# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on August 19, 2018, 10:07:53 PM

Title: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 19, 2018, 10:07:53 PM
First step (if possible) is to fill out this table:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2mnlwch.jpg)

We all know how to calculate (or how to use online calculators) to come up with how much of a target height will be hidden on a sphere of earth's claimed radius, not accounting for surface irregularities or atmospheric effects on optics.  I used a popular calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=29.8&h0=57.7&unit=imperial) found on GitHub to fill out the table for a spherical earth.

What I don't know for sure is how to fill out the flat earth column. I would be inclined to put 0 all the way down, but I don't want to presume and potentially skew the challenge. So I ask any willing flat earth advocate (not "globetards" playing devil's advocate) to step forward and propose values for the flat earth column.

We are to ignore atmospheric effects like refraction, which has been disparaged as a "magic wand" used to salvage spherical calculations.

Step 2 will be to examine a series of images taken of a target at these ranges/heights and see if we can assess actual hidden/not hidden values. I can promise up front that the values in the spherical earth column above will not match what we will deduce from the images. Since I have no values for the flat earth column, I can't yet make the same declaration for that camp, but I predict that whatever values flat earth calculation might produce will likely be "ballpark" and not perfectly match what we find in the images either. That's okay.

Step 3 will likely and unavoidably occur coincident with the process of Step 2 since it is human nature to want to analyze with an eye on the desired conclusion. But, if we can, the step will be to assess whether the evidence is more supportive of a flat earth of FET (flat earth theory) or a spherical earth of the size that is the consensus in RET (round earth theory).

Finally -- and since I predict the measured/derived values will be less than Step 1 calculated values of RET's but greater than FET's, we can then debate using "magic wands" to argue for adjustments that could swing the raw values closer to your supported model and away from the opposing model.  That is if we actually get that far.

This might not even get out of the blocks.  To do that, we need some flat earth numbers to fill in the table.  Anyone?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 01:03:47 AM
This might not even get out of the blocks.  To do that, we need some flat earth numbers to fill in the table.  Anyone?

Here's a proposal for the flat earth hidden height column, based on a simple formula derived from the explanation for flat earth horizon and "bottom-first" disappearing found in Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/20ixe1z.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 03:01:45 PM
No takers?

TFES.org has a Wiki page dedicated to round earth calculation of hidden heights, but nothing on how to calculate the "sunken ship" phenomenon of how much can appear hidden on a flat earth?

Isn't that a rather significant gap in the knowledge base of Flat Earth Theory (FET)? I've posted many times my interpretation of Earth Not a Globe and how to calculate distance to the horizon, and I've tried to find a way to apply that to quantifying how much of ship's hulls, or the bottom of distant islands or mountains will be lost to view on a flat earth while their tops remain visible.

I know I read elsewhere Tom Bishop say this community could make round earthers do the work, but come on. What can I do to goad someone on the flat earth side of the aisle to step up and provide something quantifiable? Something comparable to the curve earth calculator to predict hidden heights on a flat earth that we can compare, alongside the round earth predictions, with observation? Is this an unreasonable request?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2018, 06:06:40 PM
It's not a simple distance-feet chart. There are several phenomena going on with the Sinking Ship Effect.

Firstly, there is a limit to resolution of the eye, which is less than 1/60th of a degree. Rowbotham describes the matter in the Sinking Ship Chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm). This limitation may make it appear if some bodies merge in the distance. Those bodies can, however, be restored with a telescope, which is the cause of the accounts of restored hulls in the book Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony, and why several Youtube authors claim to be able to restore hulls.

Secondly, in the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) Rowbotham describes that often times on the environment of the sea bodies can be hidden by waves, swells, or bulges of the water (perhaps tidal?). Sometimes bodies are obscured, and at other times they are visible. Examples are given of the Nab Light ship and the Eddystone Lighthouse, which were at various time visible and invisible. During these times a telescope cannot restore the hull.

The affect of the water may be associated with the winds. In the chapter On The Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm) Rowbotham states the following:

Quote
It is well known that even on lakes of small dimensions and also on canals, when high winds prevail for some time in the same direction, the ordinary ripple is converted into comparatively large waves. On the "Bedford Canal," during the windy season, the water is raised into undulations so high, that through a powerful telescope at an elevation of 8 inches, a boat two or three miles away will be invisible; but at other times, through the same telescope the same kind of boat may be seen at a distance of six or eight miles.

During very fine weather when the water has been calm for some days and become as it were settled down, persons are often able to see with the naked eye from Dover the coast of France, and a steamer has been traced all the way across the channel. At other times when the winds are very high, and a heavy swell prevails, the coast is invisible, and the steamers cannot be traced the whole distance from the same altitude, even with a good telescope.

Instances could be greatly multiplied, but already more evidence has been given than the subject really requires, to prove that when a telescope does not restore the hull of a distant vessel it is owing to a purely special and local cause

Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than "this is how much is hidden at this distance."
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 06:12:01 PM
I apprehend all that, but what i'm asking for is akin to the pure geometry of the earth curve calculator that doesn't included variables like atmospheric effects or surface irregularities (hills, ocean swells, structures. etc.)

Is it fair to say that on a flat earth, there should be no hidden elevation other than what is caused by such obstructions as you mentioned. If there is no dense air, no fog/smoke/particulates/vapor, no waves (or what not)...all hidden values would be 0 feet.

In the 2nd table above I tried to interpret Rowbotham's perspective and limits of visual acuity to provide a value for what might be hidden even if all obstacles to geometric perfect flatness were removed. I don't know if it's right, and I certainly don't believe it to be true, but I don't want to invoke my own stance onto what flat earth ascribes to.

If values are 0, I'll put 0. If values need to account for some Natural Law of Perspective formula, I'll plug them in. But I need you (or someone) to tell me what they are. I'd love to know how they are derived if they are non-0, but that's not the point of this exercise. I just want to apply baseline numbers. We can apply waves or atmosphere or other adjustments to those base numbers during the assessment, but you have to start out with a baseline, I should think.

Here's my gripe. Every flat earth demonstration or video I come across uses the earth curve calculator to put a round earth on the carpet, and if that calculated result isn't observed, flat earth is declared proven and round earth debunked. But what if you flip the script? If flat earth 'calculator' says 0' should be hidden and yet we see that some elevation is hidden, does it debunk a flat earth and prove the earth surface is convex? I

I'm sure you'll say "no." But you won't allow for deviations from the earth curve calculator,  which is a strict geometric calculation, because you say it's all "magic wand" stuff. Why is what's good for the Rowbotham goose not good for the Globe gander?

So, what I was hoping for was to set a no-magic-wand baseline of hidden/visible calculations. We've got that for the globe. We don't have that for flat earth, unless you're implicitly saying that a flat earth geometric value should be 0' at any distance. I'm fine with that. It's during the later step(s) when we're looking at observations/recorded evidence and analyzing how much is hidden and why that might be so that you can apply "waves" or "perspective" or "convergence layer" effects to explain deviation from that baseline. And round earth defenders will do that too. The challenge is to see which camp can explain those deviations better and make reasoned adjustment from the baseline to get closer to the observation.

Doesn't this make more sense than both sides just shouting at each other and broadly asserting claims of proving their side and debunking the other?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: MCToon on August 20, 2018, 06:45:56 PM
Bobby, I love this idea.  Start with predictions for interested models.  Perform a test, for each set of predictions see if the predictions match the observations.  Use that data to draw conclusions.  This is science.

I hope we can get some consensus on the predicted flat earth predictions.  Maybe JRow could include a dual earth prediction to add in a third set?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 08:16:00 PM
Firstly, there is a limit to resolution of the eye, which is less than 1/60th of a degree. Rowbotham describes the matter in the Sinking Ship Chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm). This limitation may make it appear if some bodies merge in the distance. Those bodies can, however, be restored with a telescope, which is the cause of the accounts of restored hulls in the book Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony, and why several Youtube authors claim to be able to restore hulls.

I derived values in the flat earth column in this table from that description, calculating based on this naked eye resolution. Telescopic photo lenses and telescopes would necessarily reduce these numbers, and the images I'd like to present are from a camera with a zoom lens. But I'd like to move forward and so rather than trim them to 0, let's go with them and make this the flat earth baseline. If this should later prove to be objectionable, we can revisit:

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/20ixe1z.jpg)

So the next step is to look at some observation and evaluate what we are seeing. I hadn't seen this video until this weekend when someone pointed me to an old discussion topic (from before I poked my head in) that discussed this video, published by YouTuber Mathias Kp about 2 and a half years ago:

I think it's obviously pro-spherical earth, but there is no narration. Just images and data from which we might be able to draw some conclusions or test our theories.

One of the difficulties of analyzing photos at or near the horizon is judging vertical distance/elevation, which usually involves some guesswork and best guess estimation to work out the trigonometry or making indices or finding reference points. What I thought was unique about this was the feature of the structure itself, which is segmented, providing a potential gauge that reduces the estimating error. The videographer refers to the sections as "blocks" and with a documented height and 9 of these "blocks" along with the roof structure and the ground-level floor, we have a pretty good means of knowing how much of the structure is visible and how much is hidden. Why hidden is the ultimate objective, but both flat and convex earth can make their strongest cases for explaining what is recorded in the images.

Neither should claim "victory" simply because the geometric prediction of the other isn't exhibited. If we agree on what we're seeing, then we can argue over why we are seeing it and which earth topography (and it's assorted "magic wand" explanations for why the values might deviate from baseline) is the better fit.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
This is a graphic the video author constructed:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2uzs7so.jpg)

And here is something I've made to offer a first suggestion as to elevation heights where each image appears to be "cut-off."

(updated to correct significant errors)
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/34t1y60.jpg)

If anything looks out of whack, please chime in.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 08:41:59 PM
Here as a set of data sheets based off of my tower estimates: one for curved earth and one for flat, using the baseline values in the earlier table:

(updated to correspond with fixed tower graphic above)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2yos4n6.jpg)

I'll let this percolate. The idea is to refine these before moving on to explain the deltas. Of course, flat earth proponents will naturally look to reduce the estimates to bring them closer to the baseline so that the remaining amount that appears hidden will be easier to explain. Similarly, round earth proponents will likely want to push the height estimates up to make the shortfall from the baseline numbers explicable by its own factors for adjustment. That's all understandable, but remember that the idea isn't to preserve a belief but to try to determine a truth as best we can.

The observed values fall between the lower flat earth values and the higher round earth values. Before we try to argue for why they are more or less than a baseline prediction, try to look objectively and see if these observed estimates are at least correct so that the real contest isn't over what we're seeing but why.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: QED on August 20, 2018, 11:37:36 PM
It's not a simple distance-feet chart. There are several phenomena going on with the Sinking Ship Effect.

Firstly, there is a limit to resolution of the eye, which is less than 1/60th of a degree. Rowbotham describes the matter in the Sinking Ship Chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm). This limitation may make it appear if some bodies merge in the distance. Those bodies can, however, be restored with a telescope, which is the cause of the accounts of restored hulls in the book Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony, and why several Youtube authors claim to be able to restore hulls.

Secondly, in the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) Rowbotham describes that often times on the environment of the sea bodies can be hidden by waves, swells, or bulges of the water (perhaps tidal?). Sometimes bodies are obscured, and at other times they are visible. Examples are given of the Nab Light ship and the Eddystone Lighthouse, which were at various time visible and invisible. During these times a telescope cannot restore the hull.

The affect of the water may be associated with the winds. In the chapter On The Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm) Rowbotham states the following:

Quote
It is well known that even on lakes of small dimensions and also on canals, when high winds prevail for some time in the same direction, the ordinary ripple is converted into comparatively large waves. On the "Bedford Canal," during the windy season, the water is raised into undulations so high, that through a powerful telescope at an elevation of 8 inches, a boat two or three miles away will be invisible; but at other times, through the same telescope the same kind of boat may be seen at a distance of six or eight miles.

During very fine weather when the water has been calm for some days and become as it were settled down, persons are often able to see with the naked eye from Dover the coast of France, and a steamer has been traced all the way across the channel. At other times when the winds are very high, and a heavy swell prevails, the coast is invisible, and the steamers cannot be traced the whole distance from the same altitude, even with a good telescope.

Instances could be greatly multiplied, but already more evidence has been given than the subject really requires, to prove that when a telescope does not restore the hull of a distant vessel it is owing to a purely special and local cause

Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than "this is how much is hidden at this distance."

Unfortunately, these claims are easily proven mistaken by using your own telescope. On the calmest days, one can easily see that the ship bows remain below the horizon when viewed from a distance. This is in contrast to Rowbotham's claim that the entire ship should manifest upon magnification if FET was viable.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 21, 2018, 10:26:54 PM
Tom Bishop (for flat earth) and I (for globe earth) may be the only two spending any time on this.

But on the off chance that someone else is out there (preferably another flat earther) digging in, here's a video I found by the same YouTuber (Mathias KP) in which he details how he analyzed the vertical dimensions of the Turning Tower in Malmö, Sweden. (Starting at the 3:55 mark)

It's more laborious than I would ever attempt, but he does seem to be exacting.
I captured the portion of his spreadsheet that shows his elevation figures by floor or vertical element (in meters):

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2u8z1cj.jpg)

He starts his elevation count with height above mean sea level (1.98m or 6.5'), something I had overlooked.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 22, 2018, 06:59:18 AM
The observed values fall between the lower flat earth values and the higher round earth values. Before we try to argue for why they are more or less than a baseline prediction, try to look objectively and see if these observed estimates are at least correct so that the real contest isn't over what we're seeing but why.

Great stuff Bobby. The data estimates look about as accurate as you can get for a baseline. I'd say we should start examining the why. Seemingly RE would start to factor in refraction to close the delta gap. I'm not sure what an FE factor would be.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 22, 2018, 01:50:31 PM
I'd like to give Tom more time. I know he's working on his own approach to height estimates. He had a post up for a bit but deleted it due to a small error. I did see it and it alerted me to some more significant errors I had made, which prompted me to correct and and edit my posts. So the dialogue is good. I don't really want this to be a soliloquy.

But I do think we are "good enough for government work" (as the saying goes). It doesn't have to be gnat's arse accurate. I think within +/- 5' is fine for what I was proposing. The trickier part is, once we reach consensus on ballpark floor tower heights, estimating where the sight line in each of the observations is to determine the value for how much of the structure is missing from view. That's the number we really want, and something within 10' is about as good as I would probably hope for.

I do think the estimates above are good, but Tom or someone might see something or think of some consideration that I'm missing, so I'd like to wait a bit.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 22, 2018, 07:15:17 PM
Just trying some things out:

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an RE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of -75 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.189 of a refraction value to erase the -75 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.189 refraction value.

_______________

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an FE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of 205 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.90 of a refraction value to erase the 205 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.90 refraction value.

_______________

I could be doing this all wrong, let me know.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 22, 2018, 09:02:32 PM
Just trying some things out:

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an RE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of -75 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.189 of a refraction value to erase the -75 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.189 refraction value.

If atmospheric refraction is all that is involved in accounting for the deviation from a geometric "hidden-by-curve" calculation, then yes. The challenge for a globe earth advocate is to make a case for how atmospheric refraction can make the earth seem a little flatter, enough to account for 75' of target elevation being visible that would otherwise be hidden in that particular case.

A refraction value of 0.189 is greater than the standard value of 0.17 so that means light would have to have been a little super-refracted, meaning the bending toward earth of the light a little more extreme.

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an FE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of 205 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.90 of a refraction value to erase the 205 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.90 refraction value.

I could be doing this all wrong, let me know.

For FE the challenge is different because I don't know how you account for atmospheric refraction over a flat plane. Bilsin's tool doesn't apply refraction to its FE model. Light propagation can certainly be affected by changing air (atmolayer) conditions across the line of sight, but since there is no curve on a flat plane, the air doesn't curve according to a "standard" that follows the curvature of the earth, so there's no standard index as such. There is thus 0' hidden target for all distances and observer elevations for a FE model, no matter the refractive index in a GE model. You need some other tool or set of explanations to work out the delta in predicted vs observed hidden heights for FE.

I chose not to start FE out at 0' hidden for all ranges and observer altitudes. It's not much, and it may not be right, but I worked out a simple formula from Earth Not a Globe's perspective and visual acuity explanations to derive baseline hidden values that are not found in the Bilsin tool. These may be exaggerations for FE since the observations came from using a telephoto lens and not the naked eye, but I included them anyway; but they are relatively small values.

I put forth this challenge, because I don't know how the FE model reasons to account for the hidden value. The predominant FE approach I've seen to these hidden target height observations is to critique globe earth based on its geometric calculations not matching what is observed. Little attention is paid to why geometric calculations for a flat earth don't match what is observed.

I'm a globe defender, so I can argue for the globe. I can't do that for a flat earth, thus I hope Tom or someone will accept that challenge.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 22, 2018, 10:11:23 PM
A refraction value of 0.189 is greater than the standard value of 0.17 so that means light would have to have been a little super-refracted, meaning the bending toward earth of the light a little more extreme.

Using the std 0.17 would put F2 at 212 with a -68 delta

For FE the challenge is different because I don't know how you account for atmospheric refraction over a flat plane. Bilsin's tool doesn't apply refraction to its FE model. Light propagation can certainly be affected by changing air (atmolayer) conditions across the line of sight, but since there is no curve on a flat plane, the air doesn't curve according to a "standard" that follows the curvature of the earth, so there's no standard index as such. There is thus 0' hidden target for all distances and observer elevations for a FE model, no matter the refractive index in a GE model. You need some other tool or set of explanations to work out the delta in predicted vs observed hidden heights for FE.

Got it.

I guess a next step might be to compare the Turning Torso height calculations in the theodolite video to yours and then maybe factor in the atmospheric values he gathered to derive a refraction value. Though those values were most likely from a different day as the first video. I can take a look at the height calcs.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 23, 2018, 04:57:40 AM
I guess a next step might be to compare the Turning Torso height calculations in the theodolite video to yours and then maybe factor in the atmospheric values he gathered to derive a refraction value. Though those values were most likely from a different day as the first video. I can take a look at the height calcs.
I suppose we've given enough time for review. Here's what I derive from Mathias' measurements:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2i6ga6g.jpg)

His numbers include ground elevation height, which I forgot; and all of his measurements come out a little higher than mine.

But that favors the GE case, so I'll take the handicap and stick with the lower estimates, which I've depicted with the red arrows on these graphs;

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/f02ipy.jpg)

The GE straight geometric curve calculator hidden footage is indicated by the green arrows, and the FE baseline hidden footage by the blue arrows.

If the observed (red) arrow needs to be adjusted up or down, we can talk it through. Obviously, up helps GE's argument; down helps FE's argument.

The debate can then begin with GE making the case for adjustments to the green arrows downward for whatever reasons are cogent while FE makes the case for adjustments upward of the blue arrows with whatever reasons (such as the ones Tom made a few days ago in this topic).
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 23, 2018, 10:29:41 PM
I apprehend all that, but what i'm asking for is akin to the pure geometry of the earth curve calculator that doesn't included variables like atmospheric effects or surface irregularities (hills, ocean swells, structures. etc.)

Well you are using images, observations, and measurements which are affected by all of those things.  You can't compare Apples (calculations which outright ignore all of these variables) to oranges (observations which are heavily influenced by all of these variables)

Is it fair to say that on a flat earth, there should be no hidden elevation other than what is caused by such obstructions as you mentioned. If there is no dense air, no fog/smoke/particulates/vapor, no waves (or what not)...all hidden values would be 0 feet.

I don't think that this is because the observed earthly horizon does exist on a perfectly flat/spherical line, does not exist in a vacuum, and is limited by the ability of the tool/person to perceive.

So the next step is to look at some observation and evaluate what we are seeing. I hadn't seen this video until this weekend when someone pointed me to an old discussion topic (from before I poked my head in) that discussed this video, published by YouTuber Mathias Kp about 2 and a half years ago:

I think it's obviously pro-spherical earth, but there is no narration. Just images and data from which we might be able to draw some conclusions or test our theories.

You can't claim these are pro spherical without first identifying (or attempting to identify) variables between each image like
-Elevation of the camera
-Wind speed
-Humidity
-Time/date of image
-Barometric pressure
-Atmospheric composition
-amount of cloud cover
-type of camera
-type of lens
-camera and lens condition
-average wave height on the water

furthermore the camera appears to be held in a hand vs on something like a tripod which also calls into question if any sort of human movements could (or could not) possibly create different results.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 23, 2018, 10:50:22 PM
You can't claim these are pro spherical...
The video is pro-spherical. I'm not saying (yet) that the images are pro-spherical.

...without first identifying (or attempting to identify) variables between each image like
Haven't gotten to the sphere/flat debate yet. Still just resolving what we're seeing. Not why we're seeing it.

But if these matter, they matter for both pro-spherical AND pro-flat claims. Flatness isn't the default.

-Elevation of the camera: that's what the elevation figures are. Tripod not specified.
-Wind speed: westerly 8-12 knots
-Humidity: 67%
-Time/date of image: included in table above
-Barometric pressure: 29.78" Hg
-Atmospheric composition: up to flat or globe earth defender to estimate
-amount of cloud cover: passing clouds
-type of camera: Canon Powershot SX60 HS
-type of lens: integrated 21 - 1365mm
-camera and lens condition: unspecified

...furthermore the camera appears to be held in a hand vs on something like a tripod which also calls into question if any sort of human movements could (or could not) possibly create different results.
Make that argument then, if it helps whatever side (flat or sphere) case you wish to argue. But if you do so, explain why and how it figures into the analysis.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 23, 2018, 11:03:36 PM
It's not a simple distance-feet chart. There are several phenomena going on with the Sinking Ship Effect.

Firstly, there is a limit to resolution of the eye, which is less than 1/60th of a degree. Rowbotham describes the matter in the Sinking Ship Chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm). This limitation may make it appear if some bodies merge in the distance. Those bodies can, however, be restored with a telescope, which is the cause of the accounts of restored hulls in the book Zetetic Cosmogony and Cellular Cosmogony, and why several Youtube authors claim to be able to restore hulls.

Secondly, in the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) Rowbotham describes that often times on the environment of the sea bodies can be hidden by waves, swells, or bulges of the water (perhaps tidal?). Sometimes bodies are obscured, and at other times they are visible. Examples are given of the Nab Light ship and the Eddystone Lighthouse, which were at various time visible and invisible. During these times a telescope cannot restore the hull.

The affect of the water may be associated with the winds. In the chapter On The Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm) Rowbotham states the following:

Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than "this is how much is hidden at this distance."

When all images are taken at a similar time of day, during similar wind conditions, similar water conditions, similar atmospheric pressure and through a telescope/camera which negates perceptive abilities of the human eye (which Bobby has already addressed) etc many of these things are moot. The round earth model predicts observations and measurements patterns based on a mathematical calculation.

where can we find some examples of flat earth viewing distance calculators/formulas to compare the predictions of a flat earth model to the predictions of a round earth model?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 23, 2018, 11:11:52 PM
I apprehend all that, but what i'm asking for is akin to the pure geometry of the earth curve calculator that doesn't included variables like atmospheric effects or surface irregularities (hills, ocean swells, structures. etc.)

Well you are using images, observations, and measurements which are affected by all of those things.  You can't compare Apples (calculations which outright ignore all of these variables) to oranges (observations which are heavily influenced by all of these variables)
The process I'm trying to encourage is looking at the Apples first to establish an agreed-upon baseline. Then we'll look at factors that can cause deviations from that baseline that make the case for the Oranges.

All (or many) of these observations are influenced by such variables you and Tom identified. Yet all too often, globe variables are rejected by flat proponents with the straight geometric calculator showing not to match up with what is observed.

But we can't reject them, as you are alluding to. These observations aren't geometric. They occur over an irregular surface and through an atmosphere. Optical equipment matters. Getting heights and distance correct matters.  Flat doesn't win by default. Both flat and sphere need to make their case for why the observation doesn't match with the geometric calculation.

Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 24, 2018, 04:49:56 PM

Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.

Bobby,

Normally I do pretty well pointing out ways that some of the flat earth models make sense. But when you come to a situation like this where observations and measurements appear to be directly conflicting with a majority of the flat earth models the arguments struggle. This is happening now with a series of pictures of a tall building over increased distances. I have experience with this with observed flight/shipping/driving times conflicting with distances/times predicted by many of the flat earth models.

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is. Flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

-flight distances are calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances
-distances (such as New York and Paris) are unknown
-tools used to make these distance observations/measurements which conflict with the flat earth theory are inaccurate
-speed measurements on airplanes are not accurate because the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 24, 2018, 05:26:37 PM

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

I've afforded folks that opportunity. The point is to do that first, and not after you see the results and then don't like them. That's why I tried to present this process in steps.

If these are criticisms of the data an FE advocate feels have merit, please raise them.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 24, 2018, 05:27:54 PM

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

These are good starting point.

I think RE questions would consist of:

How is FE distance calculated? Given the RE distances, what would the FE distances actually be. Given FE recalculated distances are the deltas lessened/removed?

Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

I've started to go through that thread - Need some time - It's a mere 24 pages.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 24, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
I'm not trying to move into the debate aspect of this. But simply, to Bobby's point, create a baseline. If the FE distance calculations are different, then we need to know what they are to further the baseline.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: MCToon on August 24, 2018, 05:56:33 PM

Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.

Bobby,

Normally I do pretty well pointing out ways that some of the flat earth models make sense. But when you come to a situation like this where observations and measurements appear to be directly conflicting with a majority of the flat earth models. This is happening now with a series of pictures of a tall building over increased distances. I have experience with this with observed flight/shipping/driving times conflicting with distances/times predicted by many of the flat earth models.

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

Thank you for pointing this out, it's a valid concern.

Rather than attacking the data and dismissing the experiment, lets attempt to resolve these issues.  Agreed, the distances could have been gathered by using spherical lat/long.  This would potentially give the arc distance where a flat earth you would want the chord length.  In the image below the arc length is "L" and the chord length is "C".

(https://planetcalc.com/users/1/1304848895.png)

These differences can be calculated.  I used this site: http://www.1728.org/circsect.htm and selected "Radius & Arc AB".  Filled in Radius 3958.75 and arc length 29.8, the longest distance where the error would be the largest.  The chord length is  29.8 to 3 significant digits and  29.799929640768 to 14 significant digits.  The values are the same to the degree of precision we have been provided.  The error will be less significant for all the other distances as they are shorter.

If you agree with this correction, there is no difference in the spherical or flat distances within the digits of precision provided.  This gives confidence that the distances are accurate enough for this experiment regardless of a flat or spherical model.  Thus, we know the distance between the camera and the tower regardless of a flat or spherical model.

Maybe you would disagree with this correction and prefer a different correction?  I'm open to other possible corrections.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

Reasonable.  What do you propose?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 24, 2018, 08:08:17 PM
These are good starting point.

I think RE questions would consist of:

How is FE distance calculated? Given the RE distances, what would the FE distances actually be. Given FE recalculated distances are the deltas lessened/removed?

One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.

Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

It must be to reconcile why FE predictions  differ from measured observations. It is so much more extreme because, according to some FE models, the atmosphere is more dense.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 24, 2018, 08:12:12 PM

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

I've afforded folks that opportunity. The point is to do that first, and not after you see the results and then don't like them. That's why I tried to present this process in steps.

If these are criticisms of the data an FE advocate feels have merit, please raise them.

These observations we make don't match the FE predictions for these observations.
-Those are not the official FE predictions of the amount of the building that should be hidden. Official FE predictions don't exist.

Observed travel time and distances don't match the FE predictions on this map for these observations.
-That is not the official FE map. The official FE map does not exist.

Tom,

Your points i feel were valid. First had to do with the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope and the limitation of the human eye.

-In this situation pictures are being taken with a high zoom camera in which, zooming in further, is not restoring obscured portions of the building. So the eye limitations and restored visibility don't apply here.

The second argument is things like winds, tides, waves, etc can cause things like waves to obscure things.

-These pictures are all being taken at a similar time of day with similar water conditions and similar wind speeds. Under similar conditions (time, weather, wind speed, wave swells) what do you agree that it appears to appear that the further away you go from something the more of it is obscured?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 24, 2018, 08:26:56 PM
Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

It must be to reconcile why FE predictions  differ from measured observations. It is so much more extreme because, according to some FE models, the atmosphere is more dense.

From the standpoint of an observation, standard atmospheric refraction has the effect of "flattening," which is how it is explained that less can be hidden from view than would otherwise be expected on an atmosphere-less, geometric sphere. Refraction is reducing the amount hidden.

This is opposite of the challenge for the flat earth topography. It must explain why more is hidden than what is expected. If a flat earth model has a denser atmosphere, but one that follows the same gradient of less dense at high elevations to densest at the surface, then refraction should be enhancing the flatness, not creating the appearance of convexity. For refraction over a flat surface to be contributing to hiding lower heights of distant objects, the atmosphere would have to be bending light upwards, meaning lower elevations are less dense than at higher elevations. So the explanation couldn't simply be "more dense." It would have to be that the density gradient is inverted as well.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 26, 2018, 02:19:13 AM
Is the baseline sound? Should it be adjusted and why? I think there's plenty of a jumping off point to warrant exploration. Starting off with:

How does FE pull in their deltas?
How does RE pull in their deltas?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: edby on August 26, 2018, 01:47:08 PM
One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by '[the] length of a mile differs'? We can measure a mile using a surveyor's chain. Are you saying that the length of the chain differs at different locations?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 26, 2018, 09:22:58 PM
Is the baseline sound? Should it be adjusted and why? I think there's plenty of a jumping off point to warrant exploration. Starting off with:

How does FE pull in their deltas?
How does RE pull in their deltas?
I'm ready to argue for standard atmospheric refraction adjustments to the RE baseline that will explain a large portion of the RE delta. I don't see any evidence of a temperature inversion. The images of the tower seem to be in proportion, with no or little distortion. No mirage or "convergence zone" at the boundary between sea and land/building.

But frankly, even before that adjustment, RE is alreader closer to the observed value than FE is. So I think the ball's in FE's court.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 27, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
I went ahead an plugged in the refraction levels needed to get the RE deltas super close to 0.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg1EcoJ.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: MCToon on August 27, 2018, 02:56:28 PM
It's a shame there aren't any FE proponents on this thread.  So far it is great support for the round earth model.  I have added this thread to my signature.  A big thank you to the people responsible for maintaining this forum.

To further the discussion, I will do my best to objectively describe what I would predict on a flat earth.  I welcome input into these predictions from a true FE proponent.

Attempting to view the bottom of a distant object over calm water, viewer on the ground:
The destiny of the air will be nominally constant as the viewer and object are at the same elevation and they are both near the water's shore.  We should expect very little refraction since the light will pass through little or no density gradient.  Therefore, the bottom of the object should be visible and neither squished nor expanded.

Attempting to view the top of a distant object over calm water, viewer on the ground:
The viewer will be in denser air than the top of the object.  The light will be passing through density gradient for the entire path from less dense to more dense.  This will cause the top of the object to appear lower than it actually is.  This may not be visible without an external reference.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 28, 2018, 05:19:27 AM
One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by '[the] length of a mile differs'? We can measure a mile using a surveyor's chain. Are you saying that the length of the chain differs at different locations?

Can a surveyors chain measure from New York to Paris?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 28, 2018, 05:05:34 PM
It's a shame there aren't any FE proponents on this thread.

This topic is a week old now and yes, it is a shame. I appreciate Tom giving it a try, but it's a tough challenge for Flat Earth Theory to answer.

It's easy to declare that the globe earth curve calculators don't match with observation and dismiss (or outright ignore) atmospheric refraction as the reason for that discrepancy. It's tough to come up with empirical, measurable and testable reasons for why any portion of distant objects appear hidden, bottom up. The rationales given in Earth Not a Globe don't stand up to scrutiny and are not quantifiable. It's incongruent to call standard refraction (which is quantifiable) a "magic wand" in globe earth explanations for any discrepancy between curved earth geometric predictions and actual observations, but then cite Rowbotham's explanations for the sinking ship phenomenon (which are not quantifiable) as if they are not "magic wands."

I think the final word on this is that without any "magic wands," the curved earth calculator provides a prediction closer to what is observed than does flat earth. The earth isn't flat just because we can see further than the curved earth geometric calculation predicts.

But this topic will fade and be forgotten, and folks will still go on proclaiming a flat earth when they see the tops of things that a no-atmosphere calculation says shouldn't be seen.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2018, 08:43:57 PM
I took a schematic of the turning torso and determined how high each of the cube sections were.

(https://i.imgur.com/eUPRVnx.png)

I then applied the results to the collage with the multiple views. The figures in red is the scale, as determined by the above image. The figures in blue at the bottom is the amount hidden by the Round Earth model. The only one which is close to matching is the first one, to the far left.

(https://i.imgur.com/tCHUOEE.png)

What is the explanation? Refraction hovering the tower into the air? Since there is only one which appears to line up, we may as well say that none of them line up.

All we know is that there is a phenomenon that is occurring which obscures or reveals buildings, and that whatever it is, it does not match the Round Earth calculator.

There are numerous accounts of bodies being sometimes obscured, and sometimes visible. In other threads we have seen timelapse scenes, in which bodies are obscured or revealed over time. If bodies are obscured or revealed over time, and if this phenomenon changes, then we cannot say that is due to the "curvature" of the earth.

The argument that "the delta" on this particular scene is closer to the Round Earth model is, in my opinion, not a strong enough argument, considering that these scenes of obscured bodies change over time, sometimes showing more or much less of bodies, in contradiction to the Round Earth Theory. The sinking ship is already a known variable in our literature, and has  been a known phenomenon for hundreds of years.

Pointing at a half-sunken body and proclaiming that the earth is round, and that any error is because of a refraction effect because you must be correct, is quite insufficient in the face of the many observations showing that this phenomenon changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham documents a number of observations where the bodies are sometimes visible or sometime entirely invisible. That alone discounts this effect as a demonstration of curvature.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tumeni on August 28, 2018, 09:50:25 PM
Let's assume, Tom, for the sake of a thought experiment, that you are unhappy with the proofs from ANY observation at ground level, such as the one you discussed immediately prior.

Let's also assume that you have never heard of Rowbotham and his work.

What experimental method would you then employ to determine whether or not the world is a globe?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 28, 2018, 10:34:11 PM
I then applied the results to the collage with the multiple views. The figures in red is the scale, as determined by the above image. The figures in blue at the bottom is the amount hidden by the Round Earth model. The only one which is close to matching is the first one, to the far left.
You didn't provide an estimate of observed amount hidden. Shall I, based on your gauging of the tower section heights?

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/illje1.jpg)

I've also added the Flat Earth hidden predictions underneath the no-refraction globe earth calculator prediction. As off as GE numbers may be, they are closer than the FE numbers (and that's even after factoring in Rowbotham's 1/60 of a degree acuity, even though these are telephoto images and not naked eye images.)

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 28, 2018, 11:17:41 PM

What is the explanation? Refraction hovering the tower into the air?

That would be a mirage. There's no evidence of mirage here. No distortion. No "convergence zone" obscuring or mirroring near water line. There's always standard refraction. Sometimes it's more. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes there's an inversion. There is no inversion evident here. But the geometric calculation is not correct. GE calculation must account for the atmosphere, even if it's just a rule of thumb standard factor. You can always expect the atmosphere to contribute some amount of extra distance, as long as there is not a distorting effect.

Since there is only one which appears to line up, we may as well say that none of them line up.
They definitely don't all line up with the geometric prediction. Only "globebusters" expect them to.

But however they align, they definitely don't align with flat earth prediction, assuming FE is even willing to make a prediction.

All we know is that there is a phenomenon that is occurring which obscures or reveals buildings, and that whatever it is, it does not match the Round Earth calculator.
I can adjust the radius of the earth to estimate a larger sphere. Then it will match. There's a long way to go before it can be declared flat.

There are numerous accounts of bodies being sometimes obscured, and sometimes visible. In other threads we have seen timelapse scenes, in which bodies are obscured or revealed over time. If bodies are obscured or revealed over time, and if this phenomenon changes, then we cannot say that is due to the "curvature" of the earth.
We're looking at this specific set of observations: all on a cold day over a cold sea, with no evidence of sea swells or waves or atmospheric distortion of the sort that you and Rowbotham claim can account for the variances of hidden bottoms of distant things. If you want to make an argument for how those are being exhibited in this set of images, by all means, do so. But don't hand wave to me and tell me that hundreds of feet disappeared in the course of a few hours as the observer coincidentally extended his distance, only to reappear minutes later when he increased his elevation. You can't anecdote your way out of an empirical challenge. The Twisting Torso is disappearing bottom up. If it's not earth curvature, then what is it? Explain it. If there are waves, calculate how high those waves must be. If it's a mirage or squashing of the image like in the Skunk Bay video, where is that evident in the image? It's not there.

The argument that "the delta" on this particular scene is closer to the Round Earth model is, in my opinion, not a strong enough argument, considering that these scenes of obscured bodies change over time, sometimes showing more or much less of bodies, in contradiction to the Round Earth Theory. The sinking ship is already a known variable in our literature, and has  been a known phenomenon for hundreds of years.
You have to play by the same rules. If you're going to hold globe earth to a geometric calculation and not allow for atmospheric variances, then you don't get to make excuses for flat earth. The curve of the earth as the reason for ships disappearing over the horizon has been known phenomenon for thousands of years.

Straight geometric calculation is the parameter you and many of these FE videos are demanding of the globe earth. Well, if that's the case, then head-to-head, GE trounces FE in that category. If you want to start applying "magic wands" (as you called refraction), then let's do so systematically and with some foundation, and not just by anecdote.

Pointing at a half-sunken body and proclaiming that the earth is round, and that any error is because of a refraction effect because you must be correct, is quite insufficient in the face of the many observations showing that this phenomenon changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham documents a number of observations where the bodies are sometimes visible or sometime entirely invisible. That alone discounts this effect as a demonstration of curvature.
That's the point of this challenge: to pit your Rowbotham flat earth explanations against the standard atmospheric explanations of round earth. I can get close with an empirical, quantitative approach of a globe earth with standard atmospheric refraction, which isn't a magic wand. I don't see you doing the same thing to explain the discrepancy for what should be visible if the earth were flat.

Straight geometric, no excuses or "magic wands" scoreboard:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/e5iefa.jpg)

Spherical earth, though not hitting the targets on the nose, "wins" every round.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2018, 11:32:10 PM
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads.

1. Watch the video that HorstFue posted in the "Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments" thread. He posts a supplement to Experiment 1 of that video in which the author did further filming at that location and sometimes saw the opposite coast in full view, and sometimes saw it hidden.

The story goes on with this one:

That's at least strong evidence, that there is refraction, grossly varying with weather conditions, especially close above water surfaces.
I'm not claiming FET or RET wins. What's presented can be explained in both models, depending on the value of refraction.
But no one ever measured refraction close to water surfaces.

This is a very good one. Thanks for posting.

I invite anyone reading to watch all the way until the end. The scene changes over time, obscuring or revealing the distant objects. Sometimes bodies are viewable on the opposite shore, and sometimes they are hidden. When things are hidden near the horizon the background and area near the water is much more messy. When the refraction changes and things "below the horizon" are now viewable as if the earth were flat, in contradiction to RET, the images near the water are much clearer. At the end of the video the author leaves with the message asking which one is refraction -- the messy one, or the clearer one. Does refraction make the scene messier, or does refraction make the scene clearer?

That, combined with Experiment #2 in the first video, which is performed in a fridged environment over ice is, to me, very suggestive.

The scene changes over time, sometimes showing the opposite coast in its entirety, and sometimes showing it sunken. Notice that when the sinking effect occurs, that the background objects are squished into the surface.

2. Now lets look at the timelapse from Skunkbayweather. Recall this post:

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 (https://youtu.be/ipDfJwkmkj8?t=1h44m58s)

...

Narration from the segment:

Quote
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.

We can clearly see that when this effect occurs, squishing and widening occurrs. Compare this sunken version to the revealed version above:

(https://i.imgur.com/doHgm5x.png)

The Skunkbayweather camera didn't move at all in the timelapse. The peninsula didn't move. This sinking effect caused bodies to become squished and widened when it obscured the coast.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Tq7saqO.png)

The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 30, 2018, 12:39:42 AM
3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Tq7saqO.png)

The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels cubes are lined up, then the towers should be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that it squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.

Taking for example A & D, the number black lines black lines indicating where the 2m gap is between each section seem to line up quiet cleanly with perhaps only a pixel or two of squashing.

Additionally, again, taking for example A & D, 58 PX wide versus 68 PX wide respectively. According to your measurements of the Turning Torso rendering, 50 PX = 66.2766 FT. Or 1.325 PX per FT.
With a 10 PX width difference between A & D, that’s approximately a 13.25’ difference.
Measuring the difference between A & D’s waterlines, it’s a 125 PX difference or 165.625’
Subtracting the 13.25’ difference in width from the 165.625’ waterline heights…

Where did the remaining 152 Feet of water come from?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 30, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 30, 2018, 03:49:46 PM
Since you have initiated the discussion about adjusting the geometric values to account for atmospheric effects, I'll submit the adjusted globe earth deltas and explain how they were derived. You (Tom or any FE advocate) can do likewise for flat earth:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/9tersw.jpg)

These new GE numbers are the revised differences between what is observed in the images and what a curved calculation that accounts for a standard atmospheric lapse rate in a stable air mass without anomalous propagation. Over a spherical planet, a conforming atmosphere will still have a refractive influence on the propagation of light because it is curved. A general rule of thumb is that standard refraction bending light downward as light tries to follow the curve and tend toward denser air is that it has the effect of slightly flattening the curve of the earth. So, to account for that, the calculator adjusts the radius of the earth by a fraction. A range from 7/6R to 3/4R is considered standard and representative. Since I'm arguing for a globe of radius R, the updated numbers above have that adjustment applied.

Now, is there any indication that deviations from standard or unstable atmospheric conditions were existing at the time of these photos?

Assessing the 7 different images, there appears to me to be very little distortion. There is a small amount of squatting evident in the lowest 50' (notice the shallowing of lowest visible section floors and change in slope of the curved column):

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/208wu11.jpg)

This suggest a slight stooping, meaning an increased index of refraction (increase in the downward bending of light with a greater lapse rate) near the surface. It is more pronounced the greater the distance, which is most likely explained by longer view distances across the cold water:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2z4zfk1.jpg)

I see no evidence of an inversion layer or ducting. There is no miraging and no opaque layer at that boundary between the surface and the space above it.

So my final answer for GE is the figures in the table above. What are the FE adjusted figures and how are they explained?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 30, 2018, 04:34:11 PM
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.
what are you saying?
He is saying that there is evidence that the lower floors are obscured by atmospheric/optical conditions. Just like in the images in which things got flatter and wider when there were 2 similar pictures taken from a similar distance and one had the lower floors obscured and one didn't. This was not caused by the curvature of the earth it was 100% optics.

What is happening with the Turning Torso?
The light from the lower obscured floors is being refracted and is being curved away from the camera. There is a lot of water vapor over the surface of the lake. The more lake you look over the more the light is refracted. 100% optics. 0% curve.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 30, 2018, 04:43:36 PM
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.
what are you saying?
He is saying that there is evidence that the lower floors are obscured by atmospheric conditions. Just like in the images in which things got flatter and wider when there were 2 similar pictures taken from a similar distance and one had the lower floors obscured and one didn't. This was not caused by the curvature of the earth it was 100% optics.

What is happening with the Turning Torso?
The light from the lower obscured floors is being refracted and is being curved away from the camera. There is a lot of water vapor over the surface of the lake. The more lake you look over the more the light is refracted. 100% optics. 0% curve.
Yes, that's his claim. But he has yet to back it up with anything beyond hyperbole and anecdotes. It needs to be shown this is what's happening somehow, as well as preferably showing the numbers. Just waving your hand and saying 'optics' doesn't progress the claim. Bobby has put forth pretty small delta's for RE after accounting for standard refraction. Where is the similar for FE? Remember, from previous baseline FE has a LOT more ground to cover, and what we've seen so far only accounts for a small fraction of it. So break out the big boy pants and give us some numbers to work with. Or admit FE can't make predictions of this type at this time I suppose.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 30, 2018, 05:08:23 PM
Right. Just saying "Optics" is the sort of magic wand Tom eschews when globe earth defenders say "refraction" to explain why things they think shouldn't be visible are visible.

I found this source video to be a very good subject for this kind of analysis precisely because the structure had very distinct features that would not lend itself toward ambiguity or uncertainty as to what we were seeing or how much of the structure was or was not visible. If this were a featureless tower or mountain, it would be difficult to quantify heights and distortions. But these sets of observations are remarkably clear.  So if there are significant deviations in the lapse rate of the intervening air, the onus is on the one claiming that optics are being affected by it to defend it with a sound explanation based on what we can deduce from the image.

I don't dispute that sub-, standard-, or super-refraction can occur. Ducting can occur. Inversions can occur. Some of these cause stooping. Some looming. Some mirages. Some mock mirages. Some squash at one level and stretch at another.

What I've never seen is hundreds of feet compress into an imperceptible line without significant distortion to the rest of the image. Even the vertical compression of floors I identified in the lower 50' is minor compared to the kind of optics that would cause that kind of footage to go missing without a trace. The horizontal stretching Tom identified is associated, but it's a different phenomenon in that axis. If Tom (or you by proxy, IAM) want to make an argument for what that distortion indicates and how it can account for even a fraction of the missing elevation, please do so.

The point is not to just offer vague "black box" like explanations. Provide an analysis that can quantify for flat earth how much "sinking" is taking place given the conditions. We can do this for GE. If FE wants to criticize that, let's see it do better. Instead, so far, Tom (for FE) has done exactly what he complained about GE doing. The earth is not flat by default. Defending a flat earth is not merely striking down globe earth explanations. You have to do what you say globe earth calculations are not. Give us a calculation. Explain why X feet are missing from each image and provide a rationale to back up how you arrived at that figure.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: HorstFue on August 30, 2018, 07:48:18 PM
3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Tq7saqO.png)

The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
Refraction is not the same for all heights above the water. Refraction increases the lower or closer to the horizon level you get. So in images A, B and C the top sections are affected by less refraction as in  D, E and F.
Due to Refraction, especially due to the gradient with which refraction increases, the sections in D, E and F would appear less high as without refraction. To compensate, to let these section appear with the same hight as before, the observer had to increase zoom level, which makes the tower appear wider.

A similar affect can also be observed at sunset. The lower part of the sun is affected by higher refraction as the top part. So often only the lower part of the sun appears deformed.
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2017/10/sunset-10-17-2017-Helio-Vital-Brazil-e1508328548188.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: MCToon on August 30, 2018, 08:47:01 PM
So far all we have seen are Nirvana Fallacies about the RE predictions and observations.  I'm anxious to see the FE predictions and compare to the observations.

I have provided my FE predictions, I've seen no responses.  I still maintain that on a flat plane, the entire tower should be visible as long as there is clear visibility.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2018, 09:48:07 PM
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse. There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

If you could demonstrate that refraction can cause a body to "jump over" a curve or object, that would strengthen the Round Earth case and such an explanation would be permissible. You guys shout and cry that excuse all the time, even here with the turning torso to make up for the inaccuracy of the earth curve calculator. But we have never seen a body jump over another body.  The only examples we have is where refraction affects the scene in between the observer and the observed body. Constantly asserting that "refraction did it!" to save you, without ever demonstrating that refraction even can do what you purport it to do, is the "magic wand."

It's a matter of evidence vs non-evidence. The fact is that there is evidence of the variable sinking ship effect due to refraction, and none of the Round Earth refraction that lifts bodies from behind curves.

Watch this video from Jeran. He analyzes a ship that sinks into the water as it recedes from the observer.

The same sort of mirroring effects as displayed on the ship that Jeran looks at are seen in the Turning Torso video.

At the 4:02 mark from the Turning Torso video when the author zooms in and pans around, we see a ship with the same sort of effects shown in the Jeran video:

(https://i.imgur.com/ND3xE72.jpg)

Closeup:

(https://i.imgur.com/e70LxPi.png)

Refraction is affecting that body of water.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2018, 10:04:12 PM
Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effects

9/6/12 - On this day the peninsula was sunken throughout most of the day

9/1/12 - On this day the peninsula was visible throughout most of the day

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 30, 2018, 10:16:45 PM
Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effets

at 12:56 PM:

65.9 degrees 4 MPH wind nothing obscured.

at 2:12 PM
65.7 degrees 4 MPH wind and entire buildings are obscured.

Same day similar weather conditions similar temperature  0 % curve 100% optics.

One could easily use the same round earth calculator to estimate the obscured portion of a building and call it a flat earth optics calculator.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: HorstFue on August 30, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
Closeup:
(https://i.imgur.com/e70LxPi.png)
Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 30, 2018, 11:56:06 PM
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse. There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

If you could demonstrate that refraction can cause a body to "jump over" a curve or object...
I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this.

We probably should have a separate discussion on atmospheric (atmoplanar?) phenomena and refraction because I see you conflating principles.

I'll get to it later.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 01:22:19 AM
The sinking ship effect is what tricked the ancients into believing that the earth was round when it is, in fact, a plane.

The ancients did not have access to time-lapse photography, but we do.

Closeup:
(https://i.imgur.com/e70LxPi.png)
Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.

The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 02:45:33 AM

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here.

You've chosen to address this challenge by refuting the claim that atmospheric refraction is the reason for the difference between the earth curve calculator output and the observation. By doing so, you are not defending the flat earth.

The task for your is to explain the missing floors/elevation of the Turning Torso. You're showing me (us) examples of how atmospheric distortions (which are also based on the same refraction principles used by spherical earth), but unlike the spherical earth argument (which you refute) you aren't able to perform any calculations or predictions whatsoever. Where's the flat earth calculator?

All I see is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning; meaning whatever it is we observe, you claim refraction but without describing what, how or even trying to quantify it to relate to the amount of tower that's disappeared from view.  At the same time, you reject the refraction explanation for why more is visible even though it is accompanied with a reasoned explanation and quantified values.

You apparently don't understand the challenge. I get why you want to refute the spherical earth defense, but you don't "win" the challenge by thinking that flat earth is so by default.

I don't want to condescend, but I don't think you are grasping the whole refraction picture. Yes, refraction causes mirages (inferior, superior, mock, complex). Yes, refraction causes things to squat (stoop) and loom, or --and the effect you seem to want to use to compete with the earth curvature claim -- sink or rise up. You aren't getting any opposition to any of that. You aren't telling anyone anything they don't know. You can post Skunk Bay time lapse video all day until Kingdom Come. But you need to relate it to the missing lower sections of the tower to make it germane. What refractive phenomenon is at play with the Turning Torso? How can we tell? Can it account for the amount of tower height that appears missing? Can you work out a relationship between the amount of elevation that is missing with the passage of time? With viewing distance and elevation? With the clues in the images about what sort of refractive effects are in play?

You're not doing any of that. You're being non-specific, throwing refractive pasta at the wall and expecting something to stick to explain the phenomenon we see in the imagery, without any attempt at quantifying it;  not even an estimate.

Here's a question to ponder. You say that things rise up and sink out of sight due to refraction. Great. I agree. Why? How does that work? What are the atmospheric conditions that cause that to happen? And if it can happen on a flat earth, why can't it happen on a spherical earth and explain why something that is geometrically over a spherical horizon appear above it? If rising is a phenomenon that you accept can occur due to refraction on a flat earth, then why do you contest it when applied to a spherical model?

Here's something else to ponder. Do you believe that the videographer of the Turning Tower would have captured the Tower appearing to sink had he just waited and recorded all of the images from the same location but just at different times of the day? Was the increase in distance merely coincidental?  After all, if the argument for the apparent sinking is changing conditions and not a curved earth horizon, then that would be the case. If not -- if distance has something to do with it, then you should be able to calculate a prediction for that somehow, with changing conditions adding some added marginal amount of unpredictability on top of it.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 02:49:03 AM
I intend to start a separate topic on atmospheric refraction. I'll reserve addressing your other video examples there. I'd like to try to keep this topic on the rails.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 31, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse.
Quite frankly, it is, just that, an excuse.
________

Numbers.

This entire exercise was centered around numbers. Bobby went to painstaking, excruciating lengths in fact, to be measured and fair about how every single bit of data was to be presented for review, rebuttal and revision…with numbers. And with the intent that the numbers would be raw, unencumbered with “magic wands”. A baseline of RE/FE.

As we progressed along, numbers were introduced, remeasuring occurred, data amassed, still raw as intended, bereft of both RE’s and FE’s refraction ‘excuses’ et al. All with input from both RE and FE.

The end RAW result was:

(https://i.imgur.com/eso6QAn.png)

When the raw data came out far more unfavorable for FE, all of a sudden, numbers are dispensed with and new ‘evidence’ is introduced, unrelated directly to the examination at hand. Evidence such as:

There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

In all circumstances, it shows this ‘directly'? Really? So now the FE position on the sinking ship effect is an atmospheric phenomena that changes over time and is always present and not ‘perspective’? How convenient.

From Earth Not a Globe:
"Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane.
It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.”

That aside, fine, pick your magic wand poison, but show the numbers as to how you pull in your 83, 80, 85, 87, 89, 89, & 100 percent error rate. RE’s have been provided, let’s see FE’s.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tumeni on August 31, 2018, 07:03:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/e70LxPi.png)

The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?

The text and arrow suggest that the person who added them to the picture thinks the upper black dot is being mirrored below. The other poster points out that this isn't anything on the ship being mirrored, simply something in the foreground.

The 'back-bottom' is the Aft or Stern of the ship, the front-bottom the Bow ... what's your point about them? It simply looks to me as though the ship is listing to starboard (that's the Right Side of the ship), i.e. toward the photographer....
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 08:11:14 AM
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse.
Quite frankly, it is, just that, an excuse.
________

Numbers.

This entire exercise was centered around numbers. Bobby went to painstaking, excruciating lengths in fact, to be measured and fair about how every single bit of data was to be presented for review, rebuttal and revision…with numbers. And with the intent that the numbers would be raw, unencumbered with “magic wands”. A baseline of RE/FE.

- The sinking ship effect changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham gives numerous accounts of the sinking ship effect changing Look into his account of the eddystone lighthouse (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_218).

- Taboo Conspiracy shows video of the sinking ship effect changing (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10112.msg159168#msg159168).

- We see the sinking ship effect changing in the skunk bay timelapses from earlier.

There is evidence that the sinking ship effect changes. Yet you only want to look at the obscured images?

There are numerous images with zero curvature. See this JTolan image:

(https://i.imgur.com/0yY701H.jpg)

What's that, maybe two feet of curvature, if any?

Surely, by this logic of "which is the closer delta," this is a clear demonstration against the Round Earth Theory, correct?

Quote
As we progressed along, numbers were introduced, remeasuring occurred, data amassed, still raw as intended, bereft of both RE’s and FE’s refraction ‘excuses’ et al. All with input from both RE and FE.

When the raw data came out far more unfavorable for FE, all of a sudden, numbers are dispensed with and new ‘evidence’ is introduced, unrelated directly to the examination at hand.

Look at the evidence.

The sinking ship effect changes.

We have many scenes which contradicts the Round Earth curvature entirely.

Your argument is quite weak. Desperate, in my opinion. We have documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect over 150 years ago. It is one of the basis for this very movement.

You and others are expressing the sentiment of "I expect to see zero hidden at all times!"

Respectfully, no. That's not how it works. You need to research and look at what we are asserting in our literature.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 08:34:45 AM

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here.

You've chosen to address this challenge by refuting the claim that atmospheric refraction is the reason for the difference between the earth curve calculator output and the observation. By doing so, you are not defending the flat earth.

The task for your is to explain the missing floors/elevation of the Turning Torso. You're showing me (us) examples of how atmospheric distortions (which are also based on the same refraction principles used by spherical earth), but unlike the spherical earth argument (which you refute) you aren't able to perform any calculations or predictions whatsoever. Where's the flat earth calculator?

All I see is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning; meaning whatever it is we observe, you claim refraction but without describing what, how or even trying to quantify it to relate to the amount of tower that's disappeared from view.  At the same time, you reject the refraction explanation for why more is visible even though it is accompanied with a reasoned explanation and quantified values.

I reject the RE refraction for the simple reason that we have no demonstration or evidence that refraction can cause one body to jump over another body. We do have evidence that refraction can simulate the obscuring of bodies into the water, however, and see that it can do so for long periods of time.

Lack of evidence for one idea, direct evidence for another.

Quote
You apparently don't understand the challenge. I get why you want to refute the spherical earth defense, but you don't "win" the challenge by thinking that flat earth is so by default.

What challenge was that? How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

The lack of strength of the globe earth explanation for this has forced you into position of insisting on "deltas" and also insisting on "no, on this one picture only!"

Quote
I don't want to condescend, but I don't think you are grasping the whole refraction picture. Yes, refraction causes mirages (inferior, superior, mock, complex). Yes, refraction causes things to squat (stoop) and loom, or --and the effect you seem to want to use to compete with the earth curvature claim -- sink or rise up. You aren't getting any opposition to any of that. You aren't telling anyone anything they don't know. You can post Skunk Bay time lapse video all day until Kingdom Come. But you need to relate it to the missing lower sections of the tower to make it germane. What refractive phenomenon is at play with the Turning Torso? How can we tell? Can it account for the amount of tower height that appears missing? Can you work out a relationship between the amount of elevation that is missing with the passage of time? With viewing distance and elevation? With the clues in the images about what sort of refractive effects are in play?

How would one give a complete and accurate model and account of precisely how this phenomenon works, if it is indeed refraction, based on a few pictures? What is being asked is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

The sinking ship effect has been attributed to waves, tidal effects, refraction, and even lack of angular resolution. We have no way to determine what exactly is occurring, or in what combination, especially not based on a few pictures. What we do know is that the effect is inconsistent. Ignoring the inconsistency and counter examples to focus on "deltas" on "this one specific picture" is not a sincere assessment of the sinking ship effect.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 31, 2018, 08:52:29 AM
We have many scenes which contradicts the Round Earth curvature entirely.

Your argument is quite weak. Desperate, in my opinion. We have documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect over 150 years ago. It is one of the basis for this very movement.

RE has documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect for over 2000 years. So what's your point? If you want to toss about 'legacy', I would have to say, your argument is quite weak.

And I care not for the basis of your movement. That is for you and your movement. If your argument is that of simply 150 years ago and it's core to your belief system, that certainly doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Numbers? Where are your numbers? Argue the point at hand. This, as the OP stated, is a Flat v Sphere challenge. You've been given the data and have been a part of the process of developing the data for the challenge. Yet you choose to circumvent and discard the data when the numbers roll in as unfavorable to FET. Why? Simply apply your calculations based upon your reasoning to pull your raw numbers in to what they should be. That was and is the challenge. Man up and do the work.

You and others are expressing the sentiment of "I expect to see zero hidden at all times!"

You've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. You seemingly have had no qualms about the values presented until FE raw calculations came back as craptastic. Curious as to why you are moving the goalposts now.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 09:03:07 AM
Closeup:
(https://i.imgur.com/e70LxPi.png)
Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.
The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?
A. It's an oil tanker and you'll see "sky" under the stern, below the aft deck housing/superstructure on such ships when not laden. The fact that the bulbous nose is prominently above the water line is another clue.
B. Looking at the nautical charts in that area, that appears to be a navigation cardinal marker, not something being mirrored.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/6p2qmd.jpg)

If it's the western marker (which I believe it is) then those two black dots are triangles pointing toward each other, and the shuttle tanker is southbound, probably about 4-6 miles away from videographer's final shot location and the Turning Torso would be 23-25 miles further in the distance.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/1jw0ba.jpg)

I'm not seeing any of the refractive effects at that nearby range that Tom is trying to see.  Certainly nothing that's going to contribute to hiding or compressing the lower 371 ft the tower into a thin line and leaving the upper 252' only marginally stooped.

Minutes later, by merely increasing the vantage point ~50' in elevation 166' of tower is restored to sight while leaving 205' still drastically squashed somewhere on that boundary between the earth below and the rest of the nearly undistorted upper tower above.

I wonder what that would that extreme and rapid rising and falling of such a phallic structure would look like in a time lapse video. (Bet it would go viral.)

I can find stills of a lighthouse appearing to squat, loom and tower, but only over the course of different days. And instead of the dramatic demarcation between compressed/distorted bottom and nearly un-distorted and visible top (giving the illusion of being cut-off by the horizon), the whole lighthouse is distorted, with squashed or stretched. It's just seems improbably coincidental that such refractive phenomenon should follow changes in observation distance and elevation.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 09:05:01 AM
RE has documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect for over 2000 years. So what's your point? If you want to toss about 'legacy', I would have to say, your argument is quite weak.

And I care not for the basis of your movement. That is for you and your movement. If your argument is that of simply 150 years ago and it's core to your belief system, that certainly doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

ENAG forms the basis of the Flat Earth movement. If you want to attack Flat Earth, you need to assess Earth Not a Globe to see what the actual assertions are.

Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times" is disingenuous . This is not what Rowbotham describes or expected to see at all. You should read and understand what the theory is based on if you are to attack it.

Quote
You've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. You seemingly have had no qualms about the values presented until FE raw calculations came back as craptastic. Curious as to why you are moving the goalposts now.

The goalposts were never moved. Our study of the sinking ship effect is written in black and white, published over 150 years ago. Rowbotham described it as highly variable, and obviously due to local and special causes since the effect goes away over time. Rowbotham relates the effect to the weather moreso than any concrete pattern, and suggests that the water convexity experiment is done on a calm day and preferably  on a standing body of water.

If you are looking at one sunken scene and jumping up and down screaming "I win," you are doing it wrong. You need to read the literature to see what you actually need to debunk.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 31, 2018, 09:41:15 AM
ENAG forms the basis of the Flat Earth movement. If you want to attack Flat Earth, you need to assess Earth Not a Globe to see what the actual assertions are.

Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times" is disingenuous . This is not what Rowbotham describes or expected to see at all. You should read and understand what the theory is based on if you are to attack it.
No one has been "Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times". Like I wrote, you've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. Where was your concern for the baseline 3 pages ago?

The goalposts were never moved. Our study of the sinking ship effect is written in black and white, published over 150 years ago. Rowbotham described it as highly variable, and obviously due to local and special causes since the effect goes away over time. Rowbotham relates the effect to the weather moreso than any concrete pattern, and suggests that the water convexity experiment is done on a calm day and preferably  on a standing body of water.
Great, one book, by one guy of dubious reputation.

If you are looking at one sunken scene and jumping up and down screaming "I win," you are doing it wrong. You need to read the literature to see what you actually need to debunk.
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 09:50:59 AM
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

Like I said in the third post of this thread: "Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than 'this is how much is hidden at this distance.'"

We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

You may as well ask me to predict when the next time it will rain and say that I should be able to predict it based on a few pictures of the sky that you took.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 10:53:17 AM
How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 31, 2018, 01:02:26 PM
How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.
I believe he is referring to the image in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg165008#msg165008

It's a much more difficult image to assess the same information on, and it's the only image of this object from this source it would seem, although the original source of it could be useful it Tom has it.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 03:03:33 PM
I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.
I believe he is referring to the image in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg165008#msg165008

It's a much more difficult image to assess the same information on, and it's the only image of this object from this source it would seem, although the original source of it could be useful it Tom has it.

Thanks.

There is evidence that the sinking ship effect changes. Yet you only want to look at the obscured images?

There are numerous images with zero curvature. See this JTolan image:

(https://i.imgur.com/0yY701H.jpg)

What's that, maybe two feet of curvature, if any?

Surely, by this logic of "which is the closer delta," this is a clear demonstration against the Round Earth Theory, correct?

If most of a 130' is visible over a 17 mile stretch for an elevation of only 6'?  Yep, I would score that one for Flat Earth.  Would that suffice for you if I just showed a grainy image with an unverified claim of distance and heights?

But hey! I accepted so give me some time to examine it. I may need to get a reply from JT for more detail.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 31, 2018, 05:35:32 PM
After some hunting, I found the cell tower shown in the upper right. It's a T-mobile tower in Salton City on the west side of the inland sea.

I tried using Google Earth to match the background against the mountain profile to figure out where the shot might've been taken but wasn't finding a match. I'm leaning toward a vantage point around North Shore which is 17 miles away, but only JT can verify or pinpoint.

I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

Given the extraordinary claim of being able to see 130' of height 17 miles away from 6' I have to know more details because that does measure out to be quite flat.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on August 31, 2018, 07:42:03 PM
We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

We do:

(https://i.imgur.com/j2A9qmt.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on August 31, 2018, 08:32:47 PM
After some hunting, I found the cell tower shown in the upper right. It's a T-mobile tower in Salton City on the west side of the inland sea.

I tried using Google Earth to match the background against the mountain profile to figure out where the shot might've been taken but wasn't finding a match. I'm leaning toward a vantage point around North Shore which is 17 miles away, but only JT can verify or pinpoint.

I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

Given the extraordinary claim of being able to see 130' of height 17 miles away from 6' I have to know more details because that does measure out to be quite flat.

How extraordinary is it? Atmospheric refraction is a very powerful thing. In the RE model see see the sun rise every day even though it's totally obstructed by the curvature of the earth. The atmosphere literally makes millions of miles of difference.

The closer you get to the surface the more dense and varied the atmosphere becomes and the more pronounced refraction can get over a much shorter distance.

Something similar can happen to make observations suggest that the earth is flat.
Something similar can happen to make observations suggest that the earth is round.

All of these images are EXTREMELY situational.

What was the PPM of water molecules/dust/pollen/bacteria/CO2/soot in the air just above these large bodies of water when i see the horizon moving up and down in a matter of minutes?
A chunk of wind which much lower PPM of water molecules/dust/pollen/bacteria/CO2/soot blows through giving much greater visibility and suddenly the shape of the earth changes? I don't think so.

Tom can show images which show the earth is flat and you can show images the earth is round all day long. A functional stalemate. I think you are discounting the role that optics plays in these observations. Is it 80% optics 20% curve? 70/30? 50/50? Each time it's an individual case by case basis affected by dozens of variables (such as the PPM of water molecules just above the water) that we simply don't know.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 01, 2018, 12:26:59 AM

I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

The Salton Sea is 236 below sea level.

Using J Tolans screen shot, the tower, as Bobby stated, is owned by T Mobile. It is located here: 33.279167 / -115.962417

http://www.cellreception.com/towers/details.php?id=1240572

According to the above, the tower info:

Height:

Overall Height Above Ground: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Overall Height Above Ground Without Appurtenances: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: -28.7 meters or -94.1 feet
Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 32.0 meters or 104.987 feet

Base of the tower is 141.9’ above the Salton Sea + the height of the tower (199.1) means that the top of the tower is 199.1 + 141.9 = 341’ above the Sea - 6’ equals a total tower height of 335’.  Now this is assuming the shot is from 6’ above the sea, which seems to be the case from J Tolen’s image.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2018, 04:20:58 AM
According to this link below there are 14 or 15 towers around that sea. How would we know which one it is? Bobby said that he was unable to match the mountain in the background with the tower he found, and the one he found was of a different height to the tower JTolan is looking at.

Numerous towers around Salton Sea:

http://m.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?city=salton%20sea&state_abr=ca

Zoom out to see the towers that are located around the Salton Sea.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 01, 2018, 05:39:55 AM
I did that, Tom. That Salton City T-Mobile tower picture matches the one on JT's slide. If it's wrong, then JT used the wrong picture.

What's still unknown is where he took the photo (or video from which the image was captured). I'm hoping he'll come back and let us know.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 01, 2018, 07:42:57 AM
According to this link below there are 14 or 15 towers around that sea. How would we know which one it is? Bobby said that he was unable to match the mountain in the background with the tower he found, and the one he found was of a different height to the tower JTolan is looking at.

(https://i.imgur.com/dLAxcrE.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2018, 08:15:15 AM
If you go to that location and turn around away from the sea, there are no hills or mountains in the background. We will have to wait and see that JTolan says. There are a whole bunch of towers that look like that in the area and around the sea.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 01, 2018, 08:22:52 AM
According to Bilsin’s Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator, 6’ camera level at the Salton Sea shore from 17 miles, with the tower at 199.1 feet tall, with its base 141.9 feet above the Salton Sea level (Land + Tower = 335’ total), 130.7 feet are hidden. Subtracting the hidden height from 335’ you get 204.3’. Meaning you should see the entirety of the tower +5’ from the 17 mile distance. Which seems to check out perfectly from an RE perspective.

(https://i.imgur.com/G6G1lb2.png)

Now, the X factor is whether the camera was at the shore line, 6’ feet above. It looks like it’s at the shoreline from the original image, but I can’t say with all certainty. If it was, based upon the angle, I put the camera right about here:

(https://i.imgur.com/73LpBdD.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 01, 2018, 08:43:42 AM
If you go to that location and turn around away from the sea, there are no hills or mountains in the background. We will have to wait and see that JTolan says. There are a whole bunch of towers that look like that in the area and around the sea.

It's definitely the correct tower, according to the image J Tolen showed as his target. The reference image matches exactly to the location image I provided, lone palm tree, white buildings and all. There are mountains back there looking the other way, but again, the x factor; where exactly did he shoot from 17 miles away?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2018, 08:55:22 AM
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 01, 2018, 09:31:44 AM
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Ok, fair enough. He picked a random street view picture of a tower on the Salton Sea that resembles a different tower on the Salton Sea that he actually shot just to show what towers look like. Check. Then he "clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet" on top of the image of a random tower on the Salton Sea that is not the tower he was shooting...as an example of what 130 feet looks like. Check.

Curious note that he wrote 130 feet as the height of the tower and the RE curvature calculator puts that exact tower & land I referenced, 17 miles away, at 130 feet hidden.

Btw, I looked at all of the towers around the Salton Sea. The shortest one was 187', with exception of one that was 124'. This one:

(https://i.imgur.com/eiMdNFP.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 01, 2018, 02:33:12 PM
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Right. I can't reconcile it. That's without a doubt the tower whose image he inserted on the upper right hand corner of his slide and annotated with the 130' value. At this point, only JT can explain how he derived that figure or why he chose that tower to display if it's not the right one. But the standalone slide suggests that that's the tower he sighted in camera lens from 17 miles away. Is it not what you believed when you counter-challenged with that example?

Perhaps he was mistaken, either about the tower or its height.

As for trying to find a point of perspective that gets the background hills to align and fit the profile seen in the image, I don't know if Google Earth is sufficient for that with low relief elevations. The vertical terrain visualization Google Earth presents is synthetic and, from my experience anyway, is far from perfect. It tries to render elevation from data, which is pretty amazing in itself and maybe better than anything else available, but just not the same as seeing the actual view. The long focal length of the telephoto creates dramatic foreshortening, making it even more difficult to recognize against a synthetic view. I've panned throughout that westerly view from that tower trying to find a background profile match. I've found a couple perspectives that I think MIGHT be a match, but I'm far from confident enough to even speculate at this point.

Which is all we're doing right now. To constructively assess that slide, we really need for JT to provide some additional detail.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 01, 2018, 05:11:51 PM
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Right. I can't reconcile it. That's without a doubt the tower whose image he inserted on the upper right hand corner of his slide and annotated with the 130' value. At this point, only JT can explain how he derived that figure or why he chose that tower to display if it's not the right one. But the standalone slide suggests that that's the tower he sighted in camera lens from 17 miles away. Is it not what you believed when you counter-challenged with that example?

Perhaps he was mistaken, either about the tower or its height.

As for trying to find a point of perspective that gets the background hills to align and fit the profile seen in the image, I don't know if Google Earth is sufficient for that with low relief elevations. The vertical terrain visualization Google Earth presents is synthetic and, from my experience anyway, is far from perfect. It tries to render elevation from data, which is pretty amazing in itself and maybe better than anything else available, but just not the same as seeing the actual view. The long focal length of the telephoto creates dramatic foreshortening, making it even more difficult to recognize against a synthetic view. I've panned throughout that westerly view from that tower trying to find a background profile match. I've found a couple perspectives that I think MIGHT be a match, but I'm far from confident enough to even speculate at this point.

Which is all we're doing right now. To constructively assess that slide, we really need for JT to provide some additional detail.

What was the altitude of the tower and the altitude of camera? for all we know it was looking downhill.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 02, 2018, 09:21:44 PM
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

Like I said in the third post of this thread: "Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than 'this is how much is hidden at this distance.'"

We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

You may as well ask me to predict when the next time it will rain and say that I should be able to predict it based on a few pictures of the sky that you took.

Compare the array of Turning Torso images and the steady "sinking" as distance increases beyond the alleged curve with these images of a lighthouse from a distance before the alleged curved earth:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/ehm9v6.jpg)

Do any of these look "cut off" in a way that would explain "sinking ship" phenomenon? Look at the upper right image? Is that an example of how refraction can produce a "sinking ship" effect?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 03, 2018, 05:02:59 AM
I left a comment on the JTolen Media video asking for more data on the Salton Sea shot. No response yet. So being a lazy Sunday, I reviewed all of the Cell towers around the Salton Sea. Here’s what I found:

(https://i.imgur.com/nYfJd24.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 03, 2018, 05:43:26 AM
Phew!  That's quite a bit of work.

I had asked the question too. Hoping he gets back to us. I'm very curious now.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 08, 2018, 06:15:56 PM
Considering the data/evidence gathered I would say the Salton Sea Tower portion of J Tolan’s video is decidedly debunked. There is no tower that meets his 130’ description nor one that remotely corroborates his claims at 7 miles distance. The only tower referenced by him (visually) is 199’ tall and 335’ above the Salton Sea level, not 130’ as claimed. Zero evidence of a flat earth and actually it fits perfectly into the RE model, no refraction required. Case closed.

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

As for the Turning Torso baseline discussion, is there any ability to move forward?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2018, 07:38:49 PM
Considering the data/evidence gathered I would say the Salton Sea Tower portion of J Tolan’s video is decidedly debunked. There is no tower that meets his 130’ description nor one that remotely corroborates his claims at 7 miles distance. The only tower referenced by him (visually) is 199’ tall and 335’ above the Salton Sea level, not 130’ as claimed. Zero evidence of a flat earth and actually it fits perfectly into the RE model, no refraction required. Case closed.

Have you shown that the tower pictured is the same one from the Google Street View?

According to Bobby and myself the mountains in the background do not line up.

Quote
As for the Turning Torso baseline discussion, is there any ability to move forward?

I don't believe so. This was picked out in support of a Round Earth model, despite, as we have read in this thread, refraction is still needed to get it to the height it needs to be.

There is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect comes and goes over time.

Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effects

9/6/12 - On this day the peninsula was sunken throughout most of the day

9/1/12 - On this day the peninsula was visible throughout most of the day

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

You guys scream and shout "refraction did it!" all the time. There is your refraction. The sinking effect comes and goes.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 08, 2018, 07:58:40 PM
I could find no "sinking ship" in the Skunk Bay video. A lot of squashing, stretching, rising, lowering, mirage-ing, distorting.

But no cutting off of the bottom of objects and leaving the tops visible.

Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough due to confirmation bias. Feel free to find a sequence of "sinking" objects to show us.

The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions. It sank as the photographer changed locations. And it sank without the portion that's lost to sight becoming squashed down into some boundary layer of distortion. There's nothing like that in the Skunk Bay video.

Refraction is more than distorting phenomenon like looming, mirage, Fata Morgana, etc.  The air can be completely stable and the density gradient completely non-anomalous, and refraction over a sphere will still be manifest.

I thought for sure the sectional features of the Turning Torso would help distinguish curvature as the reason for the hidden portion of the tower and dispel the mixed explanations of "perspective, waves + convergence zone" in flat earth rationale. But obviously not. You see Skunk Bay and believe that that same set of phenomena is at work in the Turning Torso scenario. It's not, but how to get you to accept it.

If you can show me how a static object sinks from view or seems to rise into view as atmospheric conditions change, with the viewer not changing distance or elevation, then I'll buy it. I've tried to find one. Lighthouses. Anchored ships. Mountain ranges. Smokestacks. Forest tree lines. City sky lines. I can find time lapses of them getting squashed and stretched or distorted with mirage. But no "sinking ship" effect.

Find that for me. (Just find a segment in the Skunk Bay video, tell me the time frame and I'll do the rest, producing the video or animated GIF.)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 08, 2018, 08:15:54 PM
Have you shown that the tower pictured is the same one from the Google Street View?
According to Bobby and myself the mountains in the background do not line up.
You are right, Tom. I can't affirm that the tower JT showed in the street view insert is the same one he IR-photographed across the Salton Sea. If there's a mismatch, it's his mismatch. We just found which cell toward his Google street view image identified. Only JT can tell us if it's the right one.

I think it is, but like you said, I can't find a spot 17 miles away on the far shore where the background hills seem to line up.

Realize, trying to match a synthetic, non-telescopic landscape against a zoomed-in IR image is tough anyway, so failing to find a match doesn't rule out that we have the right cell tower. Again, we've asked JT for additional info. So far, he's not responded. Unless you have a better set of candidate tower/shooting location, I am of the same opinion as Stack.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 10, 2018, 06:01:33 PM

The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.

How do you know? From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?

It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 10, 2018, 06:34:39 PM

The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.

How do you know? From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?

It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
Bobby laid out the effects of the atmosphere upon the images, and showed them in some other images as well. In the the Torso images they are relatively minor, and even in ones heavily affected by atmospheric distortion of the type similar to what was occurring with the turning torso, the buildings did not vanish like the tower does. They squished, they stretched, but they didn't vanish.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 10, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.
How do you know?
1. By evaluating the rest of the picture and what the rest of the tower that remains in view looks like.
2. By evaluating changes in observation distance and elevation that much more consistently correlates to heights hidden by spherical earth curve than flat earth atmospheric conditions.

From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?
That's not what I said.  The atmosphere can definitely affect the observation; just not in the way that is evident here.

We can see distortions in the lower several feet (maybe up to 50') of what remains visible that is obviously atmospheric in nature. There's a squashing effect making the lower floors look thinner than the higher floors. That's caused by light bending downward more extremely at shallower angles than something closer to standard atmosphere refraction at the higher angle/elevation. There's no miraging though. No boundary layer obscuring the interface between ground level/sea level and the tower. There's no place for hundreds of feet of tower to get squashed into if that was what was happening.

Don't mistake what I'm saying. Atmosphere does influence the observation. It's just not making the tower appear to sink.
It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
If there was fog along the surface? Sure. Is there? I don't see any. No fog. No mist. What little haze that begins to show with increasing distance isn't opaque. It's still transparent and not obscuring increasing lower heights with each increase of viewing distance.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 10, 2018, 07:16:51 PM
If there was fog along the surface? Sure. Is there? I don't see any. No fog. No mist. What little haze that begins to show with increasing distance isn't opaque. It's still transparent and not obscuring increasing lower heights with each increase of viewing distance.

The time lapse was so eye opening because it really shows how, over a matter of minutes, the conditions for optics can change dramatically. I think if this was recreated using a tripod and time lapse over the course of an hour or two (or more) we could obtain some sort of optical variance range. It would be interesting to see how this specific tower would be affected in time lapse images. Also, for the sake of flat earth delta, we could use whatever part of the time lapse showed the most of the tower.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 10, 2018, 07:50:39 PM
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 10, 2018, 08:29:26 PM
If there was fog along the surface? Sure. Is there? I don't see any. No fog. No mist. What little haze that begins to show with increasing distance isn't opaque. It's still transparent and not obscuring increasing lower heights with each increase of viewing distance.

The time lapse was so eye opening because it really shows how, over a matter of minutes, the conditions for optics can change dramatically. I think if this was recreated using a tripod and time lapse over the course of an hour or two (or more) we could obtain some sort of optical variance range. It would be interesting to see how this specific tower would be affected in time lapse images. Also, for the sake of flat earth delta, we could use whatever part of the time lapse showed the most of the tower.

iamcpc, if you mean a time-lapse of the Turning Torso, Mathias kp, the creator of the first TT videos which started this baseline examination, has two. First is just the 2 hour time-lapse and the other is the in-depth examination of such:

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2018, 10:22:57 PM
My notes from the above videos:

- That timelapse is only two hours long, whereas the skunkbay timelapse was taken over an entire day.

- To test refraction the author did a 2 hour time-lapse from 13 miles away from "around sunset" when there would "often be changes" when, in fact, it was the higher temperatures of the midday affected refraction of the skunkbay timelapse.

- It was taken at 13 miles, whereas his other images of the "sunken tower" were taken further away.

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/40555181355/), whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk).

- Author admits there there is "often" refraction:

(https://i.imgur.com/OOS9X0N.png)

Author's conclusion:
(https://i.imgur.com/sBlEG05.png)

This conclusion is perplexing, considering that he is also simultaneously claiming "refraction" to get the sunken towers to the height he needs them to be at for this sunken tower images to work with the RET.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 10, 2018, 10:35:01 PM
Refraction isn't just mirages and distortions. Without any mirage, looming, stooping or other distorting impacts, there is still refraction -- at least on a globe with an atmosphere. Maybe not on a flat earth with an atmoplane. But light propagation in a non-homogeneous atmosphere, there is always a refracting component when light, following a straight path, encounters more rarefied air because the earth is sloping away. The refraction that allows seeing "beyond the curve" is non-distorting standard refraction. It exists because the atmosphere is an atmoSPHERE.

The Skunk Bay time lapse is illustrating refracting phenomenon that is due to deviations from a standard atmosphere.

But it's all refraction. Refraction doesn't cease to exist or stop having an influence just because the air is stable and you aren't ceasing distortion.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2018, 10:41:17 PM
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?

Consider what the waterline of the Skunkbay horizon looks like when the sinking ship effect is occurring:

At 3:42, for example:

(https://i.imgur.com/1aZKKnx.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/7us0xVX.png)

That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version of the Skunkbay scene.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk) look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:

(https://i.imgur.com/d0Bju8I.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9h6i0Kd.png)

Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line. There may also be some squishing near the surface, but it is hard to tell. We can definitely see the light line, however.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 10, 2018, 10:50:29 PM
My notes from the above videos:

- That timelapse is only two hours long, whereas the skunkbay timelapse was taken over an entire day.

Yes, but it's not the overall duration of the footage being captured. It's points within the footage. There are many points within the skunk bay videos where the visual changes occur within the time span of minutes, not hours.

- To test refraction the author did a 2 hour time-lapse from 13 miles away from "around sunset" when there would "often be changes" when, in fact it, was the higher temperatures of the midday affected refraction of the skunkbay timelapse.

Ok, I guess. Kind of a stretch.

- It was taken at 13 miles, whereas his other images of the "sunken tower" were taken further away.

I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining, but these would be roughly reflective of example A in the original, distance wise.

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/40555181355/), whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk).

Again, I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining. Just another examination of the same subject.

- Author admits there there is "often" refraction:

(https://i.imgur.com/OOS9X0N.png)

Author's conclusion:
(https://i.imgur.com/sBlEG05.png)

This conclusion is perplexing, considering that he is also simultaneously claiming "refraction" to get the sunken towers to the height he needs them to be at for this sunken tower images to work with the RET.

Actually, your assertion is incorrect. He states that often there is visible refraction/miraging. But at 3:20 he states that there is none in this timelapse.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 10, 2018, 11:03:40 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7us0xVX.png)

That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk) look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:

(https://i.imgur.com/d0Bju8I.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9h6i0Kd.png)

Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/40555181355/), whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk).

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 10, 2018, 11:21:43 PM
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?

at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible.

Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?
Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 10, 2018, 11:33:06 PM

at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible.

I'm not questioning house height and such, but it appears the camera POV is located in Hansville, not looking at Hansville. This from the SkunkBayWaether.com site, orientation of cameras:

(https://i.imgur.com/bNZxggO.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 10, 2018, 11:51:49 PM
Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?

No.

Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

No, at that distance curve height hidden would be about 5 feet.

I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?

Agreed, in this case, 100% optics.

As to your second point, I suppose. But in the TT timelapse, the water line doesn't budge, there is no miraging, yet there is a persistent hidden amount of the tower of about 90+ feet. Which does fit RE curve calculations at that distance.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2018, 11:52:51 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7us0xVX.png)

That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk) look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:

(https://i.imgur.com/d0Bju8I.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9h6i0Kd.png)

Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/40555181355/), whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk).

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?

The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

(http://i.imgur.com/Wk7Fq2e.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 12:02:33 AM
The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 12:08:11 AM
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

When comparing the "revealed" and "sunken" versions of the Skunkbay timelapses, the light line should not actually be there when the peninsula sinks. The light line seems to occur on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 12:10:02 AM
at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible.

Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?
Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

The curve of the earth is never blocking the bottom of anything in the Skunk Bay video. The entire panorama there is all closer than any earth curve horizon.
I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
Correct. That's the point. It's 100% optics (and a little bit of tidal effect since there's about 6' of swing in water level, but then that's only affecting coastal verticality and not any structures above the high water line mark.)
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?
35 feet isn't gone. It's squished into a still-visible line at the boundary. That's 100% optics.

That's my point. If the Turning Torso is NOT, in fact, beyond a curved sphere horizon, then not just 120', but up to 371' would have to be squished into a still-visible distorted line at that boundary. But I don't see it. Do you? All that footage is gone.

Not only that, but if it's purely optics, then why does it change with viewing distance and then reverse with an increase in viewing elevation? If it's changing atmospherics, you could sit and watch the tower sink from any distant spot.

Look at the Skunk Bay video. It's not sinking. It jumps all around. It's up. It's down, in a matter of seconds. Yes, it's all optics. From 4 miles away and a viewing elevation of 70', curvature is out of the equation. But at no time in that video is there any sinking. It's more like an accordion; stretching, squashing...with a lot of mirage.  The features of the Turning Torso lower floors disappearing act is of a completely different character.

I would love to see the Turning Torso or other such structure with such elevation go through an optical effects "sinking ship" sequence where we know we can rule out curvature. I've yet to see it. It's not in that video.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 12:12:27 AM
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

In my estimation the light line should not actually be there in the "sunken" version of the Skunkbay images. The light line seems to be there on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

What if there are many that don't? What does that suggest?

A light line as an indication that the refractive sinking ship effect is occurring seems like a grasp, at best.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

By comparing the "revealed" and "sunken" versions of the Skunkbay timelapses, the light line should not actually be there when the peninsula sinks. The light line seems to occur on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

This "light line" as you call it IS where all of the missing elevation is in the Skunk Bay video. There is no curvature at that distance to account for anything missing. It's all optical effects due to atmosphere (except for tidal changes at the shoreline). But land features above that shoreline? Anything missing is due to warping by the atmosphere. It'll either be obscured by a mirror effect (mirage) or by a band of haze or squished into your "light line" if there is no obscurant. It's not missing.

A sinking ship's missing elevation is missing. Gone. Not squished into a "light line."

371' of Turning Torso is not squished into a visible line when viewed from 30 miles away and then 165' suddenly restored to view by climbing 50' leaving 205' still squished in a thin white line.

Pure optics and atmospherics never produces the "sinking ship" effect. It'll distort, but that's not the same thing. There is no sequence in that Skunk Bay time lapse that mimics the appearance of something disappearing beyond the horizon of a curved surface.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 11, 2018, 12:22:33 AM
That's my point. If the Turning Torso is NOT, in fact, beyond a curved sphere horizon, then not just 120', but up to 371' would have to be squished into a still-visible distorted line at that boundary. But I don't see it. Do you? All that footage is gone.

I definitely see that optically the Turning Torso  is different than the weather camera. As to why 371' is obscured instead of a predicted 120'; Maybe it does not increase linearly but rather as exponential or logarithmic function.

Not only that, but if it's purely optics, then why does it change with viewing distance and then reverse with an increase in viewing elevation? If it's changing atmospherics, you could sit and watch the tower sink from any distant spot.

I am of the opinion that it's a combination of optics and curve and very situational.  I could easily understand how someone could think that it was most/all optics. Higher elevation simply means the atmosphere is less dense and a different composition so less is obscured due to refraction. This is compounded dramatically when looking over water in which the air above the water is not only more dense but has a much higher concentration of water molecules.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 12:42:33 AM
I definitely see that optically the Turning Torso  is different than the weather camera. As to why 371' is obscured instead of a predicted 120'; Maybe it does not increase linearly but rather as exponential or logarithmic function.
You can always "maybe" things. It's pretty much par for the course with flat earth theories.

Let me try a maybe. Maybe if you could zoom in on the Skunk Bay imagery you could see where the missing elevation has gone, warped and distorted into a "thin white line". The image of the Turning Torso is already zoomed in. More footage keeps disappearing but that supposed "think white line" where it is supposedly going doesn't change.

Skunk Bay is not analogous to the Turning Torso. It's a monumental stretch (without an optics rationale) to claim that what is occurring with the Turning Torso can be found in the Skunk Bay video.

I am of the opinion that it's a combination of optics and curve and very situational.
Turning Torso is a combination of optics and curve, and yes, very situational on the atmospheric conditions. Optics and atmospherics alone cannot -- CANNOT -- account for it.

Skunk Bay is purely optics/atmosphere.

I could easily understand how someone could think that it was most/all optics. Higher elevation simply means the atmosphere is less dense and a different composition so less is obscured due to refraction. This is compounded dramatically when looking over water in which the air above the water is not only more dense but has a much higher concentration of water molecules.
You can understand it? I can't. I see it as conflating of phenomena and grasping, like using out of focus headlights to explain how the sun can appear to remain the same size as it's supposed to be receding into the distance.

If rising up in viewing elevation by 50' reduced the view angle sufficiently to reduce the effect of refraction and peer through atmosphere of less density, then you'd have to have some explanation for why it restores X amount of footage leaving the remainder no less "squished" into that "thin white line" as before.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 03:42:51 AM
The Thin Light Line Strikes Again!

Earlier this year Bobby posted a thread, asking us why a ship sank.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10077.0

It appears that there is a light line in his image as well:

(https://i.imgur.com/D2Mrr4w.png)

Another incident

Ships, in front, on, and beyond the horizon

Man compares the appearance of ships that are in front of, on, and "beyond" the horizon.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S0e7BbAag1w/maxresdefault.jpg)

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 04:12:52 AM
If you want to die on the "White Line" hill, fine by me.

No white line:

(https://i.imgur.com/8zOe1Cq.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 04:17:57 AM

No white line:

(https://i.imgur.com/BWZGjz7.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 04:33:53 AM
That one looks pretty close to the water. Maybe it's an actual wave. I notice that you didn't provide the link to the video. We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

In the one above it you are looking for a thin light line on a white ship, and the scene is unnaturally darkened for some reason.

Here is the famous Sunken Toronto image:

The Thin Light Line is caught in the act once again:

(https://i.imgur.com/kAWDFnc.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 04:43:00 AM

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

So in the image I presented, you stated:

We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

By your theory, with refraction present as you stated, there should be a white line. There isn't.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Ofcourseitsnotflat on September 11, 2018, 07:09:12 AM
We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

Please explain why straight masts equates to a lot of refraction.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 03:43:22 PM
The new ad hoc "Thin White Line" theory.

Whatever the elevation is that appears to be missing is compressed into a thin optical line at the horizon boundary.

Given this theory, that would mean that on that particular day when MathiasKP made his Turning Torso observations, atmospheric conditions across the channel were such that:

1. when viewed from 29 miles away from an elevation of near sealevel, 371' of the Turning Torso (0.135° of arc) was compressed to a line, leaving the remainder mostly un-distorted and visible.

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29115ab.jpg)

2. when viewed from 29 miles away from an elevation of 50', 205' of the Turning Torso (0.075° of arc) was compressed to a line, leaving the remainder mostly un-distorted and visible.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2h5o18k.jpg)

At present, the explanation for how the atmosphere does this, optically (other than the ambiguously-used, umbrella term "refraction") is left unexplained. Perhaps a good place to start would be producing a theoretical temperature/height gradient graph showing what kind of density lapse rate would be required to produce, not just extreme light bending of the lower portions of the tower, but also the dramatic demarcation boundary between that compression-producing super-refraction and the staighter, more standard refraction of the upper portions.

Realize, too, this has to be a rather typical and not anomalous, since the "thin white line" theory tries to account for whenever object elevation is apparently missing and atmospheric refraction is given as the reason. Such a temperature gradient has never been recorded. This could be groundbreaking, Tom.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 03:56:29 PM
That one looks pretty close to the water. Maybe it's an actual wave. I notice that you didn't provide the link to the video. We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

I see why you call refraction a "magic wand." When you wield it, it is without distinction as to effect or cause.

Here's the source video.

No wave.
No optical compression at the horizon.
Just curvature.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 05:19:29 PM

No white line:

(https://i.imgur.com/BWZGjz7.png)

Look at that orange sky.

From the full Skunkbay timelapse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og), when the sky is orange later in the day and the water is much lighter than the background, the light line disappears:

(https://i.imgur.com/9wcys8U.png)

The light line disappears at sunset in the timelapse, even though the peninsula is still sunken.

We see that this observation of a sunken ship without a light line at sunset is consistent with the effect.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 05:30:56 PM

No white line:

(https://i.imgur.com/BWZGjz7.png)

Look at that orange sky.

From the full Skunkbay timelapse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og), when the sky is orange later in the day and the water is much lighter than the background, the light line disappears:

(https://i.imgur.com/9wcys8U.png)

I would say that this observation is consistent with the effect.

Whenever an object is obscured (sinking ship effect) due to what is commonly thought to be earths curvature, it is, in fact not. It is due to refraction. This is evidenced by the always present thin white line that appears at the horizon. When the thin white line is not present, yet an object is obscured, it is b/c the sky is orange.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 05:33:30 PM

Whenever an object is obscured (sinking ship effect) due to what is commonly thought to be earths curvature, it is, in fact not. It is due to refraction. This is evidenced by the always present thin white line that appears at the horizon. When the thin white line is not present, yet an object is obscured, it is b/c the sky is orange.

It is what I said earlier. The line disappears later in the day:

Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

When comparing the "revealed" and "sunken" versions of the Skunkbay timelapses, the light line should not actually be there when the peninsula sinks. The light line seems to occur on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

When the scene gets late in the day the water is much lighter than the background, and the sky is orange. This is correlated with the disappearance of the light line.

In the image you provided we see both an orange sky and a light water surface.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 05:36:33 PM

Whenever an object is obscured (sinking ship effect) due to what is commonly thought to be earths curvature, it is, in fact not. It is due to refraction. This is evidenced by the always present thin white line that appears at the horizon. When the thin white line is not present, yet an object is obscured, it is b/c the sky is orange.

It is what I said earlier. The line disappears later in the day:

What if it's late in the day, but the sky isn't orange?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 06:36:38 PM
White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29115ab.jpg)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2h5o18k.jpg)

Air refracts light in a lot of different ways. For this optical compression rationale of yours to be accountable for a "sinking ship" effect, there has to be a mechanism. You can't just call it "refraction" and walk away.

Those two profiles above are for observations made 18 minutes apart. The only other difference is observer elevation (58' vice 7').

Yet they have dramatically different results in how much of the Tower is (if you're correct) being compressed. You have to explain what's going on in the atmosphere to make that happen and why it is different for each height. Light below eye-level must be super-refracted. Light above eye-level must be sub-refracted, and then suddenly not. I've never seen such a thing explained via any temperature/density gradient before.

To offer something so extraordinary and unprecedented, you need to back it up. Is there an elevated temperature inversion or duct above the surface of the earth that routinely compresses sight lines near the horizon creating the appearance of of hill or curvature obstruction? Since h is obviously a variable parameter than changes the observation, how does that factor into the equation? Is there a value for h above which this compression phenomenon is negated, perhaps by exceeding some critical view angle through the layers of refracting air?

You can't just point to some lines (which are ephemeral in their appearance) and, ex post facto, claim that that's where all the missing elevation went, citing "refraction" like a blanket or umbrella term without explaining what/how refraction is working to produce that effect.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: HorstFue on September 11, 2018, 07:51:10 PM
That "thin white line":
For me it looks more like a mirroring effect. The sunlight or the bright sky is mirrored at the surface, which appears at that distance almost tangential to observers viewing line. So it looks more like a line and not an area. Perspective, which lets appear things smaller in the distance, may also help with this appearance.
If the sky is darker, also this "line" gets darker.

The "squishing":
I cannot follow this explanation. I would find "obscuration" - which way ever - the more plausible reason.
I give you another theory:

Atmospheric lensing:
Atmosphere, with a density gradient, can act like a lens. Don't expect to give such magnification like a camera zoom. The magnification is minimal. The magnification may only work in vertical direction.
Now comes the point: Collimation (orientation relative to center of the lens)
Vertical: Distant objects above the collimation point, will appear even higher, due to magnification. Distant objects below the collimation point will appear even lower.
And second horizontal: It also depends where the "center" of that lens is, how far away it is from the observer. So nearer objects may appear unaffected by this "lens", objects farther away are affected by the "lens".
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 08:38:25 PM
Globe earth with atmosphere for 29 miles at 7' viewing elevation. For air temperature of 4°C and 1009 mBar barometric pressure that day, I had to apply a medium adjustment to the refractive index, from K=0.1701618 to K=.1965. That results in a change in dT/dh temperature gradient from the standard -.0026°C/ft to -.0014°C/ft. That means that for the low angle near-surface observations that day, the air cooled with altitude at a slightly less rate than the standard lapse rate, making refraction curve light just a little more sharply than it otherwise would be predicted. The earth, instead of appearing to have radius=3959 miles was a little flatter had light behaving as if the atmosphere was conforming to an earth of radius=4927 miles. That would account for why 371' of the Turning Tower is hidden by curvature rather than the simple geometric calculation of 471'.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/14ipmoi.jpg)

I have no model for the Flat Earth. The best being offered so far is that somehow atmospheric refraction is compressing the lower 371' of the tower into a thin boundary line. How that occurs is unspecified.

Without changing any refraction index or temperature/pressure settings, we can change the observation height to 57.7' in the globe model and find that the value of the hidden height is 204.2' ... which is almost exactly the measured value of 205'. Same rationale:

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

No calculator or model for a Flat Earth that explains how changing observation altitude changes what appears hidden of the tower, from a value of 371' to 205'. All that's offered so far is a post-facto rationalization that whatever is missing must be compressed within a thin optical line. How the atmosphere accomplishes and how it is variable with observation height and distance is unspecified. Filling in the blank side for the Flat Earth model is the challenge.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 09:13:25 PM
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

- When you increase your height you can see more of the object
- The bottom of the object is "compressed" (rather than hidden behind curvature)

Quote
Photographing Mirages Above the Sea Surface

J. Blanco-García, B. V. Dorrío  and F. A. Ribas-Pérez
Department of Applied Physics,
University of Vigo, Spain

...

(https://i.imgur.com/XnMx4gA.png)

5. Effect of the camera height

It is important to show how the appearance of a
mirage is strongly dependent on the height of the
observer over the sea surface. The authors of this
article have observed that an intense effect of
towering, seen standing on the beach, close to the
water edge (eyes less than 2 m high), became very
weak, and even disappear, when viewed from
nearby rocks, about 4 m high. The index profile has
a more pronounced variation in the bottom air
layers, in such a way that an observer over them
cannot be reached by any curved ray. It seemed,
hence, that in our case the gradient index layer was
pretty thin, less than 6m.

Figures 12 a) and b) are examples of a castle in the
air taken the second with the camera a couple of
meters lower than the first one. It can be noted that
the effect of lowering the observer position is to
raise the vanishing line, so a smaller portion of the
object is seen “reflected” and hence it looks more
thin and more “in the air”. This effect is graphically
explained in figure 13.

(https://i.imgur.com/GW4o6MY.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 09:46:05 PM
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

- When you increase your height you can see more of the object
- The bottom of the object is "compressed" (rather than hidden behind curvature)

The authors are describing the phenomena of inferior and superior mirages. The authors are not talking about earth curvature, they are talking about mirages. They are not even referring to a "hidden area". Curvature and 'hidden' height is not relevant to their paper.

Inferior mirages, as they state, show a mirroring effect. Superior mirages produce a stretched, distorted towering effect. Both mirage types are not evidenced in the the Turning Torso images or videos. There is no mirroring and no distorted towering effect.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 11, 2018, 09:52:42 PM
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth...
It seems that no matter how many times we try to help you distinguish between distorting phenomena like mirage and non-distorting phenomena influencing the "sinking ship" effect, you continue to conflate the two.

That paper is talking about mirage. Mirage is one of the features of the Skunk Bay time lapse. It is not present in the set of Turning Torso observations.

Refraction is not limited to mirage or distortions, which occur independent of any curvature. Skunk Bay video saw distortions from a view height of 70' and distance of 4 miles. There's no curvature to speak of. It's all refraction. Refraction effect on the Turning Torso is non-distorting; rather, it is bending of light in a curve that slightly overcomes the curvature obstruction of a globe earth. It's NOT mirage.

Do you understand the distinction? It's all refraction. You just have to understand how refraction is working in given scenarios and what the effect is on optics. What's happening at Skunk Bay isn't what's happening to explain so-called "sinking ships."

If you show one more mirage image or paper or diagram in conjunction with "sinking ship" and Turning Torso, then I'll be convinced you're just having fun with this and not being serious. Mirage is but one phenomena that is explained via refraction. Refraction is not only mirage.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2018, 10:18:21 PM
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

- When you increase your height you can see more of the object
- The bottom of the object is "compressed" (rather than hidden behind curvature)

The authors are describing the phenomena of inferior and superior mirages. The authors are not talking about earth curvature, they are talking about mirages. They are not even referring to a "hidden area". Curvature and 'hidden' height is not relevant to their paper.

Inferior mirages, as they state, show a mirroring effect. Superior mirages produce a stretched, distorted towering effect. Both mirage types are not evidenced in the the Turning Torso images or videos. There is no mirroring and no distorted towering effect.

They are already describing that entire bottom area as "compressed." Why can't it be compressed to the point where all you see is a thin line?

As follows:

(https://i.imgur.com/xO5q4nG.png)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 10:25:08 PM
They are already describing that entire bottom area as "compressed." Why can't it be compressed to the point where all you see in a thin line?

As follows:

(https://i.imgur.com/xO5q4nG.png)

Why? B/c it's not.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 11, 2018, 11:55:34 PM
Just to put a fine point on it, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Sinking Ship Effect is the direct result of an inferior mirage whereby the object is mirrored beneath and then squashed down into a into a thin white line.

Are you abandoning SR’s “Laws of Perspective” Sinking Ship Effect explanation in ENAG?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2018, 02:17:26 AM
An Inferior Mirage is far more common than a Superior Mirage, and involves upwardly bending light rays. It is these upwardly bending light rays which cause bodies to sink. There is also compression and mirroring beneath the rays, but lets focus on the sinking part.

The phenomenon of "sinking" is a known effect of atmospheric refraction.

(https://i.imgur.com/v5GaixD.png)

Here is a decent video of how refraction would occur on a Flat Earth to cause the Sinking Ship Effect:

The beginning of the video describes how upwardly bending light rays would cause a body to appear to sink. Indeed, we see upwardly bending light rays in the illustration from the previous study that we were looking at.

The middle of the video is a little slow.

The end of the video is interesting, as it seems to imply that a sinking effect is necessitated on a Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2018, 11:13:42 AM
White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2h5o18k.jpg)

Air refracts light in a lot of different ways. For this optical compression rationale of yours to be accountable for a "sinking ship" effect, there has to be a mechanism. You can't just call it "refraction" and walk away.

Good illustration. I think that this diagram pretty much shows the light rays of the inferior mirage effect.

From the Skunkbay timelapse we see that the refraction changes throughout the day. In the inferior mirage, the upwards and downwards curving rays are also variable. The upward curving light at times overwhelms the downward curving light, compressing it downwards, creating the sinking effect with the light line at the bottom.

What causes it: The Sinking Ship Effect is little more than the inferior mirage we all already know about.

Just to put a fine point on it, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Sinking Ship Effect is the direct result of an inferior mirage whereby the object is mirrored beneath and then squashed down into a into a thin white line.

Are you abandoning SR’s “Laws of Perspective” Sinking Ship Effect explanation in ENAG?

Samuel Birley Rowbotham didn't have access to time-lapse photography. Rowbotham does describe the scene changing over time, however -- the sinking effect sometimes occurring and sometimes not for lighhouses and parked ships. I think that the timelapse videos of the sinking effect occurring for long periods of time is in agreement with Rowbotham's observations and, to me at least, pushes the refraction explanation beyond conjecture.

I suppose that it is still possible that waves and swells are somehow affecting the scene. The timelapse video strongly implies that it is all part of the same fluid refractive phenomena, however.

I do believe that Rowbotham's first explanation for the Sinking Ship Effect, as sometimes caused by lack of optical resolution (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm), is true, however, according to some of my own trials of putting a printout illustration of a white sailboat against a black background with a hull height of 1/8th of an inch at a distance of 40 feet. The hull does indeed seem to disappear.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2018, 12:11:15 PM
Let us go back to the "bottom portion of the inferior mirage is compressed into a line" topic.

The Collapsing Inferior Mirage Caught in the Act

Just as described, the bottom portion of the Inferior Mirage collapses. The left side is showing the uncompressed mirrored version of the inferior mirage. The right side shows it collapsing/compressing into a line. The line it compresses into on the right hand side is the sunken version of the shore.

(https://i.imgur.com/voXGo62.png)

Taken from the 2:30 mark of the 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 12, 2018, 03:14:44 PM
If you show one more mirage image or paper or diagram in conjunction with "sinking ship" and Turning Torso, then I'll be convinced you're just having fun with this and not being serious.

Simple question: Is mirage required for "sinking ship" phenomenon?

Edit: to further amplify the question above:

White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2h5o18k.jpg)

Air refracts light in a lot of different ways. For this optical compression rationale of yours to be accountable for a "sinking ship" effect, there has to be a mechanism. You can't just call it "refraction" and walk away.

Good illustration. I think that this diagram pretty much shows the light rays of the inferior mirage effect.
It does not, but your believing it does suggests that mirage must be in effect for in order for your attributing atmospheric refraction to the "sinking ship" effect. Can you confirm or disavow that?

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on September 12, 2018, 05:49:20 PM

Simple question: Is mirage required for "sinking ship" phenomenon?

No.

It appears that the mirage is stretching, compressing, distorting, or amplifying already existing optical conditions.

Atmospheric refraction occurs regardless of these mirage effects.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 12, 2018, 06:05:20 PM
Sorry. That question was directed toward Tom "Thin White Line" Bishop. I'd like to know his answer since it's been his reasoning that hidden heights are compressed by atmospheric refraction into a line at the horizon. I want to clarify what part mirage plays in that.

I want to know if/how it is distinguished from the other refractive effect of "sinking" that he introduced.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Ofcourseitsnotflat on September 13, 2018, 03:48:20 PM
Here's another perspective on the 'ship's mast gradually coming into view', courtesy of SpaceX; just the first few minutes will do.

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2018, 07:03:48 PM
It does not, but your believing it does suggests that mirage must be in effect for in order for your attributing atmospheric refraction to the "sinking ship" effect. Can you confirm or disavow that?

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?

Yes, I believe that the Skunkbay timelapses strongly suggest that the sinking ship effect is an inferior mirage that has a collapsed/compressed bottom portion.

Is it a coincidence that the inferior mirage seems to decompress from the thin line?

(https://i.imgur.com/QZR5Rf0.gif)
Source: 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og)

In the above animation the sunken version of the scene transitioned into an inferior mirage, and then the unsunken version is revealed behind it as the inferior mirage dissipated.

Here's another perspective on the 'ship's mast gradually coming into view', courtesy of SpaceX; just the first few minutes will do.

I actually believe that we are once again looking at an inferior mirage. In the transition to where we see the full platform, we see the following at 0:23:

(https://i.imgur.com/ywokCQM.jpg)

The scene is very dark, but if we could see more detail, we would probably see a line in this one as well.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 13, 2018, 07:16:37 PM
It does not, but your believing it does suggests that mirage must be in effect for in order for your attributing atmospheric refraction to the "sinking ship" effect. Can you confirm or disavow that?

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?

Yes, I believe that it is a mirage.

Is it a coincidence that the inferior mirage seems to decompress from the thin line?

(https://i.imgur.com/QZR5Rf0.gif)

I agree that mirage is a significant part of the visual sequence in that Skunk Bay video. And compression of image in the region of mirage can and does squash to line-like thinness.

Okay? But that's not the question. You're attributing that effect to "sinking ship" phenomena. Which means that mirage-producing conditions must always be in effect any time ships seem to sink beyond a horizon or objects appear cut off as if by a horizon. So that's the question I'm asking. Is mirage required for "sinking ship" effect to happen?

It sounds to me like you're saying "yes." Just confirm that and I'll move on from there; because if the answer is "no" then I have a different line of reasoning to pursue with you.

So, yes or no? Is mirage required to produce the sinking ship effect?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 13, 2018, 07:35:35 PM
I actually believe that we are once again looking at an inferior mirage. In the transition to where we see the full platform, we see the following at 0:23:

(https://i.imgur.com/ywokCQM.jpg)

The scene is very dark, but if we could see more detail, we would probably see a line in this one as well.

I agree. There is evidence of an inferior mirage there.

Once again, this suggests that for you, sinking ship phenomena due to refraction requires inferior mirage conditions and all of the lower portion of whatever the target is that appears hidden from view is compressed into that band of mirage, below the rest of what is visible.

This is your working theory or claim, correct?

(p.s. touched briefly on flat earth "convergence zone" explanation in this old topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10077) that includes imagery with an inferior mirage in conjunction with "sinking ship")
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2018, 10:41:09 PM
Once again, this suggests that for you, sinking ship phenomena due to refraction requires inferior mirage conditions and all of the lower portion of whatever the target is that appears hidden from view is compressed into that band of mirage, below the rest of what is visible.

This is your working theory or claim, correct?

(p.s. touched briefly on flat earth "convergence zone" explanation in this old topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10077) that includes imagery with an inferior mirage in conjunction with "sinking ship")

Yes, that is my interpretation for many of the sinking ship scenes.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 13, 2018, 10:58:28 PM
That's "magic wand" stuff, Tom. I was hoping you wouldn't say that and just go with "sinking" which you cited earlier as a "well known" refraction phenomenon without the necessity for mirage too. "Mirage" is in the territory of "waves" as an explanation for the effect, but oh well.

Whether it's mirage or merely refractive sinking, I've been trying to make sense of the "thin white line" explanation for the Turning Torso's "sinking ship" effect.

Here is an orthogonal, single ray-trace diagram of light from the Tower to the observation viewpoint of h=6.9' high from a distance of 29.8 miles for how light would be refracted given this theory:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2na8v9x.jpg)

371' (vertical angle of 0.135°) must be compressed into a band of about 4-5' (vertical angle of 0.002°) based on the thin white band visible at the boundary between sea and building in the photo (in-line at bottom of this post).

For the air refraction to cause that, somehow everything from 371' down must be bent into a narrow range, with everything above eye level (6.9') experiencing an upward bending path, gradually lessening until reaching eye-level and then becoming straight to slightly downward bending in the lowest 7' above Tower ground.

But from 371' and up -- the upper 252' of Tower -- light markedly experiences a sudden change in refraction, resulting in a large "sinking" displacement with little or no distortion (compression) at all. All light bending from 371' to 623' would be bent by the same upward-bending refractive index.

I have no explanation for how the atmosphere density or  temperature gradient could induce such an effect. Perhaps you can work it out. If not, you're just using refraction terminology without reasoning through the application.

But the mystery deepens with a change in observer elevation. Just 18 minutes later, the observation point was shifted to 57.7' high. Same horizontal distance of 29.8 miles, here is that ray diagram:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/nqcmrt.jpg)

The same type of profile, except now that dividing line between extreme compression and sinking with no compression is at an elevation of 205' instead of 371'. Again, I can find no explanation within the literature for atmospheric refraction that would account for such a phenomenon. The dividing line between extreme compression of the lower floors and sinking of the higher floors is still above eye-level. The angle is reduced, but what does that suggest, if anything? Has the weather or air mass through which the Tower was viewed changed in the time it took to relocate from 7' to 58' in altitude? If not, what's the connection to elevation change in this case and how does it explain, via refraction, the change from 371' to 205'? If so, what might have changed about the air? What refractive conditions produce this kind of effect? Are they common enough to account for any time the "sinking ship" is seen?

Look again at the photo images of the two views. At this expanded resolution, that suspect "thin white line" is 7 pixels high in both views. I see no indicator of mirage; but maybe it's just too compressed to see? If there's no mirage, that would mean that if refraction is the reason, then very extreme stooping + sinking is at work, with a sudden shift to no stooping but still extreme sinking. And the sudden shift between the two occurring inexplicably, but with nothing but a change in viewing height.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/14jp475.jpg)

No offense, Tom, but if you had "magic wand" issues with refraction as an explanation for deviations from a geometric curve calculator in sphere earth observations, how can you not have the same skepticism with refraction of a much greater and more peculiar nature when trying to explain such large hidden values on a flat earth?

I figure that's more a rhetorical question at this point; serving as commentary on my evaluation of your ad hoc "thin white line" proposal for where that missing Tower elevation has gone.

In closing:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2zjj8n6.jpg)

Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 05:29:43 PM
It's more than the thin white line. The bottom of the tower near the water is also compressed. Here is something new:

From this Turning Torso Video of the author collecting the original photographs we see at 2:54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk) that the lower levels on the overlays near the water are more squished than the top levels.

(https://i.imgur.com/1gaV9H4.png)

Yet later on we see that he produced this image where he transformed the image into a version where the levels are all lined up (the red and blue text overlays were mine, the rest of the image was his):

(https://i.imgur.com/tCHUOEE.png)

What gives? Those cubes on the schematics of the skyscraper show them to be all the same height. Is this guy stretching the images and manipulating the data to hide that he saw a tower that was compressed at the bottom?
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 05:35:41 PM
The fact that the bottom of the tower is compressed, which goes unmentioned by the author Mathias KP and is slyly edited out to provide a "side-by-side" image with matching cube heights of equal height, provides another similarity to the Skunkbay scene with the sunken peninsula. The sunken version of the peninsula is vertically compressed just above the line:

(https://i.imgur.com/QZR5Rf0.gif)
Source: 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og)

It also matches up with what this Youtube investigator saw. A man observes a "sinking ship" on a ship with clearly distinguishable white text and designs on the side.

Runtime: 10 Minutes

The text was squished, with a line of further compression at the bottom in red.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 14, 2018, 07:08:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5TMH3fT.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 07:11:46 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5TMH3fT.jpg)

Its as if you didn't read my post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg166119#msg166119

That image you presented on top is a photo edited version by the author where he makes the cubes of the skyscraper line up. A video where he is collecting the data shows that the bottom of the tower is indeed compressed.

See the first image in the above link.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 14, 2018, 07:18:10 PM
It's more than the thin white line. The bottom of the tower near the water is also compressed. Here is something new:
Not new. We (I) already pointed that out (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg164955#msg164955).

What gives? Those cubes on the schematics of the skyscraper show them to be all the same height. Is this guy stretching the images and manipulating the data to hide that he saw a tower that was compressed at the bottom?
No. He's lined them up, proportionally resizing them to normalize the difference due to perspective/distance, so that you/we can see the number of floors/sections that are missing at each observation point. They aren't elongated non-proportionally (i.e. upper sections untouched; lower sections stretched.) You know that. That's how we/you did the elevation calculation on what was missing and what was still visible.

You're not pointing out anything new. We already knew that the Tower appears more squat as you get to the boundary between visible and hidden.

What you're NOT explaining is how it can go from a little bit stooping to massively compressed. And not just on the rare occasion, but routinely. After all, it's supposed to explain the "sinking ship illusion." You're saying the ship, tower or whatever doesn't disappear but becomes massively compressed into a line; and not just gradually but suddenly. Showing me that the lower still visible elements of something are slightly squat doesn't support an argument that everything else below is squashed into a vertical space a fraction of a percentage of it's true angular dimension.

Unless you have an explanation for how the atmosphere...atmoplane...can do that, it's just wishful thinking.

When you dismissed the explanation for how atmospheric refraction can account for looming (objects appearing over the horizon that geometrically shouldn't be), you did so even though there is a rational explanation for how light behaves and how that can happen. You dismissively called it a "magic wand". Yet here you are invoking refraction WITHOUT an explanation for how it works in an atmoplane and how the air can act as a lens that goes from no distortion, to (maybe, but not always) some distortion and then suddenly to massive distortion...all of which can change consistently with distance and elevation, again, without explanation.

If you draw up an atmoplane profile and temperature gradient that can produce this amazing compressing lens phenomenon, I'd love to see it. Like always, you'll ignore the deficits.

This is a ship sinking beyond a horizon:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2zjj8n6.jpg)

This is stooping, looming and superior mirage, none of which is creating a sinking ship effect even remotely like the image above:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/264gt39.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 14, 2018, 09:02:45 PM
That image you presented on top is a photo edited version by the author where he makes the cubes of the skyscraper line up. A video where he is collecting the data shows that the bottom of the tower is indeed compressed.

From the Flickr image I get 120 PX for each section marked by the black lines. There are 9 sections to the tower topping out at 600’ for a total of 1080 PX or .5555’ per pixel.

(https://i.imgur.com/dGGppCg.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: stack on September 26, 2018, 01:49:10 AM
As to the J Tolan aspect of this examination, I claim that it stands as debunked. The tower in the video was referenced as being 130 ft tall. In actuality, that tower is 199.1 ft tall and 335 ft above the Salton Sea level. Therefore, what was depicted meets observable reality as to a curved earth, not a flat one.﻿

Look at the examination and decide for yourselves, but based upon all evidence presented this is the ultimate outcome.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2018, 11:14:09 AM
First step (if possible) is to fill out this table:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2mnlwch.jpg)
The observed values fall between the lower flat earth values and the higher round earth values. Before we try to argue for why they are more or less than a baseline prediction, try to look objectively and see if these observed estimates are at least correct so that the real contest isn't over what we're seeing but why.

Great stuff Bobby...
Oh... really!?

Why should I fill it out when the table is screwed to begin with?

Row 1: Obeserver height 12.1 feet...hidden 84 feet...

Row 2: Observer height 9.5 feet...hidden 127 feet...

Wow, just wow...
[/quote]
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2018, 11:34:34 AM
That's talking about the phenomena of seeing a portion of a building appear to be underwater over a distance.

To be fair a 12 foot observer height with 84 feet hidden by "curvature" isn't unreasonable.

(https://i.postimg.cc/s2Pjq9R8/building-by-building-comparison-from-flatearthdebunked.jpg)

Some FE theories use light curving, which RET dismisses as ludicrous while most of them forget that curvature of light or gravitational lensing is their best evidence for the dark matter which currently holds GR together (barely, imo).

I hope we can be frens here totallackey. I don't want to attack your beliefs but I wanted to point it out.
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on September 26, 2018, 02:35:57 PM
As to the J Tolan aspect of this examination, I claim that it stands as debunked. The tower in the video was referenced as being 130 ft tall. In actuality, that tower is 199.1 ft tall and 335 ft above the Salton Sea level. Therefore, what was depicted meets observable reality as to a curved earth, not a flat one.﻿

Look at the examination and decide for yourselves, but based upon all evidence presented this is the ultimate outcome.
JTolen's been pretty good about responding to reasonable questions and criticisms. I'm surprised he hasn't addressed this.

I'm reluctant to call it "debunked" without affirmation that we have the right cell tower and without knowing for sure from where the image was taken, but based on what we have been able to deduce, I agree with you.

There are some I see suggesting JTolen is up to something with his video channel and may actually be a globe-ist trolling. That would explain some things, but seems like an awful lot of work to make a point. So I think he's sincere.

<tangent>I wish more of these flat earth YouTube personalities would participate here. That's what I expected when I first came to this board. But I think they're more interested in broadcasting than engaging in discussion.</tangent>
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: Diy on September 28, 2018, 11:21:20 PM
The amount of compression seems to increase alot with observations near the surface of water. At least from these four photos of Turning Torso  https://flic.kr/p/28YnNTT (https://flic.kr/p/28YnNTT)
Title: Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
Post by: iamcpc on October 05, 2018, 07:53:26 PM
The amount of compression seems to increase alot with observations near the surface of water. At least from these four photos of Turning Torso  https://flic.kr/p/28YnNTT (https://flic.kr/p/28YnNTT)

This is going to be largely because the water molecule PPM in the air above the water is going to be dramatically higher than say the water molecule PPM in the air above a desert.

Further more temperature difference can contribute significantly to this as well

http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/our-world/2012/01/what-is-a-mirage.aspx

So our brain takes this electrical signal and creates an image. It's evolved to just assume that the light is not refracted so when light bends or is refracted it has this fantastic ability to trick our brains.

Since our cameras were specifically created to recreate our brains image we see the same refraction/bendy light trickery in pictures and videos.