Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2018, 06:31:39 PM »
Why would this matter if, say, I am measuring a bathroom cupboard at the shop? The ruler is of course discontinuous, and if you look at it through a microscope it will appear all jagged and nothing like a straight line. Likewise the cabinet. Yet I can measure it perfectly well.

We cannot "measure perfectly well" that the little area where perspective lines meet is actually an infinite space where the lines continuously approach each other forever, or whether they simply meet.

We have discussed this many times before. The perspective lines are on paper, and of course they do meet if continued.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2018, 12:42:22 AM »
I don't understand why continuous or quantized space matters.

I showed an example of 1m waves NOT obscuring 100m of something at or beyond the horizon.
 


Doesn't the observation trump diagrams and rationalizations of how perspective should apply? It's not happening. 100m of that distant island are not being obscured by the swell (which was actually greater than 1m and on a high tide to boot.)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2018, 01:04:21 AM »
Doesn't the observation trump diagrams and rationalizations of how perspective should apply? It's not happening. 100m of that distant island are not being obscured by the swell (which was actually greater than 1m and on a high tide to boot.)

We have seen that sometimes bodies are hidden and that sometimes they are not hidden. Rowbotham reports that at various times the bodies he was observing were hidden and revealed. What are we to make of this?

This phenomenon, whatever it might be, is what is being discussed. In previous threads you had started we had attempted to calculate whether the sinking phenomenon matched with the globe earth predictions, and it did not.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 01:11:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2018, 02:00:09 AM »
We have seen that sometimes bodies are hidden and that sometimes they are not hidden. Rowbotham reports that at various times the bodies he was observing were hidden and revealed. What are we to make of this?
That it's not waves? I've never seen that body (island) hidden by waves.  It's been hidden by fog banks and haze. That little spur becomes hidden when inferior mirage conditions are present.

I've seen waves and swells much larger than the 4-5' waves present on the day of that video. Never seen a single case of the horizon pulsing up even a little due to those waves to obscure even close to 100m of that island's elevation.

What are we to make of that? Doesn't that refute any rationalization of 1m at the horizon being able to obscure 100m bodies beyond the horizon? Doesn't it substantiate that 1m waves become small due to distance just like 100m bodies? Classical Greeks reasoning or not, I've yet to EVER see a 1m wave in the distance hide a 100m object. If the 1m wave is up close, sure. But not the reasoning proposed in the opening post or by Rowbotham. Doesn't happen.

This phenomenon, whatever it might be, is what is being discussed.
What I understand the topic to be isn't "phenomenon, whatever is," but specifically "waves."

In previous threads you had started we had attempted to calculate whether the sinking phenomenon matched with the globe earth predictions, and it did not.
Please don't distract from the topic. That's a separate issue (which you mischaracterize, btw but let's not get distracted.).  This is about if waves are responsible for hiding of objects on the horizon that are 10 fold the size of the waves.

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2018, 01:39:18 AM »
I don't understand why continuous or quantized space matters.

I showed an example of 1m waves NOT obscuring 100m of something at or beyond the horizon.
 


Doesn't the observation trump diagrams and rationalizations of how perspective should apply? It's not happening. 100m of that distant island are not being obscured by the swell (which was actually greater than 1m and on a high tide to boot.)
Where is the horizon in your video?
How far is it from the horizon to the island?
It's not good visibility.
according to my calculation, the horizon is at 6~7 kilometers away at 2m eye level.
But in your video, the distance to the horizon and the island is unclear.
The island in your video doesn't look very far.
Then of course it will not be obscured.

My calculation is done under the assumption that visibility and resolution is good.
So a long distance is needed.
If the distance is close, anything will not be obscured.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 01:48:56 AM by zorbakim »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2018, 02:31:20 AM »
Where is the horizon in your video?
I don't know where it is on a flat earth. On a globe, it was about 6 1/4 kms away or about 6 3/4 km factoring in standard atmospheric refraction.

How far is it from the horizon to the island?
Since the island is about 26 1/2 kilometers from that viewing spot, that means the island is about 19 3/4 km further than the visible horizon.

It's not good visibility.
Not bad, actually; but what does that matter as long as you can see the island and see if it's being blocked by waves?

according to my calculation, the horizon is at 6~7 kilometers away at 2m eye level.
I'd be interested how you calculated that for a flat earth. 

But in your video, the distance to the horizon and the island is unclear.
I provided sufficient detail the first time I posted the video, but now I hope I've made it clear.

The island in your video doesn't look very far.
Then of course it will not be obscured.

20 kilometers beyond the horizon? How far does it need to be? On a flat plane, a 1m obstacle 6500m away forms an angle of 0.009°.
A 100m object must be 650,000m or 650km away to form that same angle. 400 miles!!!

On a globe (with standard atmosphere), a 100m object will be completely hidden by the curve of the earth from that viewing height when it's 45 kilometers away.

My calculation is done under the assumption that visibility and resolution is good.
So a long distance is needed.
If the distance is close, anything will not be obscured.
What's the distance needed if not 650 kilometers? Is it something realistic?

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2018, 07:56:21 AM »
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

(Turning Torso image)

When we had that Turning Torso discussion before, "waves" wasn't the flat earth rationale; it was optical compression. 

Here is a view of North Coronado Island about 16 miles away from this spot today, almost high tide with a 4-5' primary ground swell coming from the SSW.



The island is about 425' at its peak (130m). That spur on the far left is 100 and 120' (30-40m) high.

1 meter waves are not blocking 100 meters of that island.
You said that its peak is 130m high and the spur on the far left is 30-40m high.
The pixels of island image in your video is as in the following.
The peak is 273 pixels and the spur is 31 pixels from horizon.

Then the obscured height is about 20m.
If eye level is 2m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 7.4km
then the obscured height is about 78m.
But If eye level is 5m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 11.7km
then the obscured height is about 50m.
But if the horizon distance is farther away, the obscured height is even less.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.
More research is needed in the future.
Anyway your video can be fully explained on the flat earth.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 07:58:08 AM by zorbakim »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2018, 05:52:59 PM »
You said that its peak is 130m high and the spur on the far left is 30-40m high.
The pixels of island image in your video is as in the following.
The peak is 273 pixels and the spur is 31 pixels from horizon.
There's a little bit of inferior mirage so the horizon is appears slightly lower than it actually is; but only slightly so okay. Good enough.
Then the obscured height is about 20m.
I don't know how you did that. The refracted hidden calculation on a globe earth viewing from 3m at a distance of 26500m is 26.4m, so however it is you measured 20m as the obscured height, it under calculates by about 6m. Not bad, actually.
 
If eye level is 2m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 7.4km
then the obscured height is about 78m.
The eye level height was 3m, making the globe earth refracted horizon 6.7km and obscured height (another ~20km beyond the horizon) 26m.
How are you calculating horizon distance and obscured height on your flat earth?

But If eye level is 5m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 11.7km
then the obscured height is about 50m.
But if the horizon distance is farther away, the obscured height is even less.
Globe earth horizon distance and obscured heights are different from what you calculated for your flat earth, but the trend is the same. Increasing eye level height increases horizon distance and reduces obscured height. Wave height does not factor in the equation. I'd still like to know how you are arriving at your horizon distance and obscured height figures.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
But how? The obscured height depends on eye level, which determines horizon distance. But where does wave height factor in?

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
But how? Are you saying the horizon distance changes with improved resolution? Can you zoom the horizon out to 26+ km from a viewing height of 3m? I dare anyone to show me that. 
Wave height and resolution are essentially non-factors in what is or is not hidden. I can take photos of that view from that vantage point at different zoom lengths and under varying wave conditions and it won't change. Visibility and atmospheric refractive conditions (like mirage or looming/sinking) will change what we see, but not waves on the horizon nor resolution. I can't zoom the hidden part of that island back into view, and in all my life I've never seen waves of any size hiding that island or even the spur on the south end. The proof of your claim is not in the pudding.

Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.
More research is needed in the future.
Anyway your video can be fully explained on the flat earth.
I'm not seeing it. No 1m wave on the horizon is obscuring anywhere close to 100m of that island.  The wave heights are less today. If I go out and photograph/video the island from the same location, it won't appear any differently. There won't be any less obscured. Wave heights have so little to do with how much of that island is obscured it is undiscernable
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 02:31:23 AM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2018, 06:35:57 PM »
We have seen that sometimes bodies are hidden and that sometimes they are not hidden. Rowbotham reports that at various times the bodies he was observing were hidden and revealed. What are we to make of this?
That it's not waves? I've never seen that body (island) hidden by waves.  It's been hidden by fog banks and haze. That little spur becomes hidden when inferior mirage conditions are present.

I've seen waves and swells much larger than the 4-5' waves present on the day of that video. Never seen a single case of the horizon pulsing up even a little due to those waves to obscure even close to 100m of that island's elevation.


I agree with Bobby's confusion. I also REALLY struggle with understanding how waves or swells can explain some of the things that we have seen with objects being obscured behind "sea level" when both the observer and the object.

I understand refraction.
I understand chaotic atmospheric conditions.
I understand optics.


I don't understand this:


In this situation how could a wave or swell or whatever possibly be used to account for what is obscuring the building?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 06:37:32 PM by iamcpc »

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2018, 07:19:41 PM »
I don't understand this:

In this situation how could a wave or swell or whatever possibly be used to account for what is obscuring the building?

Quite. Not possible. I've provided similar diagrams.
This is also why explaining sunset by perspective doesn't work.
The idea is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance and you can't see beyond that, but then long distance photography is used to "prove" a flat earth. So why can you see those distant objects? Why can you see any of the island in Bobby's photos and video when it is 20km beyond the horizon?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2018, 09:37:24 PM »
I don't understand this:

In this situation how could a wave or swell or whatever possibly be used to account for what is obscuring the building?

Quite. Not possible. I've provided similar diagrams.
This is also why explaining sunset by perspective doesn't work.
The idea is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance and you can't see beyond that, but then long distance photography is used to "prove" a flat earth. So why can you see those distant objects? Why can you see any of the island in Bobby's photos and video when it is 20km beyond the horizon?

The OP diagram does quite well to explain how a wave, at eye level (such as if you were floating in the ocean), which is closer to your eye could obstruct hundreds of feet from a far off building above sea level.

The problem that I see, quite clearly, is that with dozens and dozens of observations provided by Bobby these criteria simply don't hold true. Even if the horizon always rises to eye level as suggested previously the observations simply don't match.


« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 09:41:11 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #51 on: October 15, 2018, 09:58:26 PM »
Same island, but on a day with smaller waves, from a viewpoint of about 3' above low tide:



I have no idea how to calculate distance to horizon or predict how much of a distant object is hidden based on a flat earth+perspective+wave height+resolution+et cetera.

With a globe curve calculator, wave height and resolution are not factors. But figuring on a spherical earth with a standard atmosphere, comparing images from viewing heights of 3' and 415', I think narrowing the height estimate of that island's southern spur to 110-120' (34-36m) is reasonable given that from 3' the spur is completely hidden and the earth curve refracted hidden value is 115'.





Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2018, 05:52:10 AM »
Same island, but on a day with smaller waves, from a viewpoint of about 3' above low tide:



This video shows well.
The horizon is not a clear mathematical line.
So it is not a clear line.
It is a complex visual line.
The horizon and waves block the sight.
It is difficult to explain the calculation process that I did here one by one.
Instead, I explained it briefly in the video.
It comes from experience and experimentation.
It is not just mathematical reasoning like Earth curvature.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2018, 03:23:22 PM »
The horizon is not a clear mathematical line.
So it is not a clear line.
It is a complex visual line.
The horizon and waves block the sight.
It is difficult to explain the calculation process that I did here one by one.
Instead, I explained it briefly in the video.
It comes from experience and experimentation.
It is not just mathematical reasoning like Earth curvature.
The horizon definitely blocks line of sight. We're just at odds over what (and where) that horizon is.

I also agree that a vertical "bump" (wave, hill) on the horizon will contribute to the blocking. And it will be more pronounced on a globe by a globe's horizon caused by curvature since objects beyond the curvature's horizon will be tilted and sloping away from the observer.

So, on a globe without that 1m "bump" from a viewing height of 1 meter, the horizon will be around 3900 meters away and a 100 meter tall object will be completely obscured around 43000 meters away. Add a 1 meter "bump" to the horizon at the 3900 meter mark and a 100m tall object only needs to be around 40000 meters away to be completely obscured. That 1m obstacle on the horizon adds another 0.15° of "shadow" to the already hidden-by-curvature horizon. It's just geometry (with the influence of atmospheric refraction).

What I don't see, however, is a 100m tall object that is beyond the horizon (whatever that is) and is fully or even half visible, then becoming fully obscured as waves pass along a horizon between me and the object.  "My" island in the video is 26000 meters away. Whatever's hidden can be explained by curvature calculations and not waves, and the height of waves doesn't discernibly alter what is being hidden, even with 215mm of "zoom." A 1 meter wave at 3900m translates geometrically to 6-7m at the distance of the island. If there's some arcane reason why that vertical obscuration height should be amplified due to "ID curve" perspective, it's not manifesting itself in what I can observe and detect, even with resolution better than my naked eye.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #54 on: October 17, 2018, 12:13:01 AM »
My camera doesn't have a time-lapse function, but testing out a hack on that target island feature that reveals distortions that you don't notice in real time. Not as extreme as the Skunk Bay video, but it's still fascinating (at least to me):



23 frames, 1 minute apart.

This is probably tangent to the topic since it doesn't really address the waves-on-horizon-obscuring-objects claim, but since I've been using that island feature as an observation target, I thought it might be interesting and related since I figure I should do this from a vantage point at an elevation near sea level to see if ocean swells and/or waves are detectable. I'm guessing the distorting effects of the atmosphere will be more pronounced.

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #55 on: October 17, 2018, 10:41:11 AM »
I guess that's from altitude, Bobby? In that footage it looks like the island is in front of the horizon? I guess because you're higher so the horizon is further away?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2018, 01:29:24 PM »
Yes. Sorry. Should have mentioned that. View from 360'.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2018, 02:35:20 PM »
For zorbakim: Try this interactive Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator by Walter Bislins which has a flat earth model.

Set it up at follows:

Basics Tab
Observer Height: 1m
Target Distance: 50000m
Target Size: 100m
Refraction: 0 (doesn't matter)
Zoom f: 2000mm
View∠ 1.23754° (linked to zoom)
Model: FE
Camera Aim: Eye-Level
Units: metric

View Tab
Height: 1m
Zoom f: 2000mm
View∠: 1.23754°
Pan: 0°
Tilt: 0°

Target 2
NObjects: 200
Distance 1000m
DeltaDist 0
SidePos 0
SideVar 40m
ObjSize 1m
SizeVar 0
ObjType M-Rod
SideVar Lin
SizeCar Lin

Target 1
NObjects: 1
Distance: 50000m
DeltaDist: 300
SidePos: 0m
SideVar: 0m
ObjSize: 100m
SizeVar: 0%
ObjType: M-Rod
SideVar: Lin
SizeVar: Lin

You should end up with an image like this: a "wall" of 1m objects in front of a more distant 100m object


Now play with zoom in the view tab and distances in the respective target tabs and see if you can get the 1m wall to obscure the 100m rod.

It won't. Ever. Why? Is there something wrong with the parameter setup? Or is the model not applying perspective correctly as you think it should work? (Or something else?)

Because, if you switch the model option to GE (Globe Earth) it behaves as I see it in the real world. In the FE mode, perspective doesn't create a curve-away appearance and the 1m "wall" never obscures the 100m object.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 02:37:28 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2018, 11:54:57 PM »
It's so complicated that I don't know what it is.
(Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator by Walter Bislins)

On the other hand, my math is simple.
Truth is simple, not complicated.

Obviously, the effects of the waves exist on both model.
It will be much more obscured on the round earth.
That's because waves are added to the curvature.
But things are different on the flat earth.
Because it is a visual phenomenon.

Look at the horizon.
It is not a simple line drawn by pencil.
Is there a distinct line between water and air?
If so, that's what our eyes tell us.

Anyway, I have shown that the Flat earth can explain why the building is covered.
It is difficult to get the exact figures.
Visual phenomena are influenced by many factors.
That's the reality.




*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2018, 01:03:41 AM »
It's so complicated that I don't know what it is.
(Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator by Walter Bislins)
All you have to do is put in the numbers into the form fields. And then move the sliders and watch what happens. The user need not perform any mathematical calculations. The model does the work.

Try it.

There will be no combination of distances or zoom (resolution) at which point the 1m "wave" wall will obscure the 100m tower on a flat surface.