Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2019, 06:57:12 PM »
Quote
They are still different. In one situation the light is reflecting off of it's distant object and spending it's entire time traveling beginning to end in the thick dense low altitude air.

In the other situation the light is originating in the dense low altitude atmosphere and going through different layers of atmosphere and refracting much differently thus leading to a different observation.

They are not exactly the same, bit they are close enough for the principle to hold.  First of all, why did you introduce the irrelevancy of one being a reflected light source when I clearly stated it to a generated light source?  Second,  if the 5,000 foot air is dense enough to block one light source, how come it can't block another?  Optics doesn't work that way.  "I can't see it 50 miles away, but I can see it if I'm farther." doesn't make sense.  50 miles is 50 miles, whether that is the end of the journey or merely the first part.  If it's blocked for one it is blocked for all.   And third, in my example, the light  doesn't reach 5,000 feet until 50 miles.  Everything before that is actually lower.  And last, if you have a light source at sea level, and look at it from 50 miles away in an airplane at 5,000 feet, I guarantee you will be able to see it.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2019, 07:15:05 PM »
I missed this from before.

Quote
Quote from: Zonk on Today at 03:00:12 PM
False.  I have seen Oklahoma City from 40,000 feet above Omaha.  That's about 400 miles.  40,000 feet is about 8 miles.  So a triangle with a height of 8 miles and a base of 400 miles will describe an angle of a little over 1 degree.  using a little trig, from my vantage point, the last 50 miles to OKC is through air that is 5,000 feet and below.  Denver is at 5,000 feet.  Standing on the ground at Denver looking east, one cannot see a light source 50 miles away.  Air clarity has very little to do with this.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that atmospheric conditions have very little to do with that?

What if it's foggy? What if it's misting? What if the pollen count is much higher than normal? Based on my own personal observations things like that have a very significant impact on what you can, and can't see. I'm not even considering things like atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed etc.

Based on context, what I clearly meant by "Air clarity has very little to do with this" was it has very little to do with the general principle that one will never see the light source 50 miles away from the ground, but barring adverse atmospheric interference, one will always see it from a high enough altitude, even though the light is traveling through the same average altitude.  Which is to say, most of the time.   

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2019, 07:23:17 PM »
IOW, atmospheric conditions cannot explain why one cannot see a light source while standing on the ground at 5,000 feet from 50 miles away, while one can see the light source from 400 miles away at altitude, even though the light spent the first 50 miles of its journey at an average altitude of 2,500 feet.  That's not how optics works.

And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable.  "Am I over Omaha looking south?"  "yes". "Am I at 45,000 feet?"  "Yes"  "is there cloud cover?"  "No". Do I see the lights of Oklahoma City?"  "Yes.  Every time"

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2019, 07:56:32 PM »
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable. 

And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.

The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2019, 07:59:55 PM »
One last one and then I think my point is made.  Lake Titicaca sits at an altitude of 12,500 feet in the Andes.  The lake is 50 miles wide at its widest.  If you stand on one shore, you will not be able to see a powerful light source on the other.  Now go to St. Joseph, MI where that photo from Chicago was taken.  You won't be able to see Chicago from the ground, but go up to 12,500 feet in a helicopter, and you will have a beautiful view, even though the light is traveling at a much lower average altitude than the first example.  "Atmospheric interference blocks the light at lower altitudes" cannot explain this.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2019, 08:04:32 PM »
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable. 

And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.

The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.

You are conflating 2 very different principles and assigning them an equivalency which is not warranted.  You will see the Chicago mirage only under a very narrow band of conditions.  Go up in altitude merely 5,000 feet, and you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions.  Those are not equivalent.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2019, 09:22:12 PM »
you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions.  Those are not equivalent.

That really depends on your definition of "very narrow"

-Fog
-Snow
-Rain
-smoke
-emissions
-blowing dust
-hygroscopic particles
-high dew point
-temperature
-humidity
-pollen

Just off the top of my head I have listed many conditions which will have a significant impact on observations like this. In Chicago it rains/snows quite frequently. I would hardly consider rain a "narrow band of conditions" It rains quite frequently over a vast majority of the world.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2019, 09:40:18 PM »
you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions.  Those are not equivalent.

That really depends on your definition of "very narrow"

-Fog
-Snow
-Rain
-smoke
-emissions
-blowing dust
-hygroscopic particles
-high dew point
-temperature
-humidity
-pollen

Just off the top of my head I have listed many conditions which will have a significant impact on observations like this. In Chicago it rains/snows quite frequently. I would hardly consider rain a "narrow band of conditions" It rains quite frequently over a vast majority of the world.

Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick.  Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?

Point being, it is very rare to see an image from the ground, while it is very common to see it from a few thousand feet up.  Those 2 situations  are not equivalent.  Every time you see it from the ground, you will also see it from the air.  most of the time your don't see it from the ground, you will still see it from the air.  Air quality or clarity does not explain that.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2019, 11:45:54 PM »
Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick.  Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?



How do you know? Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 1000 PPM?

Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 800 PPM and the humidity was over 70%

If so do you have any pictures to show us? How did the images change between <50 PPM pollen count and 0% humidity?


Without any evidence or sources how can we really know if you're not just making things up?

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2019, 11:54:38 PM »
Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick.  Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?



How do you know? Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 1000 PPM?

Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 800 PPM and the humidity was over 70%

If so do you have any pictures to show us? How did the images change between <50 PPM pollen count and 0% humidity?


Without any evidence or sources how can we really know if you're not just making things up?

Um, aren't you the one who said "don't trust what you can see because you could be fooled? 

Why yes, yes it was:

Quote
In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled

So, make up your mind.  Is what you can see with your eyes evidence, or is it not evidence.  Because you can't have it both ways. 

Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2019, 08:11:25 AM »
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable. 

And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.

The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
Correct. Atmospheric conditions do affect observations, I posted some photos above which show that.
But what do you never see in any of those photos? You never see the bottom of the buildings. Ever.
Yes, different amounts may be hidden - sometimes maybe you don't see the buildings at all, other times you see the top.
But there is always some amount occluded. Always. If that isn't because of the curve of the earth then what is it? What is stopping me seeing the bottom of the buildings, on a flat earth you should have clear line of sight. If the air is clear enough to see the top of the building then why not the bottom?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2019, 10:28:27 AM »
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable. 

And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.

The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
Correct. Atmospheric conditions do affect observations, I posted some photos above which show that.
But what do you never see in any of those photos? You never see the bottom of the buildings. Ever.
Yes, different amounts may be hidden - sometimes maybe you don't see the buildings at all, other times you see the top.
But there is always some amount occluded. Always. If that isn't because of the curve of the earth then what is it? What is stopping me seeing the bottom of the buildings, on a flat earth you should have clear line of sight. If the air is clear enough to see the top of the building then why not the bottom?
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.

Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.

I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.

Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2019, 10:50:23 AM »
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.

Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.

I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.
OK, so your answer is that it's an atmospheric effect?
A fair enough answer actually but it's strange that you reject that as an explanation for the fact that more of a tall building than a model predicts can be seen but use it as an explanation for why any of the building is occluded.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2019, 11:33:58 AM »
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.

Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.

I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.
OK, so your answer is that it's an atmospheric effect?
A fair enough answer actually but it's strange that you reject that as an explanation for the fact that more of a tall building than a model predicts can be seen but use it as an explanation for why any of the building is occluded.
I fail to see how that is strange, frankly...

There is also more in play than the simple atmoplanic interference.

Water is not at a consistent level across Lake Michigan, with many swells, bulges, and waves.

Do you the opposite?

Do you reject it as an explanation for why any part of a building is occluded and accept it as an explanation for the fact more of a tall building is seen than is mathematically possible given the dimensions of the supposed spherical earth?

Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2019, 01:00:47 PM »
Water is not at a consistent level across Lake Michigan, with many swells, bulges, and waves.

Granted, but in your world the lake is flat, right? Yes, there are waves and bulges but the base level is flat. Unless there's a storm the waves and bulges aren't going to be that big
If your eye level is higher than the highest wave then less of the building than the wave height will be occluded, you're looking over the top of the waves.
Even if the wave height is at your eye level only the height of the wave will be occluded:



It's only if your eye height is lower than the wave height that more of the building than the wave height will be occluded. So unless your eye level is very low or there are very big waves or swells, that is not a valid explanation.

Quote
Do you reject it as an explanation for why any part of a building is occluded and accept it as an explanation for the fact more of a tall building is seen than is mathematically possible given the dimensions of the supposed spherical earth?

I reject waves for the reason I've given above. Atmospheric effects are more plausible and the photos show different results which does imply differing conditions which can cause different observations.
But I've yet to see any examples of the whole building being seen. You'd think if the earth were flat then sometimes you'd see all of it on a particularly clear day. From that distance the angle the light from the top and bottom of the building is so similar that I'm sceptical that the top of the building would be so clear and the bottom completely hidden.
There's a pretty sharp horizon line below the tops of the buildings. That tells me that something is blocking the rest of the building. In the globe earth model the something is the curve of the earth.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2019, 02:08:06 PM »
Quote
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.

Not nearly enough to matter, not at those height differences.  In that first picture in post 19, you can see about 75% of the tallest buildings clear as a bell, and then absolutely nothing below.  You want to explain that away with suspended particulates?  The 20th floor is perfectly clear but the 19th is completely occluded?  That explanation makes sense to you?

While I'm on the subject, compare the first 2 pictures in #19.  In the second one, the buildings are about 50% shorter, and most are below the water level.  Not obscured by suspended particulates, physically shorter, as in the tops of the visible ones are closer to the water than in the first picture.  That's not suspended particulates.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #56 on: August 02, 2019, 04:32:22 PM »
Um, aren't you the one who said "don't trust what you can see because you could be fooled? 

Why yes, yes it was:

Quote
In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled

So, make up your mind.  Is what you can see with your eyes evidence, or is it not evidence.  Because you can't have it both ways.

You have solidly made up your mind based on what your eyes have seen when your eyes can easily be fooled.

I have not solidly made up my mind based off of easily fooled eyes.

Asking for evidence <> making up mind. They are two totally different things.


Granted, but in your world the lake is flat, right? Yes, there are waves and bulges but the base level is flat. Unless there's a storm the waves and bulges aren't going to be that big
If your eye level is higher than the highest wave then less of the building than the wave height will be occluded, you're looking over the top of the waves.
Even if the wave height is at your eye level only the height of the wave will be occluded:




That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 04:36:39 PM by iamcpc »

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2019, 04:47:36 PM »
Quote
That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?

I have no idea.  But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2.  And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1.  If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2019, 05:11:45 PM »
I have no idea.  But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2.  And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1.  If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.


I notice that you have this habit of saying things and the providing no evidence to back them up. Have you taken precise measurements with high pollen and humidity and then, all other factors staying the same taken the EXACT same measurements with low pollen and 0% humidity? If so can we please see them? If not can you please do that to provide evidence to support your claims?

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2019, 05:24:37 PM »
I have no idea.  But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2.  And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1.  If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.


I notice that you have this habit of saying things and the providing no evidence to back them up. Have you taken precise measurements with high pollen and humidity and then, all other factors staying the same taken the EXACT same measurements with low pollen and 0% humidity? If so can we please see them? If not can you please do that to provide evidence to support your claims?

No, I have not and I will not, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is if I or someone else were to do that, you would just come up with another cockamamie explanation and demand that one be disproved also.  Also, I know that atmospheric optics do not work the way you claim.  Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter.  The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear.  To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.