23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMuch better analysis but still missing major data. For instance he should have shown a boat losing the bottom view as it goes away which would be a better analysis of flat earth theory and there should be someone on that tower with a big sign showing exactly how high off the ground he is and how low you can get before he disappears from view. The pictures are still not proof Earth is flat even though it is a much more rigorous attempt, still not good enough from a scientific POV.
I should have given you so much evidence, you wouldn't want to deny it.
Instead, it's piece, here, a piece there, and from what I've gathered from you, it's really just a bit light on irrefutable and a scosh less than the full load.
Forgive me.
Let's try this one, k?
[youtube]MTOQMh6rNZQ[/youtube]
Trust me, I know what I am talking about, working with 2 phd's here at my company they don't go by just photo's, they need absolute metrics. And that would be something like markers clearly showing exactly how far above ground something is seen BUT more important, how low does something get to the ground before it disappears.
This dude does nothing like that, ONLY analysing the situation from his side of the fence. It need more rigorous analysis than that. Any scientist will tell you that.
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe scientist in me would like to see a picture of his set up where his camera sat on top of a tripod rig that panned left and right, and a meter rule clearly set up against. Given the serious photographic equipment marshalled for the demonstration and they can't organise a tripod??
He's down at the water, so I don't know that I would quibble too much about his calculation, but just for chips and giggles, let's put a pencil to it.
For the chimney example, if he should have calculated 6' instead (and we have no real reason to think so, since the beginning shows he's down at water level), he's off by 15'--- as in 15' less loss than r ...[text shortened]... f, it's not by much, and certainly nowhere near significant enough to erase the overall results.
23 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can apply whatever rigor you wish, but the results are still the same.
Much better analysis but still missing major data. For instance he should have shown a boat losing the bottom view as it goes away which would be a better analysis of flat earth theory and there should be someone on that tower with a big sign showing exactly how high off the ground he is and how low you can get before he disappears from view. The pictures a ...[text shortened]... side of the fence. It need more rigorous analysis than that. Any scientist will tell you that.
Whether he is 3.28' off the water or 6' off the water, the objects he zooms in on and records should not be seen with the scope seen... if the ground were following a curved surface.
Otherwise, he showed you everything.
Where he was, elevation and sea level.
Distance to each object, their individual elevation and their heights.
Calculated using a formula with which you agreed.
The results indicate the expected loss due to curvature are simply not there.
Game over.
23 May 17
Originally posted by kmax87There are hundred of videos which show that same thing.
The scientist in me would like to see a picture of his set up where his camera sat on top of a tripod rig that panned left and right, and a meter rule clearly set up against. Given the serious photographic equipment marshalled for the demonstration and they can't organise a tripod??
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot quite. If there are atmospheric effects not taken into account, all bets are off on a direct measure like that video. Like I said, proof would be someone or something at height X showing itself but something else like a neon board, maybe a 4X8 plywood piece with neon orange paint to be clearly visible, so one up the tower or building and another one lower by some number. Then if you can move the bottom one you can tell exactly what height it is when it disappears. One thing ABSOLUTE certain:
You can apply whatever rigor you wish, but the results are still the same.
Whether he is 3.28' off the water or 6' off the water, the objects he zooms in on and records should not be seen with the scope seen... if the ground were following a curved surface.
Otherwise, he showed you everything.
Where he was, elevation and sea level.
Distance to each ...[text shortened]...
The results indicate the expected loss due to curvature are simply not there.
Game over.
It WILL disappear at some point. THAT would be rigor in testing.
If the Earth was truly flat, the bottom neon color plywood would be visible all the way to the ground. Do you agree with that?
23 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat I agree with is the math employed to factor the loss due to curvature according to the spherical Pythagorean theorem formula.
Not quite. If there are atmospheric effects not taken into account, all bets are off on a direct measure like that video. Like I said, proof would be someone or something at height X showing itself but something else like a neon board, maybe a 4X8 plywood piece with neon orange paint to be clearly visible, so one up the tower or building and another one low ...[text shortened]... he bottom neon color plywood would be visible all the way to the ground. Do you agree with that?
That math indicates most, if not all, of the objects recorded would not be visible.
And yet they are.
Toward the end of this video, he addresses atmospheric lensing and refraction, indicating this has been addressed in a separate video, as well as their availability from other sources.
Here's his:
He also offers some bonus material, which shows a carrier which appears to have receded over the horizon, and yet when zoomed in on, the water spray at the helm is easily seen.
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHlike I said, the proof would be someone with placards, big ones that are visible at 20 or so miles then show how low it can go before it disappears.
What I agree with is the math employed to factor the loss due to curvature according to the spherical Pythagorean theorem formula.
That math indicates most, if not all, of the objects recorded would not be visible.
And yet they are.
Toward the end of this video, he addresses atmospheric lensing and refraction, indicating this has been addressed in a s ...[text shortened]... receded over the horizon, and yet when zoomed in on, the water spray at the helm is easily seen.
The dude doing the video is not an atmosphere expert AND is going into it with the agenda of showing Earth as flat. Not going to convince anyone without a more rigorous approach.
It would be immediately evident just how low on a building someone can go and then lose visual while something higher is seen. THAT is the test I want to see. Nothing else will be real evidence, just more politicing as usual. People not interested in truth, just pushing an agenda. That is not science and that is not the way to win arguments.
That is politics pure and simple.
And you obsess over this issue while ignoring massive evidence in other circles like why can't we see the southern cross from here and why the stars spin in opposite directions north hemi V south hemi.
There IS no flat earth rationale for those obvious visual effects. If there was a flat Earth, the stars should rotate exactly the same everywhere.
I challenge you to refute that absolute fact.
23 May 17
Originally posted by vivifyMath which agrees.
Freaky, what would convince you the earth is spherical?
Visual confirmation which does not rely on filters or alterations.
Moon phases which agree with the position of all three bodies.
Complete access to Antartica.
Compasses which agree with the curve.
I'm sure there's a few more, but that's a good start.
23 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseNo one is claiming expertise.
like I said, the proof would be someone with placards, big ones that are visible at 20 or so miles then show how low it can go before it disappears.
The dude doing the video is not an atmosphere expert AND is going into it with the agenda of showing Earth as flat. Not going to convince anyone without a more rigorous approach.
It would be immediately ...[text shortened]... ars should rotate exactly the same everywhere.
I challenge you to refute that absolute fact.
So since he's not an atmospheric expert--- whatever you mean by that--- you can easily refute his work.
Have at it.
Show how atmospheric lensing or refraction allow us to see WAY more of those objects than a curved surface would allow.
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is the issue. How much does the atmosphere effect visualization. The problem with experiments using lasers is just that, if light is refracted, so will a laser beam be refracted so the ones aiming a laser doesn't neccessarily prove anything.
No one is claiming expertise.
So since he's not an atmospheric expert--- whatever you mean by that--- you can easily refute his work.
Have at it.
Show how atmospheric lensing or refraction allow us to see WAY more of those objects than a curved surface would allow.
The only thing that would prove it would be like I said, a placard big enough and painted with neon colors clearly visible from 20 miles or so, maybe just a number of them pasted to a tower, marked #1 closest to the ground, #2 say ten feet higher and so forth, till somewhere in the middle where most can be seen but how many total would be the key to a real test.
If I had the time and money I would do it myself but I am just an idea man and working many hours a day with a 160 mile round trip commute so someone else would have to do that experiment.
You agree an experiment like that would clearly show the curvature or non-curvature, right? If a telescope shows placard #1, THEN game MAY be over. But most such telescope images clearly shows ships receding and losing the bottom view first, then up the deck then the sails or superstructure as it gets further away.
Why do flat earthers dis THOSE vids and only agree the ones THEY show that allegedly reveals the bottom of the boat, why is that? It seems they don't want to respond to refuting evidence, just post more of their BS to prove their agenda.
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFinal question: during a lunar eclipse, the shadow cast on the moon by the earth is round. How do you explain this?
Math which agrees.
Visual confirmation which does not rely on filters or alterations.
Moon phases which agree with the position of all three bodies.
Complete access to Antartica.
Compasses which agree with the curve.
I'm sure there's a few more, but that's a good start.
23 May 17
Originally posted by vivifyOr the fact the can actually BE a lunar eclipse from a flat Earth.....That alone says Earth got in the way of the sun shining on the moon. It also destroys that poppycock about the moon being self illuminating.
Final question: during a lunar eclipse, the shadow cast on the moon by the earth is round. How do you explain this?
If the sun and moon are close to Earth there can be no such thing as a lunar eclipse in the first place, but that would be lost on the flat Earthers.