Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #120 on: June 12, 2019, 10:09:30 PM »
I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.


The problem is that no one does dig deeper. They say look this picture, based on what I see, proves the earth is round.

Based on that logic, based on the time lapse shown the earth alternates from between being flat and being round throughout the day.


Thanks for pointing out the timestamps, iampc. I've added them to the Sinking Ship Refraction Wiki page.

I really wanted to find some point where there was just a few minutes apart and no temperature difference whatsoever so no one could claim that temperature was the sole cause of the data being different.


I would gladly consider marking some of these predictions/observations as RE evidence if they even attempted to outline what is happening optically. Optical variables, atmospheric variables, and things like refraction are many times outright ignored.

People continuously say this refracted observation matched the round earth predictions in a vacuum. THE EARTH IS ROUND. When literally a few seconds later the observation has been demonstrated to change.


« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 10:15:49 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #121 on: June 13, 2019, 12:43:02 AM »
I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.


The problem is that no one does dig deeper. They say look this picture, based on what I see, proves the earth is round.

Based on that logic, based on the time lapse shown the earth alternates from between being flat and being round throughout the day.
Does it though? At what time stamps does this image indicate that the Earth is flat? At what times does it show round? Have you checked any numbers to back any of this up?
It is not my intention to tell you the answers. I'd suggest you go and work them out for yourself.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #122 on: June 13, 2019, 03:22:22 AM »
I would gladly consider marking some of these predictions/observations as RE evidence if they even attempted to outline what is happening optically. Optical variables, atmospheric variables, and things like refraction are many times outright ignored.

I think you need to flip the script somewhat. FE needs to outline what is happening optically. For instance, if RE claims 'refraction' it's deemed an "illusion" of dubious nature. As in, for example, the case that Tom brought up that we never got an FE explanation as to what was happening optically:

Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

We never found out what happened to the 850' of hill that went missing on flat earth. So out of one side of the mouth comes this, "RE is always claiming some voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect..." and out of the other is "RE is not taking into account atmospheric miraging refraction effects..." Which is it?

In the example above, RE claims a 50' voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect. FE has to claim an 850' voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect. Pick your poison.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Macarios

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #123 on: June 13, 2019, 07:25:13 AM »


The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldn see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #124 on: June 13, 2019, 05:12:50 PM »
The bridge progressively disappears under the horizon, from close to far distance, considering 8"/mile... as the camera goes down and down.
Reappears progressively from distance to close distance, by the same rule, as the camera goes up and up.
Best example of RE.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #125 on: June 13, 2019, 11:29:07 PM »


The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 11:31:36 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #126 on: June 14, 2019, 01:31:51 AM »


The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

Refraction is tricky to say the least. As variable as these atmospheric effects are, here are some Skunk Bay time lapses where no atmospheric effects/miraging seem to be present:



And here’s a Skunk Bay Sunrise time lapse that shows no atmospheric effects/miraging:



And then you have instances of little to no refractive miraging occurring, just an object rising or falling steadily with distance over a horizon as expected, we see ye olde sinking ship effect:


Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Macarios

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #127 on: June 14, 2019, 04:44:01 AM »


The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

If it was for pressure only, the light would bend downward toward the denser layers and the distant objects would appear HIGHER than they are, not lower.
If it was also for inferior mirage, the mirage would not only have to counteract the pressure caused downward refraction, but to refract the light up for very high amount.
For such amount the temperature differences should be so high that hardly human would survive them.
In some tropical desert, where the temperatures are extreme, inferior mirage still gives weaker effect.