*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4911
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #140 on: September 13, 2018, 07:03:48 PM »
It does not, but your believing it does suggests that mirage must be in effect for in order for your attributing atmospheric refraction to the "sinking ship" effect. Can you confirm or disavow that?

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?

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

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


Source: 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE6p01ZCpxE&lc=z23uhnpresfrz3pvwacdp432dd53oaizz2kx1pczxndw03c010c.1536838625958607

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



The scene is very dark, but if we could see more detail, we would probably see a line in this one as well.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 06:46:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #141 on: September 13, 2018, 07:16:37 PM »
It does not, but your believing it does suggests that mirage must be in effect for in order for your attributing atmospheric refraction to the "sinking ship" effect. Can you confirm or disavow that?

Is your "thin white line" mirage or not?

Yes, I believe that it is a mirage.

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


Not the question I asked.

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

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

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

So, yes or no? Is mirage required to produce the sinking ship effect?

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #142 on: September 13, 2018, 07:35:35 PM »
I actually believe that we are once again looking at an inferior mirage. In the transition to where we see the full platform, we see the following at 0:23:



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

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

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

This is your working theory or claim, correct?

(p.s. touched briefly on flat earth "convergence zone" explanation in this old topic that includes imagery with an inferior mirage in conjunction with "sinking ship")
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 08:28:23 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4911
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #143 on: September 13, 2018, 10:41:09 PM »
Once again, this suggests that for you, sinking ship phenomena due to refraction requires inferior mirage conditions and all of the lower portion of whatever the target is that appears hidden from view is compressed into that band of mirage, below the rest of what is visible.

This is your working theory or claim, correct?

(p.s. touched briefly on flat earth "convergence zone" explanation in this old topic that includes imagery with an inferior mirage in conjunction with "sinking ship")

Yes, that is my interpretation for many of the sinking ship scenes.

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #144 on: September 13, 2018, 10:58:28 PM »
That's "magic wand" stuff, Tom. I was hoping you wouldn't say that and just go with "sinking" which you cited earlier as a "well known" refraction phenomenon without the necessity for mirage too. "Mirage" is in the territory of "waves" as an explanation for the effect, but oh well.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

In closing:
 



« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 02:07:32 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4911
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #145 on: September 14, 2018, 05:29:43 PM »
It's more than the thin white line. The bottom of the tower near the water is also compressed. Here is something new:

From this Turning Torso Video of the author collecting the original photographs we see at 2:54 that the lower levels on the overlays near the water are more squished than the top levels.



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



Unedited Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/32177485004/

What gives? Those cubes on the schematics of the skyscraper show them to be all the same height. Is this guy stretching the images and manipulating the data to hide that he saw a tower that was compressed at the bottom?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 06:43:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4911
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #146 on: September 14, 2018, 05:35:41 PM »
The fact that the bottom of the tower is compressed, which goes unmentioned by the author Mathias KP and is slyly edited out to provide a "side-by-side" image with matching cube heights of equal height, provides another similarity to the Skunkbay scene with the sunken peninsula. The sunken version of the peninsula is vertically compressed just above the line:


Source: 9/7/12 Skunkbay Timelapse Video

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

Runtime: 10 Minutes



The text was squished, with a line of further compression at the bottom in red.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 06:47:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #147 on: September 14, 2018, 07:08:02 PM »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4911
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #148 on: September 14, 2018, 07:11:46 PM »


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

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

See the first image in the above link.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 07:15:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #149 on: September 14, 2018, 07:18:10 PM »
It's more than the thin white line. The bottom of the tower near the water is also compressed. Here is something new:
Not new. We (I) already pointed that out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a ship sinking beyond a horizon:


This is stooping, looming and superior mirage, none of which is creating a sinking ship effect even remotely like the image above:
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 02:44:11 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #150 on: September 14, 2018, 09:02:45 PM »
That image you presented on top is a photo edited version by the author where he makes the cubes of the skyscraper line up. A video where he is collecting the data shows that the bottom of the tower is indeed compressed.

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