*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2018, 05:19:29 PM »
It appears that your ship is already white.

No white line:



Look at that orange sky.

From the full Skunkbay timelapse, when the sky is orange later in the day and the water is much lighter than the background, the light line disappears:



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

We see that this observation of a sunken ship without a light line at sunset is consistent with the effect.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 05:30:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #121 on: September 11, 2018, 05:30:56 PM »
It appears that your ship is already white.

No white line:



Look at that orange sky.

From the full Skunkbay timelapse, when the sky is orange later in the day and the water is much lighter than the background, the light line disappears:



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

So, to summarize, your brand new ad hoc hypothesis is:

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #122 on: September 11, 2018, 05:33:30 PM »
So, to summarize, your brand new ad hoc hypothesis is:

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

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

Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

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

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

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

In the image you provided we see both an orange sky and a light water surface.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 05:37:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #123 on: September 11, 2018, 05:36:33 PM »
So, to summarize, your brand new ad hoc hypothesis is:

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

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

What if it's late in the day, but the sky isn't orange?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #124 on: September 11, 2018, 06:36:38 PM »
White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?




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

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

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

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

You can't just point to some lines (which are ephemeral in their appearance) and, ex post facto, claim that that's where all the missing elevation went, citing "refraction" like a blanket or umbrella term without explaining what/how refraction is working to produce that effect.

HorstFue

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #125 on: September 11, 2018, 07:51:10 PM »
That "thin white line":
For me it looks more like a mirroring effect. The sunlight or the bright sky is mirrored at the surface, which appears at that distance almost tangential to observers viewing line. So it looks more like a line and not an area. Perspective, which lets appear things smaller in the distance, may also help with this appearance.
If the sky is darker, also this "line" gets darker.

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

Atmospheric lensing:
Atmosphere, with a density gradient, can act like a lens. Don't expect to give such magnification like a camera zoom. The magnification is minimal. The magnification may only work in vertical direction.
Now comes the point: Collimation (orientation relative to center of the lens)
Vertical: Distant objects above the collimation point, will appear even higher, due to magnification. Distant objects below the collimation point will appear even lower.
And second horizontal: It also depends where the "center" of that lens is, how far away it is from the observer. So nearer objects may appear unaffected by this "lens", objects farther away are affected by the "lens".

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #126 on: September 11, 2018, 08:38:25 PM »
Globe earth with atmosphere for 29 miles at 7' viewing elevation. For air temperature of 4°C and 1009 mBar barometric pressure that day, I had to apply a medium adjustment to the refractive index, from K=0.1701618 to K=.1965. That results in a change in dT/dh temperature gradient from the standard -.0026°C/ft to -.0014°C/ft. That means that for the low angle near-surface observations that day, the air cooled with altitude at a slightly less rate than the standard lapse rate, making refraction curve light just a little more sharply than it otherwise would be predicted. The earth, instead of appearing to have radius=3959 miles was a little flatter had light behaving as if the atmosphere was conforming to an earth of radius=4927 miles. That would account for why 371' of the Turning Tower is hidden by curvature rather than the simple geometric calculation of 471'.



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

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



No calculator or model for a Flat Earth that explains how changing observation altitude changes what appears hidden of the tower, from a value of 371' to 205'. All that's offered so far is a post-facto rationalization that whatever is missing must be compressed within a thin optical line. How the atmosphere accomplishes and how it is variable with observation height and distance is unspecified. Filling in the blank side for the Flat Earth model is the challenge.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #127 on: September 11, 2018, 09:13:25 PM »
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

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

Link to paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281463705/download

Quote
Photographing Mirages Above the Sea Surface

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

...



5. Effect of the camera height

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

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

« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 09:35:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #128 on: September 11, 2018, 09:46:05 PM »
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

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

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

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

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #129 on: September 11, 2018, 09:52:42 PM »
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth...
It seems that no matter how many times we try to help you distinguish between distorting phenomena like mirage and non-distorting phenomena influencing the "sinking ship" effect, you continue to conflate the two.

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

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

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

If you show one more mirage image or paper or diagram in conjunction with "sinking ship" and Turning Torso, then I'll be convinced you're just having fun with this and not being serious. Mirage is but one phenomena that is explained via refraction. Refraction is not only mirage.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #130 on: September 11, 2018, 10:18:21 PM »
Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

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

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

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

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

As follows:

« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 11:03:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #131 on: September 11, 2018, 10:25:08 PM »
They are already describing that entire bottom area as "compressed." Why can't it be compressed to the point where all you see in a thin line?

As follows:



Why? B/c it's not.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #132 on: September 11, 2018, 11:55:34 PM »
Just to put a fine point on it, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Sinking Ship Effect is the direct result of an inferior mirage whereby the object is mirrored beneath and then squashed down into a into a thin white line.

Are you abandoning SR’s “Laws of Perspective” Sinking Ship Effect explanation in ENAG?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #133 on: September 12, 2018, 02:17:26 AM »
An Inferior Mirage is far more common than a Superior Mirage, and involves upwardly bending light rays. It is these upwardly bending light rays which cause bodies to sink. There is also compression and mirroring beneath the rays, but lets focus on the sinking part.

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=KBUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449#v=snippet&q=sinking&f=false



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



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

The middle of the video is a little slow.

The end of the video is interesting, as it seems to imply that a sinking effect is necessitated on a Flat Earth.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 07:37:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #134 on: September 12, 2018, 11:13:42 AM »
White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do believe that Rowbotham's first explanation for the Sinking Ship Effect, as sometimes caused by lack of optical resolution, is true, however, according to some of my own trials of putting a printout illustration of a white sailboat against a black background with a hull height of 1/8th of an inch at a distance of 40 feet. The hull does indeed seem to disappear.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 11:40:10 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #135 on: September 12, 2018, 12:11:15 PM »
Let us go back to the "bottom portion of the inferior mirage is compressed into a line" topic.

The Collapsing Inferior Mirage Caught in the Act

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



Taken from the 2:30 mark of the 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 12:58:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #136 on: September 12, 2018, 03:14:44 PM »
If you show one more mirage image or paper or diagram in conjunction with "sinking ship" and Turning Torso, then I'll be convinced you're just having fun with this and not being serious.

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

Edit: to further amplify the question above:

White line or no white line, what is happening here? How is atmospheric refraction causing this phenomenon?


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

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

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 05:16:49 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #137 on: September 12, 2018, 05:49:20 PM »

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


No.

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

Atmospheric refraction occurs regardless of these mirage effects.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #138 on: September 12, 2018, 06:05:20 PM »
Sorry. That question was directed toward Tom "Thin White Line" Bishop. I'd like to know his answer since it's been his reasoning that hidden heights are compressed by atmospheric refraction into a line at the horizon. I want to clarify what part mirage plays in that.

I want to know if/how it is distinguished from the other refractive effect of "sinking" that he introduced.

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #139 on: September 13, 2018, 03:48:20 PM »
Here's another perspective on the 'ship's mast gradually coming into view', courtesy of SpaceX; just the first few minutes will do.