Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2018, 03:54:53 PM »
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?

Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2018, 04:18:26 PM »
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?
Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2018, 04:20:54 PM »
From what i saw of the video,
What also is not explained inn the video is why is the sun setting at all?

I see a video of the sun sinking below a horizon( with refracted mountain tops showing, just, and i do mean, just higher than the sea horizon.
Perspective does not explain why you can see the sun clearly sinking further and further down. It is clearly not at any “vanishing” point, more a “sinking point” i.e. Horizon of the GE.

Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.

Refraction is always present, and has been explained, and indeed is even done so in EnaG, but strangely ignored in his New Bedford farce, but addressed in others.
Standard refraction is exactly as it sounds, under normal conditions, it occurs, and is about 45 minutes of arc with the sun at low altitudes.
This is routinely accounted for in navigation as we take the time of sunset to be when the suns Center is on the celestial horizon (note that is different from the visible horizon due to....refraction) and has the hour angle is 90 degrees(or simply put the longitude difference from the observer to the meridian where the sun is) for practical purposes, this is when you can see about 2/3 the diameter clear between the suns lower limb and the visible horizon.
If anyone is interested here is a simple explanation of the way to calculate it, and it would be easy enough to use the example to calculate the bearing of sunset or sunrise from your location on the earth.....


Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2018, 04:36:25 PM »
From what i saw of the video,
What also is not explained inn the video is why is the sun setting at all?

I see a video of the sun sinking below a horizon( with refracted mountain tops showing, just, and i do mean, just higher than the sea horizon.
Perspective does not explain why you can see the sun clearly sinking further and further down. It is clearly not at any “vanishing” point, more a “sinking point” i.e. Horizon of the GE.

Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
Right at the end he tries to suggest that the mountains have shrunk due to the distance, and tries to pinpoint another peak which he says is half the hieght of the other. He does not identify the peak correctly, and if it was the peak he says, then it should be less than half the hieght above the horizon of the other, which it is not.

Also not explained is why in some of his video “evidence” is the sun lighting the BOTTOM of the clouds? It can ONLY be because the sun has set over the horizon, so is reflecting off the bottom of the clouds.
On a FE the clouds would need to be above the sun to show that.
I think the video has busted itself really.

Refraction is always present, and has been explained, and indeed is even done so in EnaG, but strangely ignored in his New Bedford farce, but addressed in others.
Standard refraction is exactly as it sounds, under normal conditions, it occurs, and is about 45 minutes of arc with the sun at low altitudes.
This is routinely accounted for in navigation as we take the time of sunset to be when the suns Center is on the celestial horizon (note that is different from the visible horizon due to....refraction) and has the hour angle is 90 degrees(or simply put the longitude difference from the observer to the meridian where the sun is) for practical purposes, this is when you can see about 2/3 the diameter clear between the suns lower limb and the visible horizon.
If anyone is interested here is a simple explanation of the way to calculate it, and it would be easy enough to use the example to calculate the bearing of sunset or sunrise from your location on the earth.....



Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2018, 04:38:11 PM »
Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
This is a good point. This is an example of the FE wanting their cake and eating it.
The claim is that you can see the tops of the mountains and you shouldn't be able to.
But yes, if the earth is flat why can't you just see the whole mountain?
In the Bishop "experiment" Tom claims to be able to see the beach all the way down to the shore across a 20+ mile bay with a viewer height of 20 inches.
He's lying or mistaken, clearly, the idea that there are no waves over 20 inches high over that stretch of sea is ludicrous.
But if that's true and you can then the same should apply here - you should be able to see the whole mountain at a distance on a flat earth.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 06:28:11 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2018, 04:43:21 PM »
Just thought of another one about the daft video of the sun setting.

Why are the rest of the mountain range not visible? There is an extensive range to the right and left of the highest peak, but there is only shown a few mountain tops. Surely if the rest of the mountain range has disappeared as they are beyond the “vanishing point” then the taller peaks will be too?

Also all the other peaks will be seen as low irregular horizon, but apart from those few peaks the horizon is pretty sharp and straight. Why is that? The lower peaks would be shrunk if they are shrunk by distance, but they would show as a lower irregular layer.  They are not, as they are actually over the horizon.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2018, 05:24:25 PM »
It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.

Are you asking why the furthest peak is lower? You may as well ask why a one story building in the foreground of a picture can be taller than a ten story building in the background of a picture.

The further peak is 40% taller (3867 vs 2758 meters) and only 13% farther away.
So your analogy would need to be a 10 story building 10 miles away appearing taller than a 14 story building 11.3 miles away. By similar triangles, the 14 story building will be significantly taller in appearance in this circumstance.

The only reason that an extra 13% in distance can hide an extra 40% in height is because at longer distances the curvature effect is accentuated. What's the explanation for such a discrepancy in a flat earth model?

Quote
Quote
Here's a correctly annotated image:

https://beyondrange.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/finestrelles-gaspard-marc-bret-bh.png

From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Those peaks should be well below the horizon.

Yes, unless there's a big giant lens between the camera and the peaks. Remember, you know how lenses work, because you have some on your face right now. They work by being a transparent medium with non-zero density of a certain shape, which is also a spot on description of the atmosphere. The only difference is that your glasses don't significantly expand and contract with temperature, humidity, and other weather phenomena.

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2018, 08:16:29 PM »
I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?
Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.

Mr. Bishop from what I have read on this site claims he is an empiricist relying on information he himself has gathered.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8288.0
I was asking him how he came by that particular data set. If you quote figures or facts in a debate you should be able to present data to back any claims up.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 801
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2018, 09:48:07 PM »
Also not described addressed is why only the very tips of the mountains are seen.
If the mountain is on a flat earth, the mountain will be seen in its entirety. Clearly there is a large amount of magnification used in the video, so why did the magnification not magically “restore” the full mountain? Why is the bottom of the mountain not seen? If the top is not beyond the vanishing point, the base cannot be either.
It cannot be waves either, as there are no waves higher than the observers position.
This is a good point. This is an example of the FE wanting their cake and eating it.
The claim is that you can see the tops of the mountains and you shouldn't be able to.
But yes, if the earth is flat why can't you just see the whole mountain?
In the Bishop "experiment" Tom claims to be able to see the beach all the way down to the shore across a 20+ mile bay with a viewer height of 20 inches.
He's lying or mistaken, clearly
, the idea that there are no waves over 20 inches high over that stretch of sea is ludicrous.
But if that's true and you can then the same should apply here - you should be able to see the whole mountain at a distance on a flat earth.

And never any photographic evidence. 
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan