Why can you RE'ers see this house.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 20, 2014, 09:28:26 AM

No, do we really need to explain why water isn't like the ground?

That's my point!  How can you determine the water in that photo by the bay is level?  In all actuality, it wouldn't be on a spherical Earth.  Explain that one.

But you must allow for the effects of water....evaporation/vapor/density in the air near the water.  This is extremely important, and in my opinion, what causes the bottom of objects to disappear from a distance.  Water is not a solid (obviously) and is taking of space by volume and in the air above it.

Quote from: Hoppy on January 20, 2014, 06:25:42 AM

How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?

A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth.  See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread.  The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.

Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 20, 2014, 10:48:25 AM

Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.

Isn't "bendy light" called refraction?

No, I'll be testing whether the bottom of an object disappears over land like it does over water.  I suspect it will not.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 20, 2014, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 20, 2014, 10:48:25 AM

Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.

Isn't "bendy light" called refraction?

No.  Bendy light is called Electromagnetic Acceleration.  Essentially, bendy light causes light to bend the opposite way that you would expect refraction to bend light.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 20, 2014, 10:48:25 AM

Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.

Isn't "bendy light" called refraction?
And no, I didn't say it was caused by light.  I said water vapor....air density.

I reposted the original image for ease of comparison.

This image is from the same rock as the original image, camera 32" above the water.


This image is from a pier , camera is 8' above the water.


Here are two pictures from today,  Today the pictures look entirely different. It looks flat today.     WTF
I also want to add, the water level was within 6" of the first image. Low wind conditions, but the haze in the area seemed thicker today. There was heavy chemtrail spraying today.

What time of day were they taken?  Looks like the sun was more to the right side of the house in the newer pics.

Things optically will move up until they can't move more up then will move down. Today I did an experiment where I looked at a house at 11AM with strong Southern wind and noticed I could see a house on the Horizon about a quarter mile away (At eye level) and I could also see below a window (about 5 feet off the ground) that was facing my direction. I checked the House again five hours later and noticed that the wind direction has shifted from South to North and also noticed that I looked upon the house again and could only barley see below the roof-line (5 feet above the window starting point on a 12 feet tall house) that means the light from the hill was reaching me 5 feet above at 4 PM then it was at 11AM.

Now I'm not sure what the cause of this was cause I was standing in the same spot for both observations but it seems clear to me that I can see farther in the direction that the wind is blowing (And I see things as more flat) then when the wind is blowing away from me.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 20, 2014, 07:52:38 AM

How would you determine if the ground is flat and level over any great distance?

Yeah, same goes with water.

Also, I have already posted the expected tidal data based on climatology but I can also forecast the tidal data for that data using top of the line Naval meteorological tools.

 
Thanks for the new images hoppy, but you desperately need to use a camera with a higher resolution sensor.  5MP just won't do the job I'm afraid.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 21, 2014, 12:37:12 AM

Thanks for the new images hoppy, but you desperately need to use a camera with a higher resolution sensor.  5MP just won't do the job I'm afraid.

Dude, I'm going to go back there and get more images. I'll try manual focus, different times of day, whatever. But that house is so far away that you can't see it with a naked eye. When I push the button to take the image, the camera shakes and takes the house all the way out of view. Let's see your pics of something from 4.4 miles.

Hoppy is still subtracting the elevation the picture is taken at from the drop. This is incorrect.

The new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.

You figure this out by using this calculator.

You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.

Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 21, 2014, 07:20:01 AM

Hoppy is still subtracting the elevation the picture is taken at from the drop. This is incorrect.

The new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.

You figure this out by using this calculator.

You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.

Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.

Of course you keep getting the wrong answer, you keep using the wrong formula. See the example I gave Markjo above.

Quote from: Hoppy

Even your calculator gave the same answer as Rowbotham's chart.

Yes, because Rowbotham's chart is completely correct for an elevation of 0 FT.

Quote from: Hoppy

Just because I move the camera up 2' feet doesn't change the drop over 4.4 miles. So the end of the drop is going to 10.9' instead.

It absolutely does change the drop. It isn't a matter of simple subtraction.

Quote from: Hoppy

Think of it like this, if the drop over a distance was 10', and blocked the entire view of a 10' bldg sitting right at the water. If you climbed a 10' ladder you would be able to see the entire building.

Yes because climbing to 10 ft in elevation would account for the entire height of the building but the problem is that between the elevation of 0 and 10 ft there is an exponential curve.

I have made 2 charts representing the relationship in Rowbotham's chart between height and distance. \

HERE THEY ARE

One of them shows the relationship for elevations 0-10 and the other shows relationship for elevations 0-20. In both examples distance grows exponentially. For what you are saying to hold true... that we simply subtract a number then the growth in distance should not be exponential but linear. This should tell you that there is more involved that just subtracting the height.

I hope this clears things up.

Quote from: Hoppy on January 21, 2014, 07:19:06 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 21, 2014, 06:29:11 AM

Quote from: Hoppy on January 21, 2014, 05:47:02 AM

You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.

Incorrect.  You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer.  First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.

Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72".              Correct
 Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24"                Incorrect

That isn't what Markjo is saying. When you raise the elevation of the observer. You get a new distance to the horizon. Then you measure the drop from that horizon to the target. You don't just divide things to your liking in the same way as your crude example. You have to try and think about this.

Have a good look at 29silhouette's picture again:



For a distance of 4 miles there should be a drop of 10.7 ft
The top of the image shows the observers horizon (when viewing from an elevation of 6 ft) to be 3 miles.

From this point we can use Rowbotham again because NOW we are at 0 elevation for the remaining mile giving us the 8 inch drop.

Either that or just believe that wind can make at least 5 foot of difference in optics my experiment was only from a quarter mile away with my unaided eye but if your using a camera the camera will offset the difference itself.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 21, 2014, 07:20:01 AM

Hoppy is still subtracting the elevation the picture is taken at from the drop. This is incorrect.

The new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.

You figure this out by using this calculator.

You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.

Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.

Of course you keep getting the wrong answer, you keep using the wrong formula. See the example I gave Markjo above.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 21, 2014, 12:37:12 AM

Thanks for the new images hoppy, but you desperately need to use a camera with a higher resolution sensor.  5MP just won't do the job I'm afraid.

Dude, I'm going to go back there and get more images. I'll try manual focus, different times of day, whatever. But that house is so far away that you can't see it with a naked eye. When I push the button to take the image, the camera shakes and takes the house all the way out of view. Let's see your pics of something from 4.4 miles.

Yeah, so there Geoff!  Maybe you need to delete that sarcastic post above to Rot about showing evidence.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 21, 2014, 12:37:12 AM

 
Thanks for the new images hoppy, but you desperately need to use a camera with a higher resolution sensor.  5MP just won't do the job I'm afraid.

Dude, I'm going to go back there and get more images. I'll try manual focus, different times of day, whatever. But that house is so far away that you can't see it with a naked eye. When I push the button to take the image, the camera shakes and takes the house all the way out of view. Let's see your pics of something from 4.4 miles.

Much more interesting are photos with variations of all weather conditions, that's when odd things occur.