Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2021, 04:52:23 PM »
Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

Ok, but I'm afraid we're going to need an awful lot more precision (like, what exactly does 'lake level' mean?), and evidence, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion or analysis - I guess you'd better dig out the video.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could address the broader point that I'm repeating, which is that there is no FET distortion mechanism capable of retaining the constant angular separation between the stars as they move around the sky, rotating around the two fixed pole stars (whose elevation is equal to observer latitude), whilst simultaneously explaining the disappearance of stars below the horizon, the invisibility of the pole stars in the opposite hemispheres, or the consistent due south heading of the southern pole star regardless of longitude.
Lake level is lake level. You have flashing lights placed on the surface of a frozen lake. The camera taking pictures of them is at the same height.

If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

An object in the sky can disappear from your sight because it gets too far away to be seen.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 680
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2021, 05:36:45 PM »
Here. I'm 90% sure this is the one you're talking about.


 The YT user has uploaded numerous similar videos shooting things over frozen lakes. Shooting over a frozen lake seems like a way to reduce atmospheric effects that may influence the path of light/lasers. I would argue it's not particularly helpful.

 The one he does across Lake Winnipeg while ice fishing (excellent multi tasking) shows very clearly (to me at least) how much variation in temperature/humidity there is even across a frozen lake. Note the wavy/haziness or the dancing of the lines in the mid-far distance.


I would recommend not watching the videos because they dont show anything one way or the other ;D

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2021, 07:53:53 PM »
Thanks for the videos, Iceman.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the enormous effort that clearly goes into the making of these videos, and the contrasting complete absence of any kind of rigour in the designs of the experiments or analysis of the outputs. Filming an object at long range, plugging the heights and range into a calculator and concluding that the earth must be flat is completely ignoring refraction, which is often, as it is in the videos you've posted, very apparent in the footage shot. It's not clear what the creators are suggesting - are they saying that such refraction effects are impossible? In which case we need to go to basic lab experiments showing that it very much is. Or are they saying it could happen, but are challenging the amount of refraction that might be possible? In which case, why? What is the basis for this challenge? If there was genuine curiosity as to what is going on, why not repeat the experiments at different times of the day and different times of year - why not try to get results at a time of known low refraction?

If you wanted to set up a demonstration of extreme atmospheric refraction, making possible the viewing of objects far beyond the expected visible horizon, then you would do it at night over a cold or frozen lake. The more extreme the temperature gradient, the better. 


Quote from: Action80
If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

I can claim it, and I do - the two things are not mutually exclusive. The area of maximum refraction occurs across the lowest layers of the atmosphere, along the earth's surface - that's why the sun and moon lose their apparent circular shape and often become wobbly as they set, and why the shimmer appears in those videos Iceman posted. But, as I said earlier, away from the horizon, refraction effects are minimal, which is how marine navigators can safely navigate using star shots to plot their lat and long.

To pick just one of many FET problems from my previous post(s), consider just the two pole stars, Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Their behaviour simply doesn't match what you would expect if the earth was flat. Their elevation or altitude angle almost perfectly matches the observer's latitude in their respective hemispheres. If you were to attempt to calculate their apparent range based on this fact and a flat earth, you would get completely different results depending on what latitudes your two observation angles were taken from. This cannot be correct, and there is no possible distortion effect that could correct this error for every observed angle to give the same result for all latitude combinations, whilst preserving the constant angular separation between the pole stars and their neighbours. Try it - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, FET issues deepen when you consider that two observers in, for example, South Africa and Australia can observe Sigma Octantis at the same time - there is a small overlap, depending on the time of year, in the hours of darkness for the respective continents. And those two observers will see Sigma Octantis on the same heading - due South, which on the monopole FE map has them standing with their backs to the North pole, which means they facing in different directions, at roughly right angles, and yet are observing the same celestial object at the same time. There is no credible explanation for this, and no feasible distortion mechanism that can explain it within FET. This debate is ongoing on another thread in the FE theory forum, and we are awaiting a reply from Tom on it. I'll be interested to see what he says, as I will be in your thoughts on this as well.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2021, 01:09:56 PM »
Thanks for the videos, Iceman.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the enormous effort that clearly goes into the making of these videos, and the contrasting complete absence of any kind of rigour in the designs of the experiments or analysis of the outputs. Filming an object at long range, plugging the heights and range into a calculator and concluding that the earth must be flat is completely ignoring refraction, which is often, as it is in the videos you've posted, very apparent in the footage shot. It's not clear what the creators are suggesting - are they saying that such refraction effects are impossible? In which case we need to go to basic lab experiments showing that it very much is. Or are they saying it could happen, but are challenging the amount of refraction that might be possible? In which case, why? What is the basis for this challenge? If there was genuine curiosity as to what is going on, why not repeat the experiments at different times of the day and different times of year - why not try to get results at a time of known low refraction?

If you wanted to set up a demonstration of extreme atmospheric refraction, making possible the viewing of objects far beyond the expected visible horizon, then you would do it at night over a cold or frozen lake. The more extreme the temperature gradient, the better. 


Quote from: Action80
If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

I can claim it, and I do - the two things are not mutually exclusive. The area of maximum refraction occurs across the lowest layers of the atmosphere, along the earth's surface - that's why the sun and moon lose their apparent circular shape and often become wobbly as they set, and why the shimmer appears in those videos Iceman posted. But, as I said earlier, away from the horizon, refraction effects are minimal, which is how marine navigators can safely navigate using star shots to plot their lat and long.

To pick just one of many FET problems from my previous post(s), consider just the two pole stars, Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Their behaviour simply doesn't match what you would expect if the earth was flat. Their elevation or altitude angle almost perfectly matches the observer's latitude in their respective hemispheres. If you were to attempt to calculate their apparent range based on this fact and a flat earth, you would get completely different results depending on what latitudes your two observation angles were taken from. This cannot be correct, and there is no possible distortion effect that could correct this error for every observed angle to give the same result for all latitude combinations, whilst preserving the constant angular separation between the pole stars and their neighbours. Try it - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, FET issues deepen when you consider that two observers in, for example, South Africa and Australia can observe Sigma Octantis at the same time - there is a small overlap, depending on the time of year, in the hours of darkness for the respective continents. And those two observers will see Sigma Octantis on the same heading - due South, which on the monopole FE map has them standing with their backs to the North pole, which means they facing in different directions, at roughly right angles, and yet are observing the same celestial object at the same time. There is no credible explanation for this, and no feasible distortion mechanism that can explain it within FET. This debate is ongoing on another thread in the FE theory forum, and we are awaiting a reply from Tom on it. I'll be interested to see what he says, as I will be in your thoughts on this as well.
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing. Regardless, you are claiming refraction and other forms of distortion is what contributes to the ability of these lights at ground level to be seen, when they clearly should not be seen according to numbers provided by RET.

Seems you are arguing against your own statements.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2021, 02:50:09 PM »
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing.

Shimmer is evidence of large amounts of refraction occurring - it is precisely what you would expect to see in situations where objects are visible well beyond where you would expect the visible horizon to be.

Quote
Regardless, you are claiming refraction and other forms of distortion is what contributes to the ability of these lights at ground level to be seen, when they clearly should not be seen according to numbers provided by RET.

Not other forms of distortion - just refraction. I used the phrase to describe the various effects, real or otherwise (perspective, EA), that FET uses to try to explain the massive disparity between what we would expect to see if the world was flat, and what we actually do see. There isn't really a RET, as such, is there? There's a body of science, the totality of which is entirely consistent with the earth being a globe. The 'numbers provided by RET' that you are referring to are simply the range, without refraction, at which an observer at a certain height would be be able to observe an object of a certain height without the curvature of the earth blocking the view, as it were - simple geometry. Refraction makes it possible to see far further than this, depending on the conditions at the time. This is easily proven, as I said, by repeating observations at different times of day or in different weather conditions. You will find very different observable ranges for the same object/viewer conditions - large temp gradients, in particular, generate large refraction effects.

Quote
Seems you are arguing against your own statements.

No, I'm not. As I said, there is nothing even remotely mysterious about atmospheric refraction. The only odd thing here is why people keep making these videos, often in situations where you expect maximum refraction to occur, and then completely ignore refraction in their analysis. Again, this refraction effect is at a maximum close to the horizontal. That's why the setting sun is often wobbly, but the sun higher in the sky, or the moon or the stars, are a much more stable picture. Hence my point about celestial navigation - you can reliably navigate using the stars, but you would be wise to try to use stars that aren't close to the horizon. And talking of navigation, I'm still awaiting an answer as to how our two observers in Australia and South America can be facing in different directions and yet both be observing the same star on the same southerly heading. Again, there is no credible mechanism that could distort any shape or presentation of the night sky that make could this true for all observers of the southern pole star - it simply doesn't make sense. In the other thread I mentioned I even showed that, for a very brief period of time in the southern hemisphere's winter, it is possible for observers in South America, Africa and Australia to all be in darkness at the same time, all looking south at the same star, even though, according to the monopole FET map, they are facing in three completely different directions. Thoughts?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2021, 03:17:47 PM »
Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing.

Shimmer is evidence of large amounts of refraction occurring - it is precisely what you would expect to see in situations where objects are visible well beyond where you would expect the visible horizon to be.
Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.


Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2021, 04:19:13 PM »

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2021, 04:50:51 PM »

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.
You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2021, 05:30:27 PM »

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all. 

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2021, 06:25:58 PM »

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all.
Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2021, 08:36:22 PM »

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2021, 09:36:12 PM »
Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

Why do you think an 8 mile long lab is ridiculous?

The LIGO lab's two arms form a 5 mile optical path. 

The LHC lab is over 16 miles long.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2021, 12:47:40 PM »

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?
I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2021, 09:04:07 AM »

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Sorry, I'm now not really clear what your point actually is. Are you saying the lights in the video are, or are not shimmering? And are you saying that mirrors can help you see round corners, but refraction can't?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2021, 12:18:00 PM »

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Sorry, I'm now not really clear what your point actually is. Are you saying the lights in the video are, or are not shimmering? And are you saying that mirrors can help you see round corners, but refraction can't?
You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimmering.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 12:39:23 PM by Action80 »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2021, 12:40:48 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2021, 02:39:08 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2021, 02:57:24 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2021, 03:01:36 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the stars.
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2021, 03:09:48 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?