The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 12:45:44 AM

Title: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 12:45:44 AM
ODD TV has created a new Flat Earth Presentation that I found to be palatable for the newcomer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8udts8Un4m4
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 08, 2018, 01:19:39 AM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 03:39:31 AM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: douglips on May 08, 2018, 03:40:21 AM
The first misconception:
https://flatearth.ws/oblate-spheroid
The difference is tiny, like 40 pixels out of 11,000, but it's measurable.

Next, long distance photography.
Standard refraction explains it.
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/

Next, it is just asserted that the bolivian salt flats "defy curvature". No detail is given, just some pretty pictures.

Next, "the horizon always rises to eye level, here take a look at this high altitude photograph." No measurements are given at the pixel level which may (or may not) show curvature. No attempt is made.

Next, curvature due to fish-eye lenses. That's fine, but they also remove curvature if the horizon is below the center of the frame.

In that same shot, the Felix Baumgartner photo, they say that it's weird that you only see New Mexico because how can you be looking at 75% of the earth and it's all New Mexico? This is evidence for curvature, as this means the horizon is not as far away as it should be on a flat earth.

Next, boats disappearing behind the horizon. A small number of examples are shown that don't appear to demonstrate curvature, but no examples are given of the cases where ships are clearly occulted by the horizon.

Definition of horizon and horizontal are similar. This is a new argument, I guess it's "proof by etymology". I can't tell if that's terrible or terrific, but I guess those both mean the same thing so whatever.

Next up: "Water doesn't curve" asserted without evidence, and only backed up by "the wisdom of the ancients".

Next, crepuscular rays show us the sun is 20 miles away. Please tell me how far away the train station is by looking at the railroad tracks.

Next, the sunset is caused by perspective.


OK, Now I'm bored. Sorry.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 03:55:15 AM
Next, long distance photography.
Standard refraction explains it.
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

The notion is a bit absurd, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: douglips on May 08, 2018, 05:58:09 AM
Optics is a well understood field. In your profile picture you are wearing objects on your face that bend light in well understood ways.

We know that the atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes, and we know the relationship between the density of air and index of refraction.

Anybody who has studied even a little bit of optics will tell you that refraction is very real and the notion of ignoring it is what would be absurd.

EDIT: To add:
Quote
Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.
Here's a correctly annotated image:
(https://beyondrange.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/finestrelles-gaspard-marc-bret-bh.png)
From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2018, 09:06:15 AM
Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable.

It almost sounds as though you agree that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2018, 09:17:58 AM
Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

There wouldn't be a Wiki about it if there were not evidence. There are 28 references in this page to the supporting evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction)

Take your time, follow them all, establish which of them have been arrived at through empirical work, then come back to us. This may involve trips to libraries.

If you're back in 10 minutes, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 08, 2018, 09:22:52 AM
Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.
There's a difference between measurable and observable.
It may be possible to measure this difference, but it would be too subtle to notice just by looking.
Same as horizon dip, it's not obvious but you can measure it and you have been shown several ways to do so.
I'm looking forward to the results of your experiment on that.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 08, 2018, 09:25:26 AM
Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?
Always?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk&t=238s
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2018, 09:36:27 AM
In that same shot, the Felix Baumgartner photo, they say that it's weird that you only see New Mexico because how can you be looking at 75% of the earth and it's all New Mexico? This is evidence for curvature, as this means the horizon is not as far away as it should be on a flat earth.

The limit of his visibility can be derived with the maths and trig appropriate to a spherical cap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap)

If you do this, the limit of visibility to the North was somewhere around Denver, to the South the southern edge of Coahuila in Mexico, to the East - Houston, and a little beyond Dallas, and West - almost halfway between Tucson and San Diego.

So, the visibility is of New Mexico, with bits of the surrounding states and some of (real) Mexico. This matches with the observations of the Team Hoaxers who claim it's a hoax BECAUSE there's no water visible. Well, there's no water visible because all the significant seas and oceans are OVER THE HORIZON.

75% of the Earth? No way.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 08, 2018, 11:05:17 AM
Their first point about NASA images being a perfect circle. Here's a properly high res photo of earth from space

https://cdn.pmylund.com/blog/content/suomi_npp-blue_marble.jpg

Taken in 2012. Looks like a perfect circle.
Now put it into a paint package and see if you can fit a perfect circle round it...

That's as far as I got into the video so far but it's not looking good. And that's the trouble with these videos, and all flat earth ideas.
They're built on misunderstanding, ignorance or just plain untruths about science.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 12:03:16 PM
It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.

Are you asking why the furthest peak is lower? You may as well ask why a one story building in the foreground of a picture can be taller than a ten story building in the background of a picture.

Quote
Here's a correctly annotated image:

https://beyondrange.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/finestrelles-gaspard-marc-bret-bh.png

From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Those peaks should be well below the horizon.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2018, 12:14:52 PM
Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

There wouldn't be a Wiki about it if there were not evidence. There are 28 references in this page to the supporting evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction)

Take your time, follow them all, establish which of them have been arrived at through empirical work, then come back to us. This may involve trips to libraries.

If you're back in 10 minutes, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.

You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

Ridiculous.

The Canigou Peak Seen From Allauch, France, is a known phenomenon that is seen every year when the sun sets behind the Canigou. I assume, again, that you are claiming that this is a mirage that always exists, seen on a regular basis, and without radical distortion to the image, that makes the round earth look flat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etEB2rHnmso
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 08, 2018, 12:53:01 PM
Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

Can I get a source for this?
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2018, 01:10:55 PM
You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

No, you asked for evidence of "standard refraction". I provided it.

Whether or not it "always makes the earth look exactly flat" ..... I leave that open. But there is/are standard refraction indices.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2018, 01:12:25 PM
JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

So... where and when was this "claimed"?

And do you agree that Himawari-8 takes photographs?
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Spycrab on May 08, 2018, 01:22:24 PM
You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?
The pot called. It said you're a black kettle.
You do realize you talk a big game about the wonders of perspective
that just so happens to be a permanent mirage that makes the earth look flat.
A permanent mirage that bends the sun's light to make it set
A permanent mirage that limits how far we can see
A permanent mirage that keeps the sun the same size.
Or maybe the atmosphere's being paid off by nasa.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 08, 2018, 01:57:12 PM
^Spycrab beat me to it, can't hurt to reiterate this point:


You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

Ridiculous.
After offering a collection of ad hoc "might be possible" explanations for phenomena that shouldn't happen if the earth was flat, I can't believe you posted this.

A permanent mirage is ridiculous, but these are not?
- a permanent atmospheric vapor layer that somehow causes the sun to appear larger at a rate that keeps it consistently the same apparent size from sun up to sun down.
- some permanent lensing medium that works for all locations/observers to bend light not just away from the surface to make the sun appear lower than it actually is, but also laterally to throw off azimuth measurement.
- some permanent mechanism that allows the sun's light to be cast in a spotlight pattern yet never be seen as anything but a sphere.
- and I haven't heard an ad hoc explanation for why sunrises/sunsets south of the equator are angled opposite of those north of the equator, but I'm sure there's some permanent "illusion"-type explanation for why it only appears that way.

Just draw a line from the camera location to that distant Canigou range and tell me where, along that line, you think the sun is over the flat earth as it's rising from that vantage point, without invoking some "could-be possible" explanation that is no less ridiculous as you say a "permanent mirage" would be.

Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 08, 2018, 02:30:09 PM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.
Well then, can you tell me, just from eyeballing it, which of these are the perfect circles?

(https://doc-0o-4g-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ioje2cm3u50jj6ffo9goi7oce0qag6ah/l2i528g95dk7pkpipm1t7h7u9rs6osbe/1525788000000/12831263887591998538/12831263887591998538/1zfUPEkYe4ygSDaHnaRVMMHecUw3CA1Os?e=download)

I'll give you a hint: 47 are perfect circles and 53 are slightly oblate.

I can make an answer key or larger version if needed. I can also produce the code that generated it to prove that the oblate ones exist.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: isaacN on May 08, 2018, 03:54:53 PM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 08, 2018, 04:18:26 PM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?
Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tontogary on May 08, 2018, 04:20:54 PM
From what i saw of the video,
What also is not explained inn the video is why is the sun setting at all?

I see a video of the sun sinking below a horizon( with refracted mountain tops showing, just, and i do mean, just higher than the sea horizon.
Perspective does not explain why you can see the sun clearly sinking further and further down. It is clearly not at any “vanishing” point, more a “sinking point” i.e. Horizon of the GE.

Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.

Refraction is always present, and has been explained, and indeed is even done so in EnaG, but strangely ignored in his New Bedford farce, but addressed in others.
Standard refraction is exactly as it sounds, under normal conditions, it occurs, and is about 45 minutes of arc with the sun at low altitudes.
This is routinely accounted for in navigation as we take the time of sunset to be when the suns Center is on the celestial horizon (note that is different from the visible horizon due to....refraction) and has the hour angle is 90 degrees(or simply put the longitude difference from the observer to the meridian where the sun is) for practical purposes, this is when you can see about 2/3 the diameter clear between the suns lower limb and the visible horizon.
If anyone is interested here is a simple explanation of the way to calculate it, and it would be easy enough to use the example to calculate the bearing of sunset or sunrise from your location on the earth.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gniRG9b5F8I
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tontogary on May 08, 2018, 04:36:25 PM
From what i saw of the video,
What also is not explained inn the video is why is the sun setting at all?

I see a video of the sun sinking below a horizon( with refracted mountain tops showing, just, and i do mean, just higher than the sea horizon.
Perspective does not explain why you can see the sun clearly sinking further and further down. It is clearly not at any “vanishing” point, more a “sinking point” i.e. Horizon of the GE.

Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
Right at the end he tries to suggest that the mountains have shrunk due to the distance, and tries to pinpoint another peak which he says is half the hieght of the other. He does not identify the peak correctly, and if it was the peak he says, then it should be less than half the hieght above the horizon of the other, which it is not.

Also not explained is why in some of his video “evidence” is the sun lighting the BOTTOM of the clouds? It can ONLY be because the sun has set over the horizon, so is reflecting off the bottom of the clouds.
On a FE the clouds would need to be above the sun to show that.
I think the video has busted itself really.

Refraction is always present, and has been explained, and indeed is even done so in EnaG, but strangely ignored in his New Bedford farce, but addressed in others.
Standard refraction is exactly as it sounds, under normal conditions, it occurs, and is about 45 minutes of arc with the sun at low altitudes.
This is routinely accounted for in navigation as we take the time of sunset to be when the suns Center is on the celestial horizon (note that is different from the visible horizon due to....refraction) and has the hour angle is 90 degrees(or simply put the longitude difference from the observer to the meridian where the sun is) for practical purposes, this is when you can see about 2/3 the diameter clear between the suns lower limb and the visible horizon.
If anyone is interested here is a simple explanation of the way to calculate it, and it would be easy enough to use the example to calculate the bearing of sunset or sunrise from your location on the earth.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gniRG9b5F8I
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 08, 2018, 04:38:11 PM
Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
This is a good point. This is an example of the FE wanting their cake and eating it.
The claim is that you can see the tops of the mountains and you shouldn't be able to.
But yes, if the earth is flat why can't you just see the whole mountain?
In the Bishop "experiment" Tom claims to be able to see the beach all the way down to the shore across a 20+ mile bay with a viewer height of 20 inches.
He's lying or mistaken, clearly, the idea that there are no waves over 20 inches high over that stretch of sea is ludicrous.
But if that's true and you can then the same should apply here - you should be able to see the whole mountain at a distance on a flat earth.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: Tontogary on May 08, 2018, 04:43:21 PM
Just thought of another one about the daft video of the sun setting.

Why are the rest of the mountain range not visible? There is an extensive range to the right and left of the highest peak, but there is only shown a few mountain tops. Surely if the rest of the mountain range has disappeared as they are beyond the “vanishing point” then the taller peaks will be too?

Also all the other peaks will be seen as low irregular horizon, but apart from those few peaks the horizon is pretty sharp and straight. Why is that? The lower peaks would be shrunk if they are shrunk by distance, but they would show as a lower irregular layer.  They are not, as they are actually over the horizon.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: douglips on May 08, 2018, 05:24:25 PM
It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.

Are you asking why the furthest peak is lower? You may as well ask why a one story building in the foreground of a picture can be taller than a ten story building in the background of a picture.

The further peak is 40% taller (3867 vs 2758 meters) and only 13% farther away.
So your analogy would need to be a 10 story building 10 miles away appearing taller than a 14 story building 11.3 miles away. By similar triangles, the 14 story building will be significantly taller in appearance in this circumstance.

The only reason that an extra 13% in distance can hide an extra 40% in height is because at longer distances the curvature effect is accentuated. What's the explanation for such a discrepancy in a flat earth model?

Quote
Quote
Here's a correctly annotated image:

https://beyondrange.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/finestrelles-gaspard-marc-bret-bh.png

From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Those peaks should be well below the horizon.

Yes, unless there's a big giant lens between the camera and the peaks. Remember, you know how lenses work, because you have some on your face right now. They work by being a transparent medium with non-zero density of a certain shape, which is also a spot on description of the atmosphere. The only difference is that your glasses don't significantly expand and contract with temperature, humidity, and other weather phenomena.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: isaacN on May 08, 2018, 08:16:29 PM
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?
Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.

Mr. Bishop from what I have read on this site claims he is an empiricist relying on information he himself has gathered.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8288.0
I was asking him how he came by that particular data set. If you quote figures or facts in a debate you should be able to present data to back any claims up.
Title: Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
Post by: TomInAustin on July 23, 2018, 09:48:07 PM
Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
This is a good point. This is an example of the FE wanting their cake and eating it.
The claim is that you can see the tops of the mountains and you shouldn't be able to.
But yes, if the earth is flat why can't you just see the whole mountain?
In the Bishop "experiment" Tom claims to be able to see the beach all the way down to the shore across a 20+ mile bay with a viewer height of 20 inches.
He's lying or mistaken, clearly
, the idea that there are no waves over 20 inches high over that stretch of sea is ludicrous.
But if that's true and you can then the same should apply here - you should be able to see the whole mountain at a distance on a flat earth.

And never any photographic evidence.