*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 06, 2018, 07:24:05 AM »
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:



I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.
The following references might be useful:
Quote
Atmospheric duct

Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct


In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.

Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.

Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.

The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
These are also relevant:
         Calculating Ray Bending This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate  needed to cause ducting.
         Ducts More specific discussion of ducts,  with diagrams.
         Marine layer Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
         Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects.
Maybe someone can make something of that material.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2018, 07:53:34 AM »
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.

The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2018, 12:25:43 PM »
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.
I'll ignore your attempt at demeaning but your usual mode of attack seems to attack the messenger.

Quote from: sandokhan
Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.
DIfference between where and where?

Quote from: sandokhan
For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.
It is not the temperature difference between the observers that matters but the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
Quote
So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.
[/quote]
So a shallow duct only needs a small temperature difference and with cold water and warm than can and does happen.

Please explain why "ducting does not apply to the case presented here."

Quote from: sandokhan
The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.

Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.




Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2018, 01:24:24 PM »
Quote from: sandokhan
The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.
Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.
He's talking about the people in the video using a mirror.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2018, 01:42:37 PM »
I'd expect significant amount of distortion to go along with the super refraction that would be required in the case of a surface level duct, but I don't see that here:



The mirror flash is in the red circle in the image above, and I do not see secondary visual evidence of enough of an inversion layer to produce a ducting effect.

Using Walter Bislin's model, there would have to have been a temperature inversion of around +0.05°F/ft temperature gradient at the surface in order to produce a curve-following "super refractive" layer.

I can't vouch for what was happening on that last afternoon on Monterey Bay, but we have been seeing a consistent, daily surface inversion in Southern California. It's what was responsible for this very interesting and cool sub-ducted "green flash". You can actually see the top of the inversion where the haze line is:


~photograph by Jim Grant, 2 Nov 2018


It also caused a Fata Morgana; a distorted image of Catalina Island that I captured in photographs from San Diego at sunset a couple of weeks ago (75-80 miles away):




Here, you can see the layer of haze that is trapped by the inversion.


And I believe it's what is causing the power station structure in my Carlsbad viewing from La Jolla to look abnormally tall. Everything between the apparent mirage and that white line is, I believe, mirage (combined with towering/looming.)



But in my case, it's not producing a duct. Instead, I'm getting an opaque layer that isn't providing me extended visual range beyond a geometric horizon. As noted in that link above about ducting, an inversion layer won't always producing a ducting effect, and it's not in mine. But IF it's the explanation for why that mirror reflection is being seen, I think we should be able to see the secondary evidence of where the inversion layer is, like a demarcation of distortion at the top of the layer in the background power plant.  I don't think such a layer would extend through to the top of the image. That would be extraordinarily deep for such an inversion.

The real test for flatness will be to see if that observation result is consistently achieved on different days under different weather conditions; especially clearer ones. The video author admitted visibility was poor.

The next opportunity I get, I'm going to try the same afternoon mirror method across a 13-mile over-ocean span between La Jolla and Encinitas, and the 20-mile span between La Jolla and Carlsbad.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 01:48:17 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2018, 05:45:56 PM »
The next opportunity I get, I'm going to try the same afternoon mirror method across a 13-mile over-ocean span between La Jolla and Encinitas, and the 20-mile span between La Jolla and Carlsbad.
I'd be interested to see the results.
Some of your other pictures which only show the top of the chimney indicate there is no way you'd see a mirror at sea level.
I'm loathe to shout "fake" and run away but I agree with your post in AR that I couldn't explain this on a globe earth.
Although I note "waves" are not blocking the view here either, a common FE explanation for the sinking ship effect when it's clear magnification won't restore the hull.
Would be interested to see this experiment repeated.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2018, 06:15:59 PM »
I don’t have a good explanation for the video in the OP.  I don’t have enough information to make an informed opinion.  I could say that it’s made by a FE promoter and he may be fooling with us, but I don’t have any direct evidence of that.

This is a great video worth watching, much better quality.  Pretty hard to deny what is happening here. The laser we can argue if it is level.  Just skip to 6 minutes where they bring in the helicopter. Forget the math, where does the helicopter go?

« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 06:44:39 PM by JCM »

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2018, 07:28:30 PM »

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2018, 07:51:45 PM »
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, but I'd be interested in what you see there. In particular I'd like if you could try and frame a shot similar to this one:


The video states this is from 3ft up. I suspect if you could frame a similar shot in better/different conditions, it's possible it might provide a clue to if anything odd was going on that day. But this is just speculation. As I said, the laser sighting experiments are the only ones that appear to consistently produce results that favor a less spherical Earth (I won't say flat, as they're still far from favoring flat over what modern science says) so I suspect there's a reason for that. But what I have no idea. Maybe recreating this experiment could provide some ideas though.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2018, 08:04:42 PM »
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0

The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747

I just went through that thread. Nothing was debunked there, not the video, not FET, not RET. This video was barely even addressed if at all. More talk about the Wallace & Hampden debacle/lawsuit than anything else.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2018, 08:07:32 PM »
Laser tests prove Earth is flat:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0
You cannot "prove Earth is flat" from a few short distance laser tests especially when conducted close to a water or ice surface.

If they "prove Earth is flat" what do these prove

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

Look at these two screenshots:
         
[/quote]

The camera height is not given but one comment (by a flat-earther) is that it's about 33 ft (or 10 m).
This would make the (refracted) horizon about 12 km away with the nearer ship a little closer.

Quote from: sandokhan
The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747
Am I missing something? I see no reference to the "Discovery Channel video" in that post?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2018, 09:05:27 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.

HorstFue

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2018, 09:29:49 PM »
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.

Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a  laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2018, 09:43:21 PM »
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.


What the frell is this?

The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:

(())

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!

Another user writes:

"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"

« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 09:45:05 PM by sandokhan »

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2018, 09:45:56 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.

We have no evidence in the video the mirror wasn't moved higher up the beach or the camera moved even higher.  You claim cgi for every single space image and ISS image, yet you accept everything in that OP video at face value with zero evidence it was not manipulated.  They didn't even need to use cgi at all, just move the mirror or the camera and pretend the footage is from the waters edge  to a mirror on the waters edge.  Zero Evidence. 

Discount the helicopter flying in the air yet not visible in the telescope!  That would actually need cgi.  That experiment by Discovery Channel is repeatable, why don't you go to that lake in those locations, put up a tall ladder and step up until you are visible. Or use another equally distant lake shores at the waters edge.  This should be easy since you wouldn't need the ladder or helicopter at all times be seen in a high powered telescope right?  Show the same thing day after day, prove the Earth flat! It would get you the Nobel prize surely.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2018, 09:48:49 PM »
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.


What the frell is this?

The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:

(())

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!

Another user writes:

"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"

So your argument is that the camera was fully zoomed in and if it could just zoom a little further those missing pixels of the bottom half of the ship would come into view?   

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2018, 09:49:56 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.



Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2018, 09:50:31 PM »
I'd be interested to see what you come up with when you go down Bobby. I kind of wished they had had a little more in the way of controls set up for how the mirror was moved as I watch this. I have suspicions on what *could* be happening (think how Loran works) but I admit my knowledge of this area is limited. I will say, these laser/light experiments always seem to be the only ones that reliably give results which seem to dispute the standard globe size. I suspect there *has* to be some kind of reason, but don't know enough about optics or the way light moves to make much of a guess as to why that could be. I might try and dig into it, ...
I think, this would be the correct direction to dig into.
Sun light is very powerful. A comparable small ray, reflected by a mirror could easily outnumber a powerful laser. This ray could be so bright, that even light scattered from this ray, could produce these flashes shown in OP.
I'm not at a final conclusion, but some hints:
The flashes observed appear far larger than the mirror.
Targeting a beam of 3 feet diameter to a camera 13 miles away seems impossible to me. The girl at the beach is tilting the mirror back and forth by several degrees, whereas hitting the camera with the beam would need an accuracy of arc seconds.
The flashes have significant differences in brightness.
If there would be a direct hit, I would suspect to see a very bright center - brighter than the flashes in the video - and a significant zone of glare around it. These flashes more look like, we only see the glare.

Or it could be a scatter effect, similar to this, what let you see Crepuscular rays.
similar to this, what let you see the light cone of street lights with fog, drizzle, rain or snowfall.
similar to this, when an experimenter in a laboratory makes a  laser beam visible with smoke.
If the beam and camera's viewing line are aligned quite nicely, the scatter could sum up to bright flashes, but there's no need for a direct hit. The camera only observes the light scattered by dust/particles/aerosols somewhere in between this 13 miles stretch.
This is essentially the front runner hypothesis in my mind, at least for this one. It's not a perfect match for how things might be working with some of the laser experiments, but it's definitely a contender for what's going on here. Reflecting the sun, while a great idea, introduces some curiosities because of how bright the light is. If you watch the reflection of the light on the beach you can also see how the mirror bends as she moves it, it's not perfectly flat all the time. This could help explain the difference in brightness of the flashes, as more or less of the light is reflected to the correct area to produce whatever is happening. This is all supposition and hypothesizing though. But a lot of your points also make sense in this context. Getting a beam of light that should be just 3 ft around to strike a camera from 13 miles away? In the way it's occurring? Something more is happening here, but they don't control the usage of the mirror enough to make much more than some random guesses.

All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?

HorstFue

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2018, 10:08:52 PM »
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?
I viewed some raw videos and found them consistent with the final cut, no evident trickery.
I also think, that this experiment can be repeated with similar results.
A good variation would be, to view a result, when mirror and camera are placed high enough, to rule out curvature.
Do the flashes then look similar?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2018, 10:29:37 PM »
All of this is of course assuming there's zero trickery involved in the video. Has anyone by chance dug into the raw footage in the link in the description?

I've looked into it. Haven't seen the raw footage. But I would say there is no trickery.