*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #100 on: December 22, 2018, 06:18:06 PM »
Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
Can I quote you on that?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #101 on: December 22, 2018, 06:38:30 PM »
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:

Soundly posts this video to show how (some) flat earth advocates (like Ranty) misunderstand refraction.



Ranty posts a video response (Tom's post) demonstrating exactly what Soundly was illustrating.

So that we're all on the same sheet of music...

On a convex surface, refraction bending light down, in the same direction as the curvature, will make the surface appear less curved and even flat or convex if greater than curvature.

On a flat surface, refraction bending light up and away from parallel will make the surface appear curved.

We can all agree on what conditions will refract light and in what direction.

For a flat earth to appear convex due to refraction, air density must increase with elevation to cause the light to bend upward.
For a convex earth to appear flat due to refraction, air density must decrease with elevation at a higher rate than normal to cause light to bend less or not at all.

So which is it?  Just showing images of optically wiggling objects isn't analysis. Ranty hasn't refuted anything. He's just exhibited the very behavior Soundly was criticizing.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #102 on: December 22, 2018, 08:07:35 PM »
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.

Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.

Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?

You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.

Quite simply:

1) "The (Google) Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems: Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)"

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates


2) "The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #103 on: January 02, 2019, 09:58:04 PM »
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:



There is a big difference here. Your video are over the course of hours showcasing how the change in temperature, time of day,  and atmosphere affects the horizon.
Between 9 AM and midnight there is a HUGE variance between temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc etc.






This video is over the course of minutes in which there is minimal change in temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc etc.
Over this relatively short period of time the optical conditions changed a very small amount but the altitude changed DRAMATICALLY.

In addition if this was 100% optics we would see the horizon moving up and down randomly. Instead we see it move down as the altitude increases and up as the altitude decreases.


« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 10:04:33 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #104 on: January 02, 2019, 10:52:55 PM »
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone descends, causing the land to appear to sink. It wouldn't change over seconds.

The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.

The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 12:55:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #105 on: January 02, 2019, 11:03:26 PM »
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone ascends, causing the land to appear to sink.

The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.

The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.

I'm not seeing the land appear to sink, per se, just more being revealed the higher it goes.

What's a Kerbal?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #106 on: January 04, 2019, 06:26:48 PM »
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone descends, causing the land to appear to sink. It wouldn't change over seconds.

The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.

The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.

None of what you say changes the fact that this video is yet more evidence that the perceived horizon does NOT rise to eye level. This video, in addition to dozens of observations made by bobby suggest that the perceived horizon drops below eye level as the altitude increases. The drones perceived horizon drops as the altutde increases. It does not change the fact that the horizon drops below eye level as the altitude of the drone increases.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #107 on: January 04, 2019, 07:28:42 PM »
The timelapse video demonstrates that light can, is, and does bend in that area:

This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:



What you have provided in rebuttal is imagination, not demonstration.

The bending lasts for hours, with video evidence, and you want us to ignore this evidence in favor of what one of Soundly's images or or clips of video "suggests"?

You must provide an experiment that takes refraction into account. There is obviously an issue there.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 08:25:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #108 on: January 04, 2019, 11:08:05 PM »

What you have provided in rebuttal is imagination, not demonstration.

The bending lasts for hours, with video evidence, and you want us to ignore this evidence in favor of what one of Soundly's images or or clips of video "suggests"?

You must provide an experiment that takes refraction into account. There is obviously an issue there.

I don't understand because the image at the peak and the image at 500 feet have a similar humidity, temperature, time of day, barometric pressure, location, and atmospheric composition. I am of the opinion that the refractive index between them is a pretty controlled variable in this example.

Do you think that at the time of takeoff the refractive index is 1 at takeoff and then, at an altitude of 500 feet or so the refractive index goes up to 3, then goes back down to 1 when it lands? If that is the case you still arrive at the same conclusion.

Because the refraction index increases with altitude an increase in altitude will decrease the perceived horizon below eye level.
Because light bends upwards an increase in altitude will cause the horizon to be perceived below eye level.


« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 11:15:07 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #109 on: January 05, 2019, 06:01:08 AM »
You can tell the temperature and pressure at the objects in the distance, between the path of the camera, and at the camera, just by looking at the video or images? Can you tell us how you determined that?

The curvature wouldn't need to change when the drone ascends or descends. It can stay the same. Upwardly curving light will cause bodies to sink when descending.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 06:18:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2019, 08:24:00 PM »
You can tell the temperature and pressure at the objects in the distance, between the path of the camera, and at the camera, just by looking at the video or images? Can you tell us how you determined that?


Tom,

If I provided temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements between for A and point B then you can just easily ask for  temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements halfway between or then every 1/4th of the distance between point A and point B. Then ask for  temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements every 1/8th of the distance ad infinitum. If you watch the video it's not like there are sunshine and rainbows here and we see a hurricane off in the distance. When the weatherman tells me it's 50 degrees in St. Louis I don't then proceed to ask for a temperature measurement every 1-5 square miles across the entire city of St. Louis.







You had a similar argument  when someone made the claim that the sun passes almost directly overhead on the equator. You asked for a worldwide sun observation project and observations made from every point on earth to document sun activities:

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?


Did timeanddate.com send agents to every point on earth to carefully document the activities and actions of the sun throughout the year?


My response then will be the same now
If you made a claim that a mile was 5280 feet, with no source provided as to how this prediction was created, or how accurate it is. I need a link for the documents showing the world-wide mile project showing that everywhere on earth a mile is 5280 feet.

You have used the Pythagorean theorem in several of your post.

A claim that A²+B² = C². I'm going to need a source provided. An explanation as to how this prediction was created. I need a link of documents showing the world wide triangle project showing that for A²+B² = C² for all triangles with sides less than 6 inches for all over the world.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 10:06:27 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2019, 09:37:38 PM »
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.

Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.

Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?

You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.

Quite simply:

1) "The (Google) Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems: Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)"

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates


2) "The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
I see there has been no response to these details, so we can assume they have been accepted.