The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tim Osman on April 12, 2019, 07:36:31 PM

Title: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Osman on April 12, 2019, 07:36:31 PM
Hi I have been conversing with flat earthers mostly on Youtube for over 4 years. I recently thought to check back with this site, as for some reason your average flat earthers on Youtube call the flat earth society controlled opposition.. When I got here I started looking around and immediately noticed how much more mature the content is here.

My main reason here would be to invite someone influential around here perhaps for a chat about the hundreds of gigs of observations I have done that don't seem to comport with what was being said about flat earth when I first came around over 4 years ago. I see Youtube flat earthers have about 100 different excuses for observations now for what we simply point out is geometry to the earth in front of us. Some excuses include - perspective, airys diffraction, angle of attack, angle of incidence, dirty air, atmospheric conditions and many more.

Some of the most notable tests I have done are on the Bonneville salt flats and the great salt lake (most times looking at salt lake city from 26 miles away on antelope island causeway) and looking and strongs knob with a 4k drone only changing altitude. I went with Jesse Kozlowski (professional surveyor of 40 years) and hit all the geodetic triangulation points with two very expensive gps devices. We also did two drives across i80 (about 40 miles straight and level) east to west getting raw ECEF data (x,y,z). We have also modeled this with an accuracy of under .5% of the claimed radius of the earth.

I am here in hopes to have a serious conversation with serious individuals who are looking for the truth and have cogent arguments. Most of the Youtube flat earth scene is a total shill festival with trolls and mouth breathers that have nothing to say but erff flat.

I came from a deep knowledge into conspiracy, I am not your average globe cuck. It took me two weeks of research to understand things like the equinox, solar / lunar eclipse, 2 celestial points in conjunction with lat / long - are extremely good evidence the sky is telling us the earth is spherical. So I also went out and did hundreds of observations with different equipment, we even brought a auto level out to antelope island for observations on buffalo point.

Also looking at even flat earth observations seem to show strong evidence of the earths geometry. We have correctly identified the peaks of Jtolans 120 mile mt san jacinto observations, showing over 6,000 feet of the mountain being obstructed. He also seemed to try and fudge his observation height, and also deleted messages when we came on nice as can be telling him about this.

This salt lake city image provided is from a nikon p900 from 26 miles at different heights. There is over 100 feet that leads up to the base of the buildings, and clearly over 220 feet of the buildings being obstructed. I can answer and questions and provide more evidence for these and other similar observations.
(I tried to upload this but 192kb max) - https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/543129886563237933/566345653970665522/slccompare223.jpg?width=1251&height=704

Hopefully I am in the right place for cordial discourse.

Best Regards,
Tim Osman

Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2019, 11:12:45 PM
Hi Tim,

Your pictures provide valuable information. In my opinion the current status of this matter is that we are past the point of single pictures. All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter of sinking. Sometimes bodies in the distance are sunken and sometimes they are not. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a time-lapse is worth a thousand pictures.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 12, 2019, 11:23:08 PM
All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter (of sinking)

Why? What difference would/could be made by taking (for instance) this photo at varying times, or in the reverse direction?

(Note; the video author has re-visited to take it at different times, with the same result, and another YouTuber who apparently wanted to prove him wrong took a view from the hills in the distance, back towards the camera position shown here - with the same result.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYuzPuwlq_w 
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2019, 11:27:38 PM
All of the above is invalidated by an observation which should not be visible on a globe, which you can search for and find plenty of.

Inconsistency makes the sinking ship effect invalid as a proof of a globe.

From your video:

(https://i.imgur.com/x7mYFw8.png)

Assuming that his work is accurate (I did not bother to check), it "almost" fits what refraction predicts, meaning that it doesn't fit what RET would predict without refraction at all.

Sizes and elevations never do agree with RET. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 12, 2019, 11:51:24 PM
Assuming that his work is accurate (I didn't bother to check), according to that author the mountain at the top left should be at a height on the left white line below it.

No, the photo was taken from an elevation of 210m. The bridge tower is also 210m. The highest of the hills beyond is over 400m.

IF the Earth is flat, the sightline from 210m to 210m MUST meet the hill at 210m or so. It does not. It passes clear over the top, missing the hill completely, missing where it should be, on a flat earth, by well over 200m. This is not explainable away by refraction, unless you can PROVE the presence of over 200 metres' worth of refraction

It never does agree. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.

This observation changes?  Really?  Show us where you've seen it change. You may well have seen other, possibly sea-level observations change, but this one has not.

Here's the videos from the guy who tried to prove it wrong by photographing it in reverse, on another day, from the far hill back to the observation point of the one I cited above, and who ended up proving the first one correct, with a matching result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQ2D8ZgU2M

This is what should happen if the Earth is flat;

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

... but this is what the actual observation was;

(https://i.imgur.com/k6OGoxQ.jpg)

The line of sight between two points at 210m each passed clear over a 400m hill.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 12:13:18 AM
I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what RET refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2019, 12:13:57 AM
I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 12:15:11 AM
I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.

The author of your first video says that the observations almost match what RET refraction predicts.

See:

(https://i.imgur.com/x7mYFw8.png)

Then he says "FE'ers don't wet yourself yet" and brings up another mechanism that might correct the inaccuracy, and comes back and says that it does match what is predicted (by refraction).

Even if there are equations that could, as a general rule of thumb, predict where things would be on if the earth were a globe and light was curved in some sort of standard schema, verification of those equations is merely verification of equations of what would need to happen if the earth were a globe...

We already know that someone did study the matter for those equations by the mere fact that they exist. It is not a proof of a globe. If it is anything at all, assuming that everything which was posted is entirely honest and accurate, it is merely evidence for those equations which depict what would need to happen with curvy light if the earth were a globe.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2019, 12:43:19 AM
 There is no inaccuracy. The angular sizes are not the core point. The sight lines are.

If the Earth were flat, the sight line through the top of the bridge tower would meet the hills beyond at 210m or so, not pass above them. The hills are some 400m high...

I do not claim any refraction, curved light, whatever. If you claim these are a factor, then show their presence and/or effect.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 12:53:19 AM
It certainly sounds like the content you posted is talking about a refraction analysis and how much the observations agree with it. From the YouTube Transcript:

Quote
16:50

atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied
phenomenon and will always occur to a
greater or lesser extent on a spherical
earth because light traveling initially
in a straight line towards the camera
from an object will get closer to the
surface of the earth as it moves to the
camera and then again get further away
from the surface of the earth as it
approaches the camera
[Music]
but certainly in the case of this
observation that's what will be
happening and therefore light is
traveling through different densities of
air and as we know different densities
of a medium have different refractive
index indices and therefore will cause
the light to bend slightly to refract so
atmospheric refraction should be taken
into account here and that will affect
this relative ball heights as they call
it the relative height of these hills on
a globe earth and that will affect the
angular sizes so they've not use the
correct angular sizes for any of their
observations or any of their analysis

...

20:39

let's see what happens if we use figures
that include atmospheric refraction and
include the correct height for the
bridge here is my version of their or
their method again I've placed a ruler
at the base of the bridge tower


Hence it is an admission and a claim that light is bending... but is only bending to how he desires it to bend.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: QED on April 13, 2019, 04:57:00 AM
It certainly sounds like the content you posted is talking about a refraction analysis and how much the observations agree with it. From the YouTube Transcript:

Quote
16:50

atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied
phenomenon and will always occur to a
greater or lesser extent on a spherical
earth because light traveling initially
in a straight line towards the camera
from an object will get closer to the
surface of the earth as it moves to the
camera and then again get further away
from the surface of the earth as it
approaches the camera
[Music]
but certainly in the case of this
observation that's what will be
happening and therefore light is
traveling through different densities of
air and as we know different densities
of a medium have different refractive
index indices and therefore will cause
the light to bend slightly to refract so
atmospheric refraction should be taken
into account here and that will affect
this relative ball heights as they call
it the relative height of these hills on
a globe earth and that will affect the
angular sizes so they've not use the
correct angular sizes for any of their
observations or any of their analysis

...

20:39

let's see what happens if we use figures
that include atmospheric refraction and
include the correct height for the
bridge here is my version of their or
their method again I've placed a ruler
at the base of the bridge tower


Hence it is an admission and a claim that light is bending... but is only bending to how he desires it to bend.

Now that is a bit dishonest of you! The claim that it is “only bending how he desires it to bend” is unfounded, as the transcript does not indicate his preferences or desires. Moreover, even if you do provide evidence of his desires, you have not demonstrated that the refraction somehow defers in obeyance to it.

No, the refraction here is in accordance with RE science and models, which was established long before this video.

Atmospheric refraction invoked by FE arguments, in contrast, usually have no mathematics or definitive models motivating their implementation. Hence, they are usually ad hoc, and employed in situ whenever a situation needs them to be there to preserve a FE framework.

In that sense, the light only seems to bend when FET needs it to. Perhaps this was your confusion.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 05:47:17 AM
His desire is implicit in his assertion of a round earth and the 'science' of standard refraction equations that allows him to get the observation somewhere close to calculation.

The next step is to demonstrate that the premise or underlying mechanism is actually true. The fact that it's an old equation without good demonstration of the underlying mechanism behind it makes it more invalid, not more valid!

If you think you can do it, go ahead. Until then it is an undemonstrated hypothesis that has nothing going for it except for an equation which relies on, at least for the purpose of the discussion, another hypothesis -- a round earth. The argument is speculating on two different hypothecal equations, one an idealized earth, and another a compensation designed  to get a result, and then claiming that result is a proof for both. Insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2019, 10:09:15 AM
He's quite specific in NOT asserting round/globe earth, and his simple assertion is "not flat"

I need no "standard refraction" equations. The sight line through two levels of 210m must meet the 400m+ hills at the 210m level, IF the earth is flat. It does not. It misses the hills altogether, and is clearly way more than 200m off-target.

The observation, repeated from the hills looking back to this observer's position, on a different day with different conditions, shows the same.

These two observations are over a river valley where the river forms a small part of the distance between observer and target hill. Subsequent observations over the same bridge from different observation points show the same result, and subsequent observations out to sea from the original point also show sight lines which cannot exist were the earth to be flat.

I'm not going to post all of the author's videos, there's a host of them following the one above, most of which are there to address the criticisms from flat-earthers ( none of whom will actually go to the observation point)
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: QED on April 13, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
His desire is implicit in his assertion of a round earth and the 'science' of standard refraction equations that allows him to get the observation somewhere close to calculation.

The next step is to demonstrate that the premise or underlying mechanism is actually true. The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

If you think you can do it, go ahead. Until then it is an undemonstrated hypothesis that has nothing going for it except an equation which relies on, at least for the purpose of the discussion, another hyopothesis -- a round earth. Speculating on two different hypothecal equations, one an idealized earth and another a compensation designed  to get a result, and then claiming that result as a proof for both. Insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.

Your opinion of his desire as an inference is not relevant without evidence to back your claim, of which you have provided none.

Established modern science has a looooong publication record that stands as evidence and justification for using its models and laws.

Your opinion that it is “old” is irrelevant - the age of a claim is not an indicator of its truth.

Your claim that it is “without demonstration of the underlying mechanism” lacks evidence. It is a bald assertion, and easily rejected until you can support the claim with evidence.

Finally, you attempt to shift the burden of proof (which is becoming your signature move). Justification for the laws of refraction exists in the scientific record, and can be accessed by anyone interested.

If you wish to claim that this law is erroneous, then that is your burden, and until you choose to present evidence for this claim, simply stating so is insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing. 
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 03:30:43 PM
Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2019, 04:53:31 PM
Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

I presented no equations. I showed a YouTube video with an observation that I assert could not be possible on a Flat Earth, with supporting diagrams t illustrate the principle behind it, and a further observation which is the reverse of the first one, showing the same result.

This is my supporting evidence, isn't it?

Do you agree, given the geography of the location, that if the earth were flat, the sightline from observation point at 210m through bridge tower at 210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface? 

EDIT - forgot picture

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

Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: QED on April 13, 2019, 06:13:21 PM
Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

That reply meets the criteria of a straw-man fallacy. I have presented no equations, and we are discussing an analysis of the law of refraction made by a third party. You previously admitted that these equations have been studied, and have even referenced them for your own use — although you called it “angular theory” (which does not really exist, we call that trigonometry).

You are free to change your mind now, of course, and state that your are unconvinced by the evidence. But I would caution you in doing so: your cherished YouTube video you intend to put on your wiki directly uses the law of refraction. 

Nevertheless, your claim that the law of refraction is erroneous remains unfounded.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2019, 08:28:56 PM
I am seeing "Strawman! We didn't present that.... we only presented or are defending the video that presented that..."

Yes, you did present that to us with those actions.

If this is what you really want to talk about, who presented what, then I can predict that this discussion will not be going anywhere. We've had the same discussion here plenty of times before with the same result: We accuse of RE of waving a magic wand to make their model agree with observation and then there is some sort of statement of incredulity and that's the end of the matter. Little attention is paid to the inherent fallacy that is strongly insisted on.

The fact is that the observation do not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2019, 08:47:17 PM
The fact is that the observation do not support RET ...

I didn't say it did.

I said that, given the lie of the land at the observation site, the observation was totally impossible IF the Earth was flat.

Again, as asked in #15;

"Do you agree, given the geography of the location (shown in the diagram at #15), that if the earth were flat, the sightline from the observation point (camera position) at 210m, through the top of the bridge tower at 207/210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface?  "

I make no assertion of bendy light, refraction, or other atmospheric effects. I'm not trying to "make something fit a round earth theory" here. I simply assert that the observation does not fit with a flat earth, and that there are multiple other observations from the same location that re-inforce the same conclusion.

(See image at #15)

Please don't go down the route of suggesting the photographer has misled us about his camera height. That's been done to death in the video comments. The camera height is correct. Likewise, the height of the bridge tower and hills beyond are all in public record and not open to dispute.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: QED on April 13, 2019, 11:46:20 PM
I am seeing "Strawman! We didn't present that.... we only presented or are defending the video that presented that..."

Yes, you did present that to us with those actions.

If this is what you really want to talk about, who presented what, then I can predict that this discussion will not be going anywhere. We've had the same discussion here plenty of times before with the same result: We accuse of RE of waving a magic wand to make their model agree with observation and then there is some sort of statement of incredulity and that"s the end of the matter. Little attention is paid to the inherent fallacy that is strongly insisted on.

The fact is that the observation do not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.

No, I would prefer to talk about the science. Remember, it was you who began this tangent line by personalising the idea to the debaters.

I agree with you, this discussion will not go anywhere. I wish to address the science directly, and everything time I try to bring the conversation back to that, it seems like you once again deflect it.

Why are you so keen on NOT talking about the science Tom?

I will try one more time. The video uses the law of refraction, which is a known law of physics which you have employed in the past.

You have claimed that this law is applied in error in the video. Despite numerous requests, you fail to elaborate on this claim.

Please elaborate!

I shall ignore any further avoidance or deflectionary comments you make, any further straw men attempts to change the issue, and further attempts to try to make me answer the question for you.

The matter is closed until you wish to discuss this as honest gentlemen.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Osman on April 14, 2019, 05:35:37 PM
Having a hard time even connecting to this site for a response. I have a feeling the first poster didn't read my whole post. Like I said I have hundreds of gigs with p900, d3200, 4k drone over the great salt lake all through out the year. If you guys want to say that my observations are likely refraction then the refraction we see nearly every day out here comports with the globe. Also rising with a drone shows mountains in the distance become more and more visible congruently, not as if there is some kind of crazy atmospheric band. This is indicative of being on a curved surface, not flat. I also told you about my GPS observations over the bonneville salt flats, which I would think an unbiased researcher would be interested in. I have an incredible amount of data gathered over a year and a half, the great salt lake breaks flat earth in every way. Not to mention the two celestial points, equinox observations, solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. I was hoping someone from the flat earth society would be a little more serious in asking about seeing the observations, or maybe have something relevant to say, but this wasn't the case. You would think flat earthers would be interested in actually physically measuring the bonneville salt flats, or perhaps see some of the observations for what they truly tell us.

Here is what happens when you drive across the bonneville salt flats with extremely precise and expensive equipment and then model it .5% accuracy with the radius - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Display+Geo+Data&data=Rte_80_WB_190326_radius - does this have anything to do with refraction? Soundly's bridge also had Jesse go out and do gps readings on it, showing the curve shown in the picture matches the physical dimensions. I am guessing satellites have to be denied here as well so really I will leave with this.

What can actually prove to a flat earther that they are wrong? All of the observations of the sun moon and stars work 100% on a globe model, and there is no flat earth model that compares. This includes the 2 celestial points, arc star trails at the equator, equinox and daily observations of the sun and moon. A bunch of us then went out, because of the claims of we can see too far (which has now been excused away with refraction) and did hundreds of observations that seem to match the sphere earth here on ground. All of this is denied for whatever excuse wants to be given. Like I said above if you want to just say refraction then fine, but my observations were done through out the year in different conditions with nearly the same result. GPS most likely will not be accepted because satellites are fake to most flat earthers, even though the globe model predicts where all satellites are, including the ISS that has many transit videos on youtube across the sun and the moon, which you can do yourself. What is left? Why is the standard of proof for most to be shot up in a rocket, and even then they might blame it on the curved eye or curved window effect.

The internet and reality is littered with evidence of the earth being a sphere, you guys need to go back to the drawing boards as bad as the youtube flat earthers obviously. Just saying refraction doesn't provide any predictive power, as the globe has and continues too. Like I said I can't even connect to the site 90% of the time, so I don't expect to be back. Completely can't connect from any salt lake server, had to go to a UK one..

If any one cares to see a litany of observations and actually trying to get to the truth of the matter you can find my youtube. If the earth is flat my observations should match either way.
Tim Osman
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKatLuiGyZv4txRBRwonpgg
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 15, 2019, 10:53:09 AM
Tim, if you're reading this, the thread has diverted into discussion of other (similar) observations. Sorry about that.

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2019, 04:45:58 PM
Quote
What can actually prove to a flat earther that they are wrong? All of the observations of the sun moon and stars work 100% on a globe model, and there is no flat earth model that compares.

Astronomical prediction isn't based on a globe model: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Quote from: Tim Osman
Here is what happens when you drive across the bonneville salt flats with extremely precise and expensive equipment and then model it .5% accuracy with the radius - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Display+Geo+Data&data=Rte_80_WB_190326_radius - does this have anything to do with refraction?

Here is a quote (http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth) from that same website you posted:

Quote
Influence of atmospheric Refraction

The line of sight to the horizon is rarely a straight line as assumed by the simple formulas, but is curved downwards due to the temperature and pressure changes of the atmosphere near the ground (refraction). This means that you can see much further than the calculations with the straight line suggests.

In extreme cases, e.g. if warm air is above cold water the refraction can lead the light hundreds of kilometers along the water surface! The result is that the earth is seemingly flat.

Source Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction

This fact has been known for centuries among land surveyors and seafarers.

Note: You can trust your eyes only at short distances. Over large distances, the light path through the atmosphere is disturbed in an unpredictable way. It's nothing like it seems!

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?

Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 15, 2019, 05:30:12 PM
Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.

Do you mean the Wiki you quoted immediately above?

I'm not suggesting you do a sea-level observation, nor a line of sight to the horizon, nor an observation "near the ground".

I'm actively suggesting you do an observation that is immune from refraction effects due to these factors.

If we go back to my examples above, the observation is at 210m above sea level, looking along 210m sightline between two matching points, with most of the ground and water up to 210m below this.

The observation has been repeated on different days, in both directions.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2019, 06:14:32 PM
The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 15, 2019, 06:56:10 PM
The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

Once again, I make no mention of refraction, regardless of what the original video author says.

Reality does not match FE.

If you look along a sightline between two points at 210m high, that sightline, IF the Earth is flat, MUST meet any higher hill, or higher object beyond, at the 210m level, not pass clear above it. It passes clear above the hills, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat. Why should I provide an "analysis of RET" in this context?

The observation has been repeated on different days from the original author's location. A totally-different video author has twice repeated it in the reverse direction, back toward the original author's observation position, with the same result. The observations are not over large expanses of water, close to the ground, nor do they focus on the horizon. 

A host of other observations from the same location also reinforce the point in a different way, such as that looking out toward the Isle of May from Traprain Law. The 73m high lighthouse on Isle of May appears above the horizon. Looking from Traprain at 210m, through the top of the lighthouse, at 73m, IF the Earth is flat, and by implication the surrounding waters are flat, that sightline MUST meet the water at some point. It does not, again leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat.   
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 15, 2019, 07:05:05 PM
Reality doesn't match up with REFE. Bendy light is required for the RETFET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.
Still makes the same amount of sense doesn't it? The problem as I see it, is this 'bendy light' you keep railing against is stated to be due to a well documented effect that you can even see in experiments done in your very own home. (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/3a/0b/ca3a0be2ed3b9bdcc8687cf6c2b44bba.png)

Refraction is well known. The FE perspective hypothesis attempts to take a tool created in/for the art world and apply it to the real world. You have little to no documentation of the science behind the effect, little to no documentation of how it works, and no information on how to calculate it. In fact, it requires throwing out the idea that the space around/upon the Earth is Euclidean in nature, as the perspective hypothesis has the sun, moon, stars, and more breaking geometric relationships on a daily basis! Can you give me an experiment that shows FE perspective that I can do within my home? My backyard? This experiment cannot be upon the sun or other celestial objects, you need to prove the existence of the effect (preferably close to the degree required) without using the very objects you wish to apply the effect to. (It would also be great it if it was Earth shape agnostic like refraction is.) Note it will ALSO need to show that the numbers I calculate using geometry are incorrect, as they must be for the sun.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 15, 2019, 10:33:19 PM
Sometimes bodies in the distance are sunken and sometimes they are not.
That’s not really true though, is it?
There are no examples where a ship sails out to sea and doesn’t sink beyond the horizon.
I’m sure you can find examples where it doesn’t happen quite at the distance which a simple glove model predicts, even when refraction is taken into account. Because the atmosphere is complex and the exact way light travels through it is hard to model perfectly. You always think this is significant and invalidates the whole model. You conveniently ignore the fact that on a flat earth ships would never sink below the horizon. I know you have some made up stuff like “waves” but I have shown numerous times that doesn’t work as an explanation. If your eye height is above wave height then less than the height of the wave would be blocked. Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility. But you’d never have a ship slowly sinking below the horizon. That phenomenon - a body disappearing from the bottom up - is characteristic of it going over a curve, not going away from you on a flat plane.

You always get excited about the specks in RE’s eye - the fact that complex atmospheric effects make exact predictions difficult. And ignore the plank in FE’s eye - the fact that ships wouldn’t disappear over the horizon bottom first were the earth flat.

Amusingly you simultaneously argue that ships don’t sink below the horizon but can be restored by magnification. Then when examples are shown where ships clearly do sink below the horizon even when magnified you invoke silly explanations like waves which really don’t work.

All the examples I’ve seen of photos purporting to be evidence of a flat earth because “if the earth were a globe then you shouldn’t be able to see...” are easily debunked if you analyse them properly.

You lament with some justification that people attack FE without taking time to understand FE ideas, but you and other FErs repeatedly show that you don really understand the heliocentric globe earth model.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on April 16, 2019, 10:47:55 AM
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 16, 2019, 11:17:23 AM
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on April 16, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Quite not...indeed, you are the one struggling with the idea there are issues with air, commencing at ground level, serving to obscure (even to the point of invisibility) objects.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 16, 2019, 12:33:39 PM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 16, 2019, 12:34:59 PM
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Quite not...indeed, you are the one struggling with the idea there are issues with air, commencing at ground level, serving to obscure (even to the point of invisibility) objects.

It isn't obscuring them if you can whip out a telescope and see them. If you cannot see them with the naked eye, but you can with the telescope, they are not obscured.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on April 16, 2019, 09:09:06 PM
I examined Tom's isolated quote from the YouTube transcript at Reply #9;

In context, the video author is responding to critics, and pointing out that their analysis did not account for refraction. He then proceeds to take account of it for them;


"  "On a globe earth things are very different; on a curved surface because of the curvature our line of sight is not parallel to the surface, and therefore objects in the distance may appear - a 500 meter object can appear below the height of a 200 meter object as it's closer than the camera. So - this is the observation, and we can draw a line across the screen level with the top of the tower - you'll see that the north and south towers are slightly shorter, confirming what we know about their heights, and we see that Cairnoch Hill at 430 meters above sea level is significantly below the line, and these hills at 500 or thereabouts meters above sea level, are level with, or maybe in places just above the line; that's impossible if the earth is flat. The people claiming perspective is the answer, or that I don't understand perspective, are wrong. I understand perspective quite well enough to see that this image is impossible to take on a flat earth.

One other YouTuber, called Phuket Word, made an attempt to explain this in terms of the tilt of my camera. He claimed that if I tilted the camera down or up, this hill and this bridge tower, the relative positions to each other in the image would change - the hill would come up above the tower and drop down below the tower as the camera is tilted up and down.  I posted a video showing that this is not true.  I have the still image from a video (I have several videos) that showed that it doesn't matter whether the camera  is tilted slightly up and down whether the bridge Tower appears near the top of the photograph or the video near the bottom to the left to the right in the top corner bottom corner it doesn't matter where it is how much the camera is tilted makes no difference at all the observation remains exactly the same.  Cairnoch Hill is always well below the height of the bridge tower. So that objection has been thoroughly dismissed with the actual evidence from reality As far as I'm aware PW has accepted that he was wrong about this and is, I think, hiding from the problem that this photograph presents for his Flat Earth belief.

Another group of people have had a go on, sort of on a video, they made a present presentation on Nathan Oakley's so-called debate  channel. Now, Nathan's debate channel is, of course, nothing of the sort - it's a place where flat-earthers congregate and tell each other lies about the shape of the earth, and then attack any globe earther who comes on and tries to hit them with some real proper facts and information. But they did have a go at explaining my observation, and how it could be possible on a flat earth so let's have a look at what they did. They use the wider angle, or more zoomed out version of the image - this one - and this includes some identifiable Peaks although Earl’s Seat and Dunbrach are really just part of this Ridge here and so’s (hill) part of this… kind of just looks like a line of hills all the same height - but they're all different distances from the camera. (hill name) is a particular peak here, and Meikle Bin and Dunbrach all peaks in this area and these are identified from peak finder. What they've done is - they've calculated what the angular size of those hills and the bridge tower should be, according to a flat earth, and according to a globe earth, and then they've asked the question  - do the sizes of those hills in the picture match the angular sizes that are predicted by globe earth and a Flat Earth model? I'll just bring that line down, so you can see we're looking at exactly the same kind of observation here, the previous picture just showed it more zoomed in.  So here is their spreadsheet, and not surprisingly, it contains some mistakes, and it contains a methodological error. if you like.

By and large I like the idea; I think that the way that they've approached this is it's quite good and I almost wish I'd done it in my original, myself in my original video, but they made a mistake in allocating a distance for the bridge - the bridge is not 45 kilometers from the camera, it's 46 and a half kilometers - and that will affect the angular size that they get for that bridge, so this figure that they've used for the bridge angular size is not correct.

Since that's a reference point for all the other angular sizes that they measure in their analysis, then everything is incorrect. Furthermore they've taken the target hidden height away from the total height of the hills, so on a globe earth part of the hills - each of these hills  - will be hidden beyond the curvature of the earth, and so it's perfectly reasonable to subtract the target hidden amount from the total amount and then to calculate the angular size - the problem is they've made no allowance for atmospheric refraction.

Tom's isolated quote   (atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied phenomenon and will always occur to a greater or lesser extent on a spherical earth, because light traveling initially in a straight line towards the camera from an object will get closer to the surface of the earth as it moves to the camera and then again get further away from the surface of the earth as it approaches the camera. Certainly in the case of this observation that's what will be happening. Therefore light is traveling through different densities of air, and as we know, different densities of a medium have different refractive indices, and therefore will cause the light to bend slightly to refract. So atmospheric refraction should be taken into account here and that will affect this “relative ball heights” as they call it, the relative height of these hills on a globe earth, and that will affect the angular sizes. So they've not used the correct angular sizes for any of their observations or any of their analysis)

However, let’s look at the analysis and what it shows.”  "



            He then discusses their analysis, then says, at 20.35


“Let's see what happens if we use figures that include atmospheric refraction and include the correct height for the bridge. Here is my version of their method....“


Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 06, 2019, 03:42:25 PM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 06, 2019, 05:07:48 PM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2019, 10:45:18 AM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 07:21:54 AM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 07:26:11 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 08:21:49 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 10, 2019, 10:16:35 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Define the horizon, then.

If there's grass, bushes, trees or other vegetation on the horizon, where do you say the horizon is? The line following the tops of the various growths, or that of the land below them? 

"The horizon isn't at the top of the grass, it's at the ground"

You think the horizon is somewhere BELOW the hill, not at the top of it? You don't think it follows the hill line?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sun-setting-behind-boma-national-park-hills-boma-jonglei-state-south-36257574.html (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sun-setting-behind-boma-national-park-hills-boma-jonglei-state-south-36257574.html)

???
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:45:56 AM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Might as well have posted a picture of an apple...
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 14, 2019, 03:32:19 PM
You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Why not?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 14, 2019, 04:34:14 PM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Might as well have posted a picture of an apple...

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level. As I explained above, various atmospheric effects can cause various optical effects, like mirages. Certain mirage effects require less dense air to be below denser air, i.e. closer to the ground. So your "always" statement is uninformed and factually incorrect.

(https://www.friendslakeshorepreserve.com/uploads/2/6/9/3/26931781/double-mirage-schematic-adapted_orig.jpg)

And what's wrong with a filtered image? It certainly doesn't change the fact that the sunset occurs from the bottom up and completely disappears for 12 hours. Would you say you are looking at an apple if viewing an eclipse through a solar filter? Doesn't look like an apple...

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/13M0BNNPoy0SIw/source.gif)

And hey, where did the sun go:

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 14, 2019, 06:22:33 PM
Most flat earth theories state that the zetetic observations arrive at the conclusion that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and revolves at an altitude of 3000 miles above the earth - even though this is merely a regurgitation of Rowbotham, and not zetetic observation.  When placed against the real zetetic observation, and the observation and belief of ancient thinkers - which is that the sun sinks below the surface of the earth, one must come up with the ad hoc explanation that the true size of the sun is obscured by some mystical physics of the atmoplane, bendy light, and perspective. I am not sure how everyone does not see this as ad hoc. 
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2019, 12:39:53 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 15, 2019, 03:46:36 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 10:46:39 AM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 15, 2019, 12:31:02 PM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 03:25:38 PM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 15, 2019, 03:55:55 PM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.

I said "very little" qualitative change, not zero. Small quantitative changes generally lead to extremely small qualitative changes. My point is that the sun being perceived as being some fraction of a degree away from its "real" position is a small quantitative change, and does not lead to any significant qualitative change in the sunset, certainly not enough to invalidate any claims that Tom has claimed that it does.

You could take this argument to its extreme and say that technically in any observation, the light is travelling through some non-perfect vacuum and so it distorted by some tiny amount before reaching your measurement device, therefore your observation is invalid.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 15, 2019, 06:13:22 PM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

As always from you, just your incorrect opinion, never evidence. Try again.


Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.

Correct, like a sunset. Slipping down beneath the horizon. Then 12 or so hours later, it rises up behind me top first. Go figure. The same doesn't seem to work on a flat plane.

(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2019, 12:46:59 AM
The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.
Tom, is an FE sunset any less of an illusion than an RE sunset?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:44:57 AM
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

As always from you, just your incorrect opinion, never evidence. Try again.
Anybody and everybody can get online and look for any evidence indicating the air is somehow less dense at ground level, including you.

I will save them some time...

There is none.

I made a statement of fact.

My statement is supported by every reference I have ever read.

You got something different?

Pony up.

Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.

Correct, like a sunset. Slipping down beneath the horizon. Then 12 or so hours later, it rises up behind me top first. Go figure. The same doesn't seem to work on a flat plane.

(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
Also correct for an object circling high overhead can appear/disappear from view.

You want to post a graphic analysis composed by some jackwagon who thinks he/she possesses the ability to detail the operations of an environment they categorically dismiss as possible; all in the expectation that should be accepted as a gospel rendition of what it would look like?

Sorry Copernicus...not gonna fly...
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:52:57 AM
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

(https://i.imgur.com/FI9yYhJ.gif)

The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/hko/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)

You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.

I said "very little" qualitative change, not zero. Small quantitative changes generally lead to extremely small qualitative changes. My point is that the sun being perceived as being some fraction of a degree away from its "real" position is a small quantitative change, and does not lead to any significant qualitative change in the sunset, certainly not enough to invalidate any claims that Tom has claimed that it does.

You could take this argument to its extreme and say that technically in any observation, the light is travelling through some non-perfect vacuum and so it distorted by some tiny amount before reaching your measurement device, therefore your observation is invalid.
Thanks.

Now the entirety of your point is predictably shown as purely subjective.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2019, 11:02:55 AM
Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.

The size of your earth is based on the sun, so you are just begging the question with your argument that it is only a small illusion.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 16, 2019, 03:37:38 PM
Quote
Thanks.

Now the entirety of your point is predictably shown as purely subjective.

Yes, the points I've made so far have been subjective. The post I was originally replying to was subjective, and your comments have also been entirely subjective. I really don't see how that lets you sidestep the discussion. If you'd like to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion instead of getting in a quick dig, that would be great.

Can we do a thought experiment? Image a ball rolling across your field of vision such that at some point it rolls behind a wall, and is hidden by the wall. Now repeat this, except some refraction (or whatever, the mechanism doesn't really matter) means that the ball appears to be 1 degree behind its "true" position. Would this meaningfully change any of the qualitative behaviour of the ball being hidden by the wall? I don't think it would. The ball will still disappear leading-side first, it will still be hidden at the same rate etc. The only difference would be that it happens slightly later.
Do you think this is meaningfully different to the sunset case?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 16, 2019, 05:26:21 PM
The size of your earth is based on the sun ...

Says who, apart from you? Or says which textbook or other written work?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 16, 2019, 06:12:38 PM
Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.

The size of your earth is based on the sun, so you are just begging the question with your argument that it is only a small illusion.

What does that even mean? You're not making any sense.

I see no illusion at all in a setting sun. It disappears completely. It doesn't recede and get smaller and then 'blink', disappear into some perspective vanishing point. It slowly sinks, maintaining its size, disappearing bottom up until its gone. For some 12 hours from me. The process reverses from behind me the next morning. It's really quite simple and requires no illusions, no "atmoplane projections" no made up "laws of perspective", no magic magnification. It's quite a pure thing in fact. And it happens like clockwork every day for all 8 billion of us to observe if we so choose.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2019, 06:27:27 PM
You are proposing multiple illusions.

You are claiming that the earth is rotating, when we visibly see the sun moving.

You are claiming that the earth is a sphere with a far away sun dropping behind it, when we clearly see that the earth is flat.

You are claiming that we are seeing the sun go below the horizon, when we visibly see it go into the horizon.

You are claiming that light travels in straight lines over long distances -- a complete imagination, without evidence, and contradicts our experience that straight lines do not exist in nature and that elements in motion are always perturbed.

All of it is either illusion or unjustified to get your argument that no illusion is occuring and prop up your absurd heliocentric fantasy.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 16, 2019, 06:42:37 PM
You are proposing multiple illusions.

You are claiming that the earth is rotating, when we visibly see the sun moving.

You are claiming that the earth is a sphere with a far away sun dropping behind it, when we clearly see that the earth is flat.

Responding to claims with alternate claims, surely?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 16, 2019, 06:51:50 PM
You are proposing multiple illusions.

Incorrect.

You are claiming that the earth is rotating, when we visibly see the sun moving.

Technically, no I'm not.

You are claiming that the earth is a sphere with a far away sun dropping behind it, when we clearly see that the earth is flat.

Technically, no I'm not. I could just as easily be claiming that the earth is flat, the sun is close but that it drops below the plane for 12 hours a day.  All I know is that it's dropping behind something. It sure isn't moving away from me, shrinking and disappearing into a vanishing point dot because that's not what we observe 365 days a year.

You are claiming that we are seeing the sun go below the horizon, when we visibly see it go into the horizon.

It's going somewhere where it hides itself for 12 hours then pops up behind me. I don't know what go into the horizon is even supposed to mean. Is it trapped under ground for 12 hours each day for each observer?

You are claiming that light travels in straight lines over long distances -- a complete imagination, without evidence, and contradicts our experience that straight lines do not exist in nature and that elements in motion are always perturbed.

Neither here nor there. The sun magically disappears for 12 hours 7/365. FE doesn't know where our sun goes. RE does.

All of it is either illusion or unjustified to get your argument that no illusion is occuring.

When FE figures out how something as ever-present and simple as a sunset works on a planar earth, kudos to the movement. In the mean time, FE has no idea how what can be observed every day by everyone on the planet can be explained. RE does know how and no illusions required like "atmoplane projections", made up "laws of perspective", magic magnification.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2019, 07:54:15 PM
You are claiming that light travels in straight lines over long distances -- a complete imagination, without evidence, and contradicts our experience that straight lines do not exist in nature and that elements in motion are always perturbed.
If light doesn't travel in straight lines over long distances, then by what standard of straightness are you claiming that the earth is flat?  It seems that you just discredited visual observations, so what else is there?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 16, 2019, 07:58:30 PM
You are claiming that we are seeing the sun go below the horizon, when we visibly see it go into the horizon.

The former can be easily defined, and is self-evident.

As the Earth rotates, the observer is moved on the surface to a point where the distant object, the Sun, moves from being in his visible sky, to the point where it is hidden from view by the ground beneath and in front of him. On a regular and predictable cycle, the Sun reappears on the opposite horizon, moving from being hidden to being back in view again. "Below" the horizon can be expressed as "behind" the horizon.

I have no idea, absolutely no idea, what you mean by "into the horizon". What do you mean? The Sun is absorbed into the Earth? It melts to become part of the Earth? It moves into a slot in the Earth that nobody, anywhere, has ever seen?

What ARE you talking about?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2019, 10:53:01 PM
I don't see the round earth rotating into a sun. I see the light of the sun setting into a flat earth. If we are honest, that is about all we see.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 16, 2019, 11:24:55 PM
I don't see the round earth rotating into a sun.

Nobody said the Earth "rotates into a sun" except you.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: stack on May 16, 2019, 11:25:26 PM
I don't see the round earth rotating into a sun. I see the light of the sun setting into a flat earth. If we are honest, that is about all we see.

This is the best, most comprehensive, and only FE explanation of a sunset yet, basically: Everyday it gets dark.

Fortunately RE has an actual explanation that is predictive and can tell us where and when for any observer on the planet such an occurrence will take place. And RE also doesn't simply refer to lightness and darkness, but also to the orb in the sky that produces the light you mention. Rather odd for FE to leave that bit out of the explanation.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:16:28 AM
Quote
Thanks.

Now the entirety of your point is predictably shown as purely subjective.

Yes, the points I've made so far have been subjective. The post I was originally replying to was subjective, and your comments have also been entirely subjective. I really don't see how that lets you sidestep the discussion. If you'd like to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion instead of getting in a quick dig, that would be great.

Can we do a thought experiment? Image a ball rolling across your field of vision such that at some point it rolls behind a wall, and is hidden by the wall. Now repeat this, except some refraction (or whatever, the mechanism doesn't really matter) means that the ball appears to be 1 degree behind its "true" position. Would this meaningfully change any of the qualitative behaviour of the ball being hidden by the wall? I don't think it would. The ball will still disappear leading-side first, it will still be hidden at the same rate etc. The only difference would be that it happens slightly later.
Do you think this is meaningfully different to the sunset case?
The quality is simply due to perception of the individual viewer is my point.

Any quantitative change, as I wrote earlier, truly does affect quality.

What you perceive as negligible could appear as having more substantial impact to another.

That is not a dig.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tumeni on May 17, 2019, 12:10:57 PM
Can we do a thought experiment? Image a ball rolling across your field of vision such that at some point it rolls behind a wall, and is hidden by the wall. Now repeat this, except some refraction (or whatever, the mechanism doesn't really matter) means that the ball appears to be 1 degree behind its "true" position. Would this meaningfully change any of the qualitative behaviour of the ball being hidden by the wall? I don't think it would. The ball will still disappear leading-side first, it will still be hidden at the same rate etc. The only difference would be that it happens slightly later.
Do you think this is meaningfully different to the sunset case?

The quality is simply due to perception of the individual viewer is my point.

Any quantitative change, as I wrote earlier, truly does affect quality.

What you perceive as negligible could appear as having more substantial impact to another.

That is not a dig.

So, the quality differences can be due to - individual viewer location, individual viewer's eyesight clarity (short-sight, long-sight, glaucoma), and ... anything else?

The ball is either behind the wall or not for each viewer, and depending on viewer location, will disappear at different times depending on location, but for each viewer, there will come a point where it is no longer in view. Variations in timing or perception will not change this.
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: markjo on May 17, 2019, 02:07:46 PM
I don't see the round earth rotating into a sun. I see the light of the sun setting into a flat earth. If we are honest, that is about all we see.
Tom, do you see the sun setting in front of the horizon or behind the horizon?
Title: Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 17, 2019, 10:00:13 PM
Quote
The quality is simply due to perception of the individual viewer is my point.

Any quantitative change, as I wrote earlier, truly does affect quality.

What you perceive as negligible could appear as having more substantial impact to another.

That is not a dig.

Qualitative does not imply subjective.
As an example: back to my ball-behind-the-wall thought experiment. As the ball is rolling, you could replace the observer with an imaginary "ball detector", that can tell you objective facts about what happens to the ball such as "is the ball in my field of view?", or "is the ball partially hidden?". If you just had this detector, you'd see that the ball is visible, then partially hidden, and then totally hidden as it rolls behind a wall. It gives you no quantitative information about the ball, but its results are both qualitative and objective.

Now take what I've said across the past few comments and apply it to the sunset, and come up with your own conclusion: does refraction alter the qualitative behavior of a sunset? Personally I can see no way in which refraction of a fraction of a degree would cause a qualitative change in the sunset. If you disagree, I would love you to tell me why.

Sidenote: large qualitative changes can easily cause quantitative changes. If we go back to the thought experiment, you could change the velocity of the ball to zero, which would certainly be a qualitative change.