, inferior mirages, mock mirages, etc. Take all that away and leave just a still, even atmosphere that smoothly and consistently follows a standard temperature/density profile and you will still get atmospheric refraction, bending light toward the denser medium. That's what the standard 7/6r refraction rule of thumb accounts for. It doesn't try to predict or consider super-refraction, inversions, subduction or all the daily fluctuations over water or terrain that can have all sorts of distorting effects. Just plain old vanilla standard refraction will give a slight boost to visual (and radar and other RF propagation) distances simply because of the curvature of an atmosphere with varying density from low to high. It depends on wavelength. It depends on angle of incidence. And, of course, there will be deviations when local conditions vary from the standard temperature profile.
And we're not talking about just at sea level. Refraction occurs at higher mountain elevations too. It depends on the angle of incidence; and is not exclusive to sea level. Atmospheric refraction doesn't cease to exist just because we're looking over land with elevation. It has to do with how shallow the angle through the atmosphere is. Steep angles are less refracted. Shallow angles, more. (Maybe not if the angle is perpendicular and the earth is flat, but on a spherical earth, light that is perpendicular to atmospheric layering won't be for long because the earth/air will curve away and light will encounter less dense medium and try to curve toward the denser air.)
Bottom line, I'm addressing standard atmospheric refraction and you are thinking about phenomenon caused by deviations from standard.
-
We didn't film those experiments or select the locations. But they tend to show things contrary to RET. You conveniently ignored the other experiments from the infrared proofs thread in the Media Forum that did show no hidden areas.
Which ones? I finally got around to all of the IR flat earth videos, I thought. Which one(s) did I miss?
So far, every flat earth claim that IR is showing a flat earth has more shown that a convex earth is more likely. Just showing that something is contrary to a no-atmosphere earth curvature calculation doesn't contradict RET. What if, instead of failure to apply refraction being the problem, the problem is the radius of earth is wrong. What if it's 10000 miles? That could account for why we might see further than on a 3959-mile radius earth. Simply demonstrating that what a round earth with a given radius predicts isn't true doesn't prove flatness. It could just mean the earth is less convex than believed.
Place the shoe on the other foot. I've repeatedly shown that elevations that should be visible if the earth is flat are not visible. Using your pass/fail reasoning, that means the earth is not flat. You spend all this time trying to poke holes in the specifics of RET, but FET doesn't occupy truth as a logical consequence of that. Flat is flat. Whatever failure RET seems to have in marrying prediction with observation, it's always been closer than what FET predicts. You won't address that. Clark Island is sunken by 50 feet. Whatever RET's inability to explain anything beyond a 100' hidden value, you've made no effort to explain how the island can lose 50' to line of sight. You claim you saw down to the waterline across 23 miles of open water exposed to the ocean while observing from 1 foot height. If that's possible, then 17' observation altitude should not lose 50' of island elevation. Not to waves. Not to perspective. Those are your "magic wand" escape hatches, and they have far less explanatory power than RET's atmospheric refraction "magic wand."
San Jacinto? FET looses 7000' or more feet to what can be explained away. You critiqued RET over a difference of 1000' from predicted vs observed.
It's very formulaic. Flat earth video calculates what a no-atmosphere hidden value should be, then shows how some of that object isn't hidden, declares spherical earth false and earth flat, even though there's still sizeable portions hidden from view. One of my first exposures to this formula was Jeranism's video on looking across Lake Pontchartrain and seeing the Superdome. Wow! So, ignoring refraction, that shouldn't be possible. But that's ignoring refraction. Meanwhile, we only see a distorted top of the Superdome. Nevermind that. Jeranism's magic wand is the "convergence zone". As long as the no-atmosphere earth curve calculator proves inaccurate, flat earth gets to win the round.
You. You discount the observation of the CN Tower over Lake Ontario because its a sea and not a standing body of water. What does that have to do with the fact that a sizeable chunk of the tower is missing from earth. Waves? Seriously?
These IR videos are fascinating, and maybe they're a new trend among flat earth advocates who think they're exposing flat earth proof by cutting through atmospheric haze. If you ask me, they are showing convexity, and the only way they "prove" a flat earth is by trying to prove that round earth, without refraction, can't account for the amount of whatever it is being visible. And guys like JTolen and FE Photographer make blatant errors that you either ignore or don't check before extolling. JTolen claimed San Jacinto shouldn't be visible at all. Not true. He gooned up his angular index and arrived at an incorrect observation. FE PhotograpFETher is claiming his IR image is showing "rocky shoreline." Clark Island doesn't merely have a rocky shoreline on that eastern face. It has a rocky bluff rising to 50-60' along much of that length north of the cove. Where is it?
I'm going to try to use this IR filtering approach to cut through the summer atmospheric haze and see if I can't get a clear ocean horizon shot and wrap up my "horizon at eye level" experiment and resolve what I think we all already know. After that, you'll probably be rid of me.
-
My rebuttal to video at top of this topic captured in a single graphic:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2qukaps.jpg)