Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2018, 02:59:39 AM »
We're past whether or not the mountain is visible from Malibu, then? And now the issue at hand is whether what can be seen of San Jacinto from Malibu Bluffs is more in line with flat earth or convex earth?

Ok.

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2018, 03:45:40 AM »
OK - sorry for the late response here with my calculations...

So the problem is that there is a 450 ft obstruction at 20 miles out from the vantage point. If I read correctly, the vantage point starts at 150 ft above sea level, so I calculated for a 300 ft obstruction - If this is incorrect, let me know.

If you account for the earth curvature, at 20 miles (105,600ft), the 300 ft obstacle is 33.25 ft higher than your line of sight (since there is a 266.75 ft drop due to the curve).

Using trigonometry, I calculated using a right triangle with tan(x) = 33.25ft/105,600ft.  That should give you the angle that you have to look up from 'line of sight' to see over the 300 ft obstacle. This angle is .018 degrees.

So, looking up at a .018 degree angle to see over the hill and to the mountain we can calculate the height that is lost from view due to the obstacle, which is:

tan(.018) = x/633,600ft

x = 199.05 ft

This means the 300 ft obstacle 20 miles away is blocking 199.05 ft of our view at 120 miles.

So, instead of being able to see 1,199.3 ft of the top of the mountain, you can only see 1,000.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2018, 03:46:11 AM »
Street View image from town near mountain with overlay:



13% of 10,800' is 1400'

Your scale is a little swollen. The lower mound in the foreground is around 5500' and 7 miles away from that viewspot you found in Hemet. It and the lower peak on the western shoulder of the mountain do not appear in JTolan's images. The peak of San Jacinto is to the left of where you've aligned your index, and from that perspective appears slightly lower than the 10,200' mound to the south with which you've aligned.

My counter claim is that the "13%" 1400' vertical elevation we could see in JTolen's Malibu image is within the white segment I've added. As I've re-sized the image, your index is 23 pixels between tick marks. Mine is 13.

Next to consider is the elevation of that Hemet viewpoint. It's at 1900' above sea level, so the mountain peak does not rise 10,800' above that spot but rather 8,900'.

8900'/1400' = 6.35

So, instead of 13% of 10,800, we can evaluate 1400' as a fraction of the remaining 8,900' of elevation rise from Hemet, which is 1/6.35 or 15.75%

If 1400' at 14 miles away is 13 pixels as my index claims, then (6.35)*(13 pixels) = 83 pixels, which I've annotated. That would be the same level as from where that street level photo was taken.

I say mine (white) is a reasonable "eye level" line to the apparent base of 8,900' feet whereas yours (red) is not.

You may continue to offer a 2nd set of calculations (yellow) based on the Malibu-San Jacinto summit distance of 120 miles if you like, but I am going to ignore those since there should be no dispute that the distance is 117 miles.

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2018, 03:46:51 AM »
We're past whether or not the mountain is visible from Malibu, then? And now the issue at hand is whether what can be seen of San Jacinto from Malibu Bluffs is more in line with flat earth or convex earth?

Ok.

I concur with that statement.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4763
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2018, 05:20:26 AM »
Bobby, can you overlay the image while keeping scale/aspect ratio as you resize the mountain?

Here is what I get when I resize the mountain and keep the same aspect ratio when I resize:

Your Version



My Version



Which one fits better?

I believe that the shape doesn't exactly line up on mine because the Street View image is taken from a different angle around the mountain.

The obvious width issues with the first image shows that all of that mountain cannot be contained in that small of a space.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4763
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2018, 08:00:19 AM »
Another view from a better angle around the mountain. Aspect-Ratio is preserved.



Google Maps Link: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9174463,-117.1477034,3a,16.9y,103.01h,89.67t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1svNjcff7JyVpSIeHgC39AvQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvNjcff7JyVpSIeHgC39AvQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D75.10232%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Context: The Round Earth Theory predicts that the base of the mountain would be at around the area of the red line, or the yellow line which is off screen, depending on whether we are using 117 miles or 120 miles for the distance calculations (discussed on last page).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 09:51:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2018, 04:15:22 PM »
Another view from a better angle around the mountain. Aspect-Ratio is preserved.
That works. The angle is steeper than JTolan's, but that's a pretty fair overlay, IMO.

I lost track of what the point of that was, though. That the 1400' round earth calculation (13% of the full 10,800' of mountain elevation) can't be right because that's obviously more than 1455'?

I agree. I had previously agreed that, by analysis of the IR image, my estimate was that ~2600' of the mountain was visible from JTolan's Malibu vantage point.

Is the point you're making that 2600' is more reasonable than the no-refraction curvature calculation of 1455'? Or is even that not enough?  I've kind of lost the bubble on what issue you're still taking.

What is the flat earth calculation of how much of San Jacinto should be visible from Malibu Bluffs given that 450' ridge at 20 miles?  Is it 2600 feet?

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2018, 04:35:31 PM »
How does this look? I went with 2300' of San Jacinto seen in JTolan's image, and corresponded that to what the segment you were calling 13%.



At 2300' rather than 1455', that's an even 25% of the 9200' of San Jacinto above eye level from that 1600' elevation Morena Valley viewing location. And that pretty convincingly places the "base" of that 9200' at the rise 4 miles across the flats.

Do you want to try to refine that further? Or is 2300' of San Jacinto elevation seen in JTolan's image a fair number?

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2018, 05:36:08 PM »
Another view from a better angle around the mountain. Aspect-Ratio is preserved.
That works. The angle is steeper than JTolan's, but that's a pretty fair overlay, IMO.

I lost track of what the point of that was, though. That the 1400' round earth calculation (13% of the full 10,800' of mountain elevation) can't be right because that's obviously more than 1455'?

I agree. I had previously agreed that, by analysis of the IR image, my estimate was that ~2600' of the mountain was visible from JTolan's Malibu vantage point.

Is the point you're making that 2600' is more reasonable than the no-refraction curvature calculation of 1455'? Or is even that not enough?  I've kind of lost the bubble on what issue you're still taking.

What is the flat earth calculation of how much of San Jacinto should be visible from Malibu Bluffs given that 450' ridge at 20 miles?  Is it 2600 feet?

By my calculations, for the FE model, the 450 ft ridge (minus 150 ft for the vantage point), blocks 1174 ft of your view, and since we're now talking about a flat plane I don't have to account for a curve, so there should be 9025.92 ft visible on FE.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2018, 05:50:09 PM »
By my calculations, for the FE model, the 450 ft ridge (minus 150 ft for the vantage point), blocks 1174 ft of your view, and since we're now talking about a flat plane I don't have to account for a curve, so there should be 9025.92 ft visible on FE.
You're working out the numbers for a no-curve flat earth, right? That's what you figure should be viewable from Malibu Bluffs?

I had previously calculated 8925' so we're close. Are you figuring on 117 miles or 120 miles to the summit?

I have asked Tom to do the flat earth numbers. I believe that if the earth is flat, the Chino Hills at ~1600' 55-60 miles along the line of sight should come into play, and I do think that factored into my 8925' calculated result.

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2018, 06:01:16 PM »
Do you want to try to refine that further? Or is 2300' of San Jacinto elevation seen in JTolan's image a fair number?
I'm going to refine, and move a little further away still from the earth curvature calculator, bumping my estimate up another 200' from 2300' to 2500' of visible San Jacinto in that JTolen IR image.



After adjusting contrast and brightness, I'm fairly convinced we can faintly see San Jacinto's 8500' Fuller Ridge just above the much nearer 450' Baldwin Hills ridge line.

That ridge has a dip to 8300' but mostly runs toward the image's viewpoint at an elevation of 8500'. I figure, based on the angular dimension, at that distance, an extra 200' of San Jacinto is visible.

So, final answer: we can see 2500' of San Jacinto from a 150' high point in Malibu.

Without figuring for refraction, the globe predicts only 1455' should be visible. How much can refraction contribute? 500'? If so, that still leaves 500' unexplained.

But that's just a globe earth discrepancy. What about the flat earth numbers? Do they hit closer to the estimated, observed 2500'?  My (and timteroo's) calculations suggest not. For flat earth, over 6000' of San Jacinto elevation is missing.  Isn't it?



« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 06:02:52 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2018, 06:14:09 PM »
By my calculations, for the FE model, the 450 ft ridge (minus 150 ft for the vantage point), blocks 1174 ft of your view, and since we're now talking about a flat plane I don't have to account for a curve, so there should be 9025.92 ft visible on FE.
You're working out the numbers for a no-curve flat earth, right? That's what you figure should be viewable from Malibu Bluffs?

I had previously calculated 8925' so we're close. Are you figuring on 117 miles or 120 miles to the summit?

I have asked Tom to do the flat earth numbers. I believe that if the earth is flat, the Chino Hills at ~1600' 55-60 miles along the line of sight should come into play, and I do think that factored into my 8925' calculated result.

I actually calculated for 120 miles and assumed the line of sight begins at 150' above sea level and that the obstacle is 450' above sea level.

Edit: now that I think of it, I do need to subtract 150' from my mountain calculation, since that is the vantage point. Been too long since I've done math!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 08:00:04 PM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2018, 02:56:30 PM »
So, final answer: we can see 2500' of San Jacinto from a 150' high point in Malibu.

Without figuring for refraction, the globe predicts only 1455' should be visible. How much can refraction contribute? 500'? If so, that still leaves 500' unexplained.

But that's just a globe earth discrepancy. What about the flat earth numbers? Do they hit closer to the estimated, observed 2500'?  My (and timteroo's) calculations suggest not. For flat earth, over 6000' of San Jacinto elevation is missing.  Isn't it?

Best I can come up with for a flat earth is that the highest hill obstruction seen in the image is the 1600' hills 60 miles inland, resulting in hiding 3277' of San Jacinto's elevation. Should leave 7573' visible. (9075' visible if obstruction is the 450' hills at 20 miles.)

Globe earth calculation (w/o refraction): 1455' visible
Globe earth guesstimation (w/refraction): maybe +500' bringing it to 2000' visible?
Flat earth calculation (if 1600' hills at 60 miles are blocking): 7573' visible
Flat earth calculation (if 450' hills at 20 miles are blocking): 9075' visible

Photo analysis: 2500' visible




Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2018, 02:31:15 AM »
Bobby, it looks like we pretty much agree.

Tom, sorry I do not have diagrams, and my math is sluggish, but if you like I can create some graphics, and I can recalculate for 117 mile vantage point and adjust my mountain value to accommodate the 150' vantage point that I previously forgot to account for (but just subtract 150 from my visibility calculation and that should do it).

My math was based on tan(x) = opposite/adjacent with opposite being the height of the obstruction and the height of the mountain and 'adjacent' being the 'line-of-sight' distance to the obstruction and mountain, respectively.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 02:33:17 AM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2018, 03:08:04 AM »
Tom, it looks like we have been able to 'prove' RE by trying to 'prove' FE, arriving at a contradiction - visible mountain does not add up with FE.

Goot debate. How do the judges rule?
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4763
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2018, 04:39:33 AM »
Another view from a better angle around the mountain. Aspect-Ratio is preserved.
That works. The angle is steeper than JTolan's, but that's a pretty fair overlay, IMO.

I lost track of what the point of that was, though. That the 1400' round earth calculation (13% of the full 10,800' of mountain elevation) can't be right because that's obviously more than 1455'?

I agree. I had previously agreed that, by analysis of the IR image, my estimate was that ~2600' of the mountain was visible from JTolan's Malibu vantage point.

Is the point you're making that 2600' is more reasonable than the no-refraction curvature calculation of 1455'? Or is even that not enough?  I've kind of lost the bubble on what issue you're still taking.

What is the flat earth calculation of how much of San Jacinto should be visible from Malibu Bluffs given that 450' ridge at 20 miles?  Is it 2600 feet?

I don't agree that the 2600 feet figure has anything to do with RET.

Lets go over how it was created again. From that link you posted, which goes back to your earlier post about it:

    "How much of San Jacinto is, in fact, visible? By my index, 4.3 milliradians, or 0.25°. At 117 miles, that works out to be 2652' of San Jacinto is visible in that image."

You are using the milliradian method from the beginning of the thread, not a method that uses the RET geometry. Not a method that uses a round earth. You created the index based on the (questionable) building sizes. That is not a Round Earth method. As I see this, you are assuming a Round Earth for the usage of the 2600 foot figure.

The math that dealt with the RET geometry got the values ranging between 13% to 7.8% for the portion of the mountain seen.

Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence
« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2018, 05:50:39 AM »

I don't agree that the 2600 feet figure has anything to do with RET.


It's doesn't. It's RET/FET agnostic. It's just mathematics/trig.

Lets go over how it was created again. From that link you posted, which goes back to your earlier post about it:

    "How much of San Jacinto is, in fact, visible? By my index, 4.3 milliradians, or 0.25°. At 117 miles, that works out to be 2652' of San Jacinto is visible in that image."

You are using the milliradian method from the beginning of the thread, not a method that uses the RET geometry. Not a method that uses a round earth. You created the index based on the (questionable) building sizes. That is not a Round Earth method. As I see this, you are assuming a Round Earth for the usage of the 2600 foot figure.

No, Tom. Come on! Even the video author is using that method. It isn't "RET geometry" or "FET geometry." It's using angular ratio to assess dimensions in the background based on objects in the foreground. You know, like "dime hiding an elephant" stuff. You understand that right? It works whether the earth is flat or spherical.

And really, I am quite offended that you're only NOW calling it "questionable." I posted that, invited you to critique it, you never replied so I moved on and applied that scale in my subsequent post. Now you call it questionable, and you offer nothing to back that up? Is JTolen's also "questionable?" If you have a critique, by all means, state your case. But it seems to me you've taken awhile to utter it, and only after you don't like the results.

And milliradian isn't a method. It's just an unit of angular measure. We can talk in degrees or arcseconds. I don't care. I only stuck with mrads because that's what the videographer used. I'm not partial to that unit. But that "method" is valid, and it's not biased toward spherical or planar geometry. (In fact, I'm going to use it again shortly in a post about that other video you found about the IR photography of Clark Island in Washington to assess that guy's flat earth claim.) 

The math that dealt with the RET geometry got the values ranging between 13% to 7.8% for the portion of the mountain seen.
That's right. And it didn't jive with the RET/FET agnostic calculation.

But neither does the geometry for FET. FET doesn't "win" by default just because the RET calculation doesn't jive. The RET calculation of 1455' (13%) didn't take into account atmospheric effects. If we do that, we'll get closer to the agnostic 2500-2600' feet but not all the way. But then, I shouldn't have to try to justify getting all the way to 2600' using RET explanations/methods/calculations while you make zero effort to explain the much larger gap between that value and what is predicted if the earth is flat. Please, do that for me, because until then, those IR images of San Jacinto are much more indicative of a convex earth than a flat one.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 02:11:44 PM by Bobby Shafto »